4 ms·
I think it's pretty clear that the only two outcomes of this scenario are societal destruction via climate catastrophe or we find a way to cleanly 1000x our ene
by rcme 4y ago
I think it's pretty clear that the only two outcomes of this scenario are societal destruction via climate catastrophe or we find a way to cleanly 1000x our energy production.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- teaearlgraycold 4y ago> find a way to cleanly 1000x our energy production. Have you heard of our lord and savior Nuclear Fission? We should build a shitload of restores all over the place.
- anonym29 4y agoWe're making important strides on fusion too, which makes fission look like a waste of radiological material, in comparison.
- wongarsu 4y agoThey are not really competing for the same material. Fission smashes neutrons into big atoms to make them smaller, fusion smashes small atoms into each other to make them bigger. Both work by making atoms of the more stable medium-sized variety, and extracting the energy of that process. But yeah, looks like commercial fusion reactors are getting closer.
- lll-o-lll 4y agoHa! We need a 100x or 1000x improvement in efficiency before a commercial power station becomes viable. I can’t see fusion energy being a reality in my lifetime.
- thfuran 4y agoAren't we still on the "fusion never" funding timeline? I mean, we might accidentally luck into it, but it's not like we're really trying hard.
- asdff 4y agoNixon wanted to have 1000 operating nuclear reactors in the U.S. by 2000. Today we have 92 of them, which power 8% of our electricity demand. Making the assumption that those other 918 reactors we would have had generate the same output as these, we could have been almost entirely powered through nuclear energy today had nuclear energy not seen pushback over the last 50 years. Instead, c'est la vie