...I find it kinda funny that games, as well as reaaaaally bad games that used to be made by the equivalent of a one man team, get funded over $1 million but when a tech dream that may be a little bogus but is thoughtful and has a lot of effort behind it gets the same, people kick up a fuss. The fun thing is that entertainment is really only used to control you anyway, so people are just buying into their doom, by and large. Oh I'm not saying games are bad or content creators are inherently bad, I'm just saying very soon pretty much everyone will always be distracted by a little or big flickering screen, no matter where they are. It's not a large step to take that further, and traditionally humans are very good at falling over themselves to be the first to take that step.
No most nuclear reactors in America use fission and fusion. Fission for energy. Then fusion for disposal.
You'll have to source me cause I'm really not believing you right now I just did some research and theres no such thing as a fission and fusion reactor with fusion being used for disposal
Yeah, I'm also interested to know about production fusion reactors used to eat fission waste. I thought that was a lab-bound thing.
they say fusion is gonna be market-ready the next years for way over 30 years now. current revised expectations are for around 2050. what if we dont manage to keep a stable, self sustaining fusion for another 50 years? oil is gonna be sparse then, and even if they say theres enough fuel for fission reactors in sea water for the next couple of hundred thousand years, theres no way to extract it for less energy then you get out of it. apart form the risk of nuclear meltdown every 10-20 years ... turning "renewables" down because at some point in the future it might be possible to have a virtually unlimited, rather clean, source of enery is just stupid. what is there to lose with energy produced by sun, wind and water? for you i mean, not for the petrochemical and nuclear energy industry. their loss is evident - if people are able to sustain their energy needs themselfs, they wont make much money - renewables (except for water) work best when power is proudced decentralized where its needed.
That's totally not true though, that's just media blowing shit up, I havent had any credible good scientific sources saying fusion would be market ready anytime soon since, like I said before, they only have achieved netto profit of energy september 2013.
just checked, power out of our plugs still contains no fusion electrons. as far as im informend, which admitably isnt super informed, there isnt any large scale fusion plant for commercial use neither in construction nor is either ones construction planned (and i mean this blueprint planning things, not this "oh we totally gonna do that sometime"). theres still a huge gap (and thats why its 2050, huge gaps usually take some decades to cross) inbetween research and application. so where have i been wrong exactly?
He's not saying you're wrong, he's pointing out that it's been the media, not the scientists, who claim it's right around the corner more often than not.
im well aware of that, maybe i misunderstood paradox post more contradicting then it acutally was ... sry then paradox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAEvT_UdhNI You know, one of the things that gets me, isn't really the viability of nuclear power or it's cleanliness under laboratory conditions, it's pretty much that I just don't trust governments to do it right. For me, the thing that causes the least fallout is the best, because if anything can go wrong, you better believe that people will cut corners to make sure it happens.