I’d be absolutely overjoyed if we had a working fusion reactor prototype that actually produced substantial net energy within 5 years. But even that sounds optimistic at this point.
__________________ And from the ashes he rose, like a black cloud. The Sin of one became the Sin of many.
Safety? As far as no producing more Fukushima's yes, but waste disposal can lead to big potential ecologic breakdowns easily and we know how much energy providers love to spend big money in waste disposal.
Cheaper? Yes when it comes to gathering elements but current business models haven't worked as predicted so it's anybody's guess. By all means it should be cheaper.
Edit: I would hardly see it as unviable if someone was ready to spit out the cash for doing actual investment there. Sounds potentially juicy IF you go all in for it
I love boasting about being sexual prey, no idea why but women have actually grabbed me by the crotch and rested hands on my crotch etc. These are women I have never met before and I certainly don't want equality. I see this as their appreciation of my package and sexual objectification of me. I'm fine with both. As for Alexandria, would love to smash her back doors, front doors and porch. She is hot as.
LFTR can actually use current nuclear waste as fuel and render it much less radioactive and dangerous. It's waste after 300 years in 0.01% as dangerous as waste from traditional reactors after the same time period.
Talked a few times with Dr. Montgomery from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He said the biggest limiting factor is not how hard it is to "make a breakthrough" and have magical energy producing nuclear fusion. It's just a money issue.
That's really it. When you have a backlog of 1000s of tests to do but each test is very expensive, and each test helps you march forward towards a viable solution, it's going to take a while without the personnel, facilities, and money.
This is literally a problem you can throw money at and it will be resolved. Throw $100 billion annually at this and you'll see a viable, "to-market" solution in 10 years or less. But no one country is willing to thrown down that much money to make it happen.
I say end all of our foreign wars, close down all foreign bases, use $100 billion of that for energy research, and use $100 billion of that for NASA. Balance the budget with the remaining $100 billion saved.
I believe I've posted on KMC about this before. Thorium reactors are a legit solution that just throwing money at it would also bring a viable product to market, too. Nevermind, this is the only thing I said about Thorium:
Yep, the Thorium reactors seem to also be decent enough. People just need to step into them with both feed and make legitimate investment into that technology.
Maybe I'll start to talk about them in France and that will get me less flak.
If they invested in reducing the size of reactors (which needs research and costs money, which is why they don't do it) it would be orders of magnitude safer and be better at producing energy.
Everything we do comes with a degree of safety and an abstraction of understanding.
Probably walking is safer than biking which is safer than electric moped which safer than a car which is safer than a petro-motorcycle which is safer than nuclear power which is safer than coal power.
But we don't understand the impacts of some of the things we do many years down the road.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 10th, 2019 10:00 AM
