3 ms·
> We don't need fusion for climate change; fission will do I wish it were the case, but I think we have seen that it is politically impossible.
by rurounijones 6y ago
> We don't need fusion for climate change; fission will do
I wish it were the case, but I think we have seen that it is politically impossible.
- tjpnz 6y agoHow so?
- loeg 6y agoDo you think the politics of fusion would be any better? The politics opposing fission aren't grounded in science; do you think the politics around fusion would be?
- raziel2701 6y agoYeah the politics would definitely be better because it's deuterium/tritium for fusion as opposed to uranium, which has a lot a cultural and historical baggage and it's on the news in a bad way all the time. So yes it would be better. Now would it be better enough to get out of the same political/cultural hole that fission is in? I don't know, but it at least has a better chance.
- XorNot 6y agoAlso not having to source and mine uranium is actually a huge advantage. We have more lithium then ever, and deuterium can be extracted literally any large body of water.
- willis936 6y agoFusion is a noble goal, and its success is compulsory if humans want to stay on their current track for more than another few hundred years. However, even with a Manhattan Project for Fusion, reactors won’t come soon enough to “save” the human habitat. We need to implement solutions right now today. It’s already too late. Waiting another 50 years to do anything guarantees humans technological empire will not make it to 2200.