3 ms·
> But we also have the ability to make thermonuclear reactors safely on the plane We most certainly do not have the ability to make fusion reactors, at least n
by ben-schaaf 5y ago
> But we also have the ability to make thermonuclear reactors safely on the plane
We most certainly do not have the ability to make fusion reactors, at least not yet. Nuclear reactors on the other hand...
- Ygg2 5y agoI'd take a hundred Chernobyls over the end of modern society.
- darthrupert 5y agoExactly. Since we've used a lot of the oil dinosaurs graciously gave us, there's not gonna be another chance at modern civilization if we fuck this up. At least for us humans.
- jgilias 5y agoI've heard that we've basically dug up all the easily accessible ores needed to jump-start a civilization, and all that's left now is something you need high-tech to access. So, there may not be another chance at an advanced civilization on this planet at all. There's geological timescales of course. But then, I don't think that helps given that we've dug everything up to the surface to oxidize.
- eloff 5y agoOil doesn't actually come from dinosaurs, but you're right about the difficulty of bootstrapping civilization without easily accessible fossil fuels. We'd best not forget our current capabilities.
- rekoil 5y agoI really wish hydro/wind/solar were enough to power our modern society, and I hope it gets there eventually, but the reality is that it isn't enough to meet our current (and expanding) demands. The short term answer nobody seems to want to acknowledge is nuclear, and frankly I'm getting pretty damn tired of society not seeing it. We need to start building out nuclear NOW so that we (and future generations) have time to figure out renewables and improved nuclear.
- Ygg2 5y agoTo twist the knife further some maniacs are now looking at hydro power and decrying it as too dangerous for wildlife. It popped in my YouTube recommend. Like motherfucker (to the video maker). You think the salmon are going to exist if the acidity of ocean rises? It's akin to burning in a house, fireman arrives with a hose and then I ask him, is the water iron free or not. I think I should have bigger concerns rn. At this point, I am wondering if some of these videos are sponsored by oil associates.
- rocqua 5y agoI doubt these are sponsored. But some people would advocate less energy usage in general. Essentially saying we are poisoning and destroying the planet with energy usage. I doubt people who advocate this see an acceptable way forward to reach what they want. I personally think there isn't such a way forward. But I can see arguing for a desired endstate without knowing exactly how to get there.
- fifilura 5y agoHow is nuclear a short term answer? It takes 20 years to build a nuclear plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant). I think the idea is that if we instead build alternatives we will not want those plants in 20 years.
- Ygg2 5y agoBy keeping currently running nuclear plants running. Instead of replacing them withmore CO2 emitters.
- thathndude 5y agoSuch as Germany and other countries taking all nuclear off line. And for what reason? Historically, the concern has been what to do with the waste. But now, because we are investing in nuclear, we are finding that we can actually re-process the waste. And, at the worst, once rocket launch has become trivial, we can always send the waste off into the void (or sun).
- thathndude 5y agoRespectfully disagree. We can and have made economically impractical thermonuclear reactors. But they fail largely because we’ve sheepishly avoided advancing the technology for 70+ years. I’m just beating the nuclear drum in general. We need to be investing like crazy here. We can make fusion reactors here on earth. Efficiency remains the issue. https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/us-fusion-reaction-generates-more-energy-than-absorbe/ https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/us-fusion-reaction-generates...