/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12171109
>you don't just put humans inside a rocket and fly it to other planet after refueling in LEO.

Let's say we can make a nuclear fusion reactor that is not insanely oversized, is not terribly expensive to build, produces low levels of neutrons, and doesn't require any tritium. And it can add power to a grid at about 4 cents per kilowatt hour, which about half the price of the cheapest overall electricity rate in the USA, and will likely decrease further over time.

Even with this near ideal reactor, how bad do you think the political pushback would be against them? I could see solar and wind power providers joining up with natural gas/peteroleum/coal operators to push out Chernobyl-style propaganda against the tech, even though it's literally impossible for a meltdown to happen, or pointing out that it will produce some nuclear waste, albeit in very low amounts that could be stored on-site for a few centuries before degrading into being harmless.

We all know that the NIMBY types won't pay attention to the difference between fusion and fission-they gathered outside of ITER when it was being first setup in France and act ike the word "nuclear" is a slur. I fear human ignorance will slow adoption of a technology that ould easily solve climate issues and give is cheap reliable power forever.