/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12517392
Are you serious? Do you think thats a scientifically viable solution or the bureaucratic noose kicked down the timeline for generations to come to deal with?

Another problem is pic related, top is all pre GEN IV that needs to be decommissioned. That's not even mentioning the fact that we could be going for thorium nuclear reactors but those don't produce weapons grade material so they don't get any gov subsidies.

Also, this is extremely far fetched(as in time sense), more on a geological scale then a human one, but the regular nuclear decay is part of the longterm equation of the thermal upkeep of the planet. And harvesting and burning through that in a few hundred years instead of a few million years will shorten our planets lifespan.

>>12518437
Not with our current battery tech, or without space solar panels and wireless energy transmission