3 ms·
Yes, however I suppose it is fuel for conspiracy theories.
by amelius 1y ago
Yes, however I suppose it is fuel for conspiracy theories.
- theultdev 1y agono I think it's fuel for boiling water
- vpShane 1y agoAh yes, nuclear energy, real hot, make water boil, make things happen. You're telling me we don't have sci-fi energy harnessing capability to capture the nuclear energy itself and convert it to electricity? It's 2025!
- xg15 1y agoFound it kind of depressing that this seems to be the current strategy for fusion as well. You have this insane device that produces a million degree hot ring of plasma and use it... to boil water...
- maximilianthe1 1y agoScy-fi enegry generator looks inside steam turbine
- rnhmjoj 1y agoWe are still trying to solve the problem that we can't keep the plasma hot long enough to create fusion energy, so working on exotic conversion schemes is one step too far. Consider also how complex these reactors already are, it makes sense to use the simplest method that we know works well.
- xg15 1y agoMakes sense, but from a layman perspective it seems like introducing additional complexity and lots of inefficient, high-loss transmission steps. We start with detached electrons moving at high speeds (plasma). We want detached electrons moving at moderate speeds (electrical current). And yet, the intermediate steps involve everything from heat, steam, large-scale mechanical forces and magnetic induction, just to get back to the electrons? It feels more like the "pull in a 500MB framework instead of writing the function yourself" kind of simplicity.
- rnhmjoj 1y ago> It feels more like the "pull in a 500MB framework instead of writing the function yourself" kind of simplicity. Essentially yes, but it's a function that has been continuously optimised by engineers for 200 years.
- CamperBob2 1y agoSteam power is no joke if you actually look at the numbers. At this scale, it lets you move energy around and convert it to electricity in fewer steps, with fewer losses, than any other strategy.
- mapontosevenths 1y agoTo be fair, I think we're getting something like 60% efficiency that way. Its not perfect, but it isnt as primitive as it sounds.
- mr_toad 1y agoThere are lots of ideas, like using a reverse cyclotron (a particle decelerator) to drive a turbine, or harnessing the photo-electric effect (essentially solar panels, but for x-rays). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion
- theultdev 1y agoKeep it simple, stupid.
- api 1y agoConspiracists and media brainwashed people will react this way no matter what. Doesn’t matter whether it’s secretive or not. It’s not about you or the subject matter but their need to feel important or in possession of some truth THEY don’t want you to know.
- mapontosevenths 1y agoI suspect its less about the need to feel special than you imagine. My take is that these folks can't accept that nobody is actually driving. It terrifies them to realize that we are all aboard a rudderless ship, so they imagine these secret cabals to be able to sleep at night. Take COVID. There is insufficient proof that it was the result of lab work, but many many people prefer that warm fuzzy thought over acknowledging that mutating is just what viruses do, and always have done. Knowing that we're all one unlucky mutation away from grisly death is just too much for some folks. "It can't happen again, we shutdown that lab!" To those people it has to be a nice, neat conspiracy. That way someone is in control, and if we just put those few villains in their place everyone will be safe from viruses, economic instabilty, immigrants, and the boogey man forever.
- switknee 1y agoIsn't a conspiracist someone who colludes with others to commit a crime, often in secret?