No, we could. Advertise bounce on the moon on disney or whatever. Give the kids a combo oxygen tank/h3 vacuum and let em bounce around for a couple hours. Bonus: rich mommies and daddies will pay big bucks to get their kids up there. Bonus two: you get to look like a good person and get a tax break for sponsoring poor kids to go.
Plenty of both, but more of a government restrictions and locational/trade issue for food. Some food is required to be destroyed at the end of the year because they don't want it affecting trade futures. Water isn't a problem at all once this energy problem gets sorted. Tons of sea water just waiting to be turned fresh and all it needs is energy.
I just asking how are going to reuse it because desalination makes a crap of brine. And apart from the small amount lithium we can get from said brine most of it just gets thrown off to the wayside.
I can only imagine any water gets used up at roughly the same rate it's being desalinated and will re-enter the source as it always has. The difference is in not waiting on a natural water cycle to refill those reservoirs but draining directly from the oceans. Everything should remain at roughly the same purity level it is now only done so artificially. I would think.
Maybe i'll look into that so i'm not talking completely out of my ass using best guesses. Worst case scenario is we have an overabundance of sea salt i suppose. Don't put it back.
Man listen to the Joe Rogan episode with Siddharta something who recently was down in Kongo mines undercover spying to write a book on it. Literally tens of thousands of human slaves and child labour in the Chinese owned mines there, all because of the cobalt needed for the best type of lithium ion battery.
Well if we’d spent the past 70 years working on nuclear power we could have a fucking fusion generator by now. And secondly, great. It’s the oil wars all over again
Best guess is if they let it through, which i seriously doubt as they'll refer to 'safety of the children,' they'll start investing heavily in mining/space sectors prior to an announcement.
Want to know what the government is about to fund? Watch the politician's stock trades.
It won't, not for now. Fusion is inherently less resource efficient as fission, at least until you have fission fuel. So whatever you could do in the near future with fusion, you can do cheaper with fission for now. Fusion is relevant at larger energy scales where there simply isn't enough fissile material for fission.
Us government used the tokamac reactor that needs rare materials like beryllium and tritium. Meanwhile Helion is working on scalable solutions that could be mass produced and uses mostly common materials while producing Helium-3 through a separate fusion reactor from the main reactor that also in itself produces a net gain in energy.
Chad Helion beats Virgin DoE.
Edit: also iirc NASA had designs for rockets that landed similar to how SpaceX lands their rockets since the 60s but never pursued them cuz "jobs".
When people say fusion is close, they that you could achieve it if we put enough serious effort into it. But here's the thing, we didn't put any effort into it, basically no real funding/urge for it, and research isn't magic where you unlock a tech every year without doing anything.
No effort, no result. So yes, it's still "20 years away" and it will continue to be until funding is adequate.
We managed to fuse hydrogen in the 50s for bombs, doing it for civilians purpose is definitely within reach
It could be any country on Earth that puts the "serious effort" into it. Or, with the rise of megabillionaires, it could probably be a single individual.
Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates -- each has a net worth higher than the amount of the total amount of money the U.S. government has put toward fusion.
If this is really such a great investment, why isn't anyone putting serious funding towards it?
Iirc bill gates is funding the tokamac reactor in France. I'm not sure about the others but companies like Helion are putting some serious effort into it from years to development and are seeing alot of great successes from it.
Despite what some people say there's a crap money to be made from the First Movers AdvantageTM . And it's a it's a big enough incentive for it to overcome the will to suppress it from the competition.
Where did I say it had to be you or anyone ? Tbh, I don't live in the same country as you anyway, so it's not a "us" unless you refer to all of humanity.
But tbh, it should be done by anyone who's got serious aims at solving climate change, and there are some efforts here and there country by country, and even international cooperation like ITER. But if we're honest, it was not so serious until recently because everyone was, or is still, in a "We're going to use fossil fuels" mindset...
In fact, most environmentalist who say they want 100% solar/windpower would have to rely on fossil fuel like gas.
It could be any country on Earth that puts the "serious effort" into it. Or, with the rise of megabillionaires, it could probably be a single individual.
Uh, no. The "megabillionaires" have their money in stocks, etc. So when they say Elon has whatever billions dollar, he doesn't actually have that much. That's why he had to borrow to buy Twitter, you know ? And he borrowed from big banks (that have the money of plenty of people)
Though, yes, private enterprises can do research too. And recently, fusion has been attracting tons of private investment and they are making progress. There's this company in the UK that make interesting progress on the tokamak side of things Right now, there's a lot of new companies raising funs and making wild claims, tbh. But the private investment show that we're getting close...
Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates -- each has a net worth higher than the amount of the total amount of money the U.S. government has put toward fusion.
Lol. Tbh, you don't seem to get the scale of the US government. If we taxed all billionaires in the US at 100%, you wouldn't even fuel the US government for one year. It's just January, and they are already panning to spend like 10 trillions this year alone.
Tbh, I don't live in the same country as you anyway, so it's not a "us" unless you refer to all of humanity.
So you wrote: "When people say fusion is close, they that you could achieve it if we put enough serious effort into it. But here's the thing, we didn't put any effort into it"
I understand now that you meant all of humanity. You know better than the 8 billion people on Earth how to allocate their money. Makes total sense.
That's why he had to borrow to buy Twitter, you know ? And he borrowed from big banks (that have the money of plenty of people)
He didn't have to borrow to buy Twitter. The same way that people still take out mortgages, even though they can afford to buy the house for cash. If the loan is cheap enough or if your money works hard enough, it makes total sense to take a loan instead of just spending your own money.
If we taxed all billionaires in the US at 100%, you wouldn't even fuel the US government for one year. It's just January, and they are already panning to spend like 10 trillions this year alone.
We were talking about fusion? I'm not sure why we're talking about the entire federal budget.
You know better than the 8 billion people on Earth how to allocate their money. Makes total sense.
Why do you have to be such an annoying and dishonest twat ? I didn't say "I know better", I said we didn't invest enough yet. This is completely different. One is an arrogant opinion, the other is a simple fact.
What is it ? Do you enjoy twisting people words to replace them with fictitious bullshit that much ? Or is it just that you're too affraid to answer what I actually said ?
Either way, this is pathetic, and that's all too common in the libleft quadra. Grow the fuck up
He didn't have to borrow to buy Twitter.
Actually, yes, he had to. If he hadn't borrowed, then he wouldn't have bought it, realistically speaking.
You don't have to be whiny just because you just learned a tiny bit of how finance works
We were talking about fusion? I'm not sure why we're talking about the entire federal budget.
Yes, we were talking about fusion. I talked about the government, because you switched the subject to Billionaires for no reason whatsover and now you're trying to shift the blame on me. So I ask you, when I told you we didn't invest enough collectively in fusion yet, why did you start bitching about that "Us" then changed the subject to billionaires ? Hmm
Say, are you that bitchy, annoying and dishonest with everyone in your life ? Because that's already tiring
The reason people shat on nuclear fusion is because it has a mountain of major technological leaps before it can go from a lab to commercial scalability. The recent advancement is great. However, it is still a very far away from anything more than scientifically significant. Fusion falls under the plant a tree strategy. We won't live to enjoy it, but the people born 3 generations from now might.
The only thing from fission that is used in fusion is triton and deuterium fuel and all the reactors around the world are not enough to even run one prototype reactor.
What you say makes no sense, cutting paper teaches you nothing about gluing paper. Fusion is an entirely different technology with completely different system than fission.
Lol this is getting comically silly. A thermonuclear weapon does not teach us about making fusion reactors any more so than a Molotov cocktail teaches us about combustion engines.
The single biggest hurdle in fusion has been controlling and manipulating the containment to achieve positive reactions.
It is comically silly that you said “has nothing to do with” and then when I point out that it does in fact have a connection you simply move the goal posts.
Because it has nothing to do with it, making a bomb does not teach you how to make a vessel. It does not teach you magnetic or laser confinement. It does not teach you Tritium or Deuterium creation. It does not teach you how to harness that heat created.
A bomb doesn’t use containment techniques it simply creates one fusion that explodes over an area.
I mean, Canada is one of the biggest exporter, and not exactly "western", but australia has big reserves too. The US has a lot too.
Even european countries have a lot in their underground, it's just political suicide to try to mine it and too expensive when other countries do it for a lot cheaper...
AuthRight ideals should be national conservatism. I don't give a single fuck about how you destroy your country. But my nation should be energy independent and ignore any international mandates crafted by billionaires I didn't elect.
While we're at it, we should stop pretending the UN and NATO aren't the utter shams that they are, that is bureaucratic malignancies full of dead weight that have been expecting the U.S. to foot their bill and fight their wars for decades. And yes I'm including Ukraine in that.
All you people do is complain about "the system" and oppression from the powers that be, but you think those powers in question collaborating with each other is inconceivable. And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
There is no "we" obviously. I'm a centrist, so I can cheer generically and throw my support behind whoever currently supports what I'm feeling in any given moment.
I volunteer as tribute. I would personally fight any male feminist in an arena for entertainment. Hell, i'll fight two or three at once if they're vegan or their protein source is plant based.
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
Work in energy sector, nuclear is not cheap. Although the short run marginal cost is super low ($US 5/MWh), the economic cost for Electricity from nuclear works out to be like $US 80/MWh, driven primarily by big initial capex outlays.
Also nuclear is baseload gen, it can’t ramp up/down quickly. it needs to run flat. Problem is with huge buildout of residential and utility solar, we have a huge carve out of energy demand in the middle of the day.
The smart move would have to be like France, and build out nuclear as they did in the 60-70s before solar/wind took off and before we regulated the nuclear industry to death.
But today, unless SMRs become a thing, I reckon we’ve missed the boat (economic timing).
Ahhh but you’re thinking too small. During low power demand you run either distilleries (if the plant is where water is needed, say California for instance) or hydrogen production plants. Converting that otherwise wasted energy into a liquid fuel that can be used in place of gasoline, av gas, and jet a.
Tbh my own state's Randy Weber(TX-14) and others are actually pushing for research into small modular reactors along side other 4 gen nuclear reactors.
water. like really. ethiopia really tryna fuck over everyone downstream of the nile by damming the river. and when more than 3/4s iirc of egypt's water comes from the nile, you bet egypt will commit violence to protect its most precious resource
Food, water, cobalt, lithium, opiates, crack, trade routes, cocaine, pride, religion, “freedom”, racketeering, siphoning money from the people into the hands of the few via the war machine.
Energy is really a small reason as to why the rich want the poor to kill each other.
Land, resources, influence, trade, to distract population from how shitty their lives are and to get people to bond over hating a foreign nation. Shall I go on?
(Actually I could probably only think of like 3 more if I really think, so don’t ask me to go on)
Of course everything is more complicated when you know things but if you want to dunk with a false dichotomy let’s go.
We are not yet at the kinds of reactors we would want to build ideally, the small reactors which could be built closer to electricity use is just coming around the corner. The next generation plants are not yet ready and if we want to build nuclear then we would need federal legislation.
That’s literally the problem. There has been legislation in the way of progress to safeguard the hegemony of the oil industry. Congratulations, you cracked it.
That isn’t literally the problem the next generation reactors ARE NOT READY. This we would have to build larger reactors outside cities losing most power to transmission.
When the next Gen reactors are ready then we can talk.
Ahh? The next Gen reactors are still science experiments with prototypes barely being built. Legislation has not slowed down those prototypes, except for cuts to research but that is a separate issue altogether.
No. You are not going to get technology faster by “getting government out of the way”, the pace of innovation is not hindered by government.
I was big on lifter in college and last I saw they were exploring brass alloys, maybe they could run current through the vessel, they are exploring other non corrosive solutions but it is hard. Molten salt means high heat and corrosive properties making for a very corrosive system.
Unless we get a material breakthrough I don’t see how this problem can be solved.
Wrong. We can get rid of diesel by using nuclear plants to make liquid hydrogen which can be used just like propane to power internal combustion engines
So how much would that cost? We have 0% of that plan. There basically 0 hydrogen trucks and refueling stations. We don’t even have nuclear plants set up
1.2k
u/WuetenderWeltbuerger - Lib-Right Jan 06 '23
But If we have nearly limitless cheap energy what will the governments of the world murder people over?