Where's the promised clean nuclear energy?

[Anonymous No.10047399]

This took so long
I know they are working on different reactors, but what's the current problems? What are they trying to reach?

[Anonymous No.10047406]

>>10047399

Fission is clean, only a few paranoid people go apeshit over it.

Fusion, theoretically, provides more energy but they still haven't managed to create a stable and energy-positive reactor.

[Anonymous No.10047443]

>>10047399
>what's the current problems? What are they trying to reach?
Confinement that is strong enough, stable enough, hot enough, and lasts long enough to actually generate net power. There's lots of weird aspects to plasma dynamics to address, sufficiently strong confinement schemes haven't been demonstrated yet, and plasma heating needs to be in a crazy regime without disrupting the confinement or dynamics. They're making lots of progress on the dynamics, and the latest generations of reactors are basically different ways of optimizing for the problems listed above.

[Anonymous No.10048159]

>>10047399
Big government money is all tied up in the ITER project that takes ages to complete.
Technology has advanced since, but there's only like 2 start-ups trying to take advantage of it right now, since again - all the big money is already bound up in this decades old project that's at least a decade over its deadline.
I mean ITER will still work, but it's kinda frustrating just watching them pour cement for 10 years without making any advances.
Well I guess there's still a bunch of test reactors making interesting new theoretical advancements. But most of that stuff is literally just meant to be tested in ITER at the end of the day.
So, really it all rides on that mess.

[Anonymous No.10048210]

>>10047399
>Fission is clean
lol

[Anonymous No.10048213]

>>10048210
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
You're welcome.
Reminder:
Suck my dick.

[Anonymous No.10048218]

LM is still chugging away with their million monkeys at a million typewriters approach. I’m hopefull brute forcing innovation will succeed.

[Anonymous No.10048249]

>>10048159
>ITER will still work
Will it though? Isn't the whole design already obsolete?

[Anonymous No.10048252]

>>10048249
Outdated, not obsolete

[Anonymous No.10048258]

>>10048252
Those are synonyms, senpai.

[Anonymous No.10048270]

>>10048258
>Those are synonyms, senpai.
They aren't. Obsolescence requires something newer to replace it for a similar role or function. An outdated bespoke solution that gets replaced with an inexpensive, generic but lower performance solution involves a lot of outdated hardware, but none of it is obsolete.

[Anonymous No.10048273]

>>10048270
To clarify, ITER will be obsolete when someone actually designs and engineers something better than ITER.

[Anonymous No.10048280]

>>10048210
modern variants of fission are very clean

[Anonymous No.10048283]

>>10048270
Every single online dictionary I found lists "outdated" as a synonym to "obsolete".

[Anonymous No.10048290]

>>10048258
obsolete implies that a technology can longer perform to some minimum contemporary specification. outdated implies that while it satisfies that specification it is not the optimal technology.

[Anonymous No.10048311]

>>10048290
EG: Candles are obsolete, incandescent bulbs are outdated.

[Anonymous No.10048318]

doesnt matter what it implies or sounds like in your head

the words are almost exactly similar in their meaning

[Anonymous No.10048324]

>>10048273
There are more recent designs out there and it's not like ITER is even close to being operational (even though ITER will probably be completed first), so I'm not sure if your point applies currently. But I do agree that outdated is the better term here.
>>10048290
I'd argue that the two can be used interchangeably (as they indeed are synonyms), even though, as you correctly say, the subtle implications are different and outdated is the more proper term in this context.

Since you mention it, do we even know if ITER will be able to perform up to specification?

[Anonymous No.10048327]

>>10048318
Yeah, it's pretty silly arguing such meaningless semantics.

[Anonymous No.10048331]

>>10047399
Nuclear have always been clean.

[Anonymous No.10048341]

>>10048327
it is not meaningless. outdated technology still has value. obsolete does not.

[Anonymous No.10048351]

>>10048341
I don't buy that. Give me source on this. I think you're looking for a distinction that just isn't there.

[Anonymous No.10048359]

no one is willing to spend the money it would take to build it

im absolutely convinced that if the american government diverted 15% of its annual military budget ($639.1 billion*0.15= $95.865 billion = $95,865,000,000)

yes 15% of the annual military budget is $95,865,000,000.

if we spent that much per year for a decade we could build a fuck you sized fusion reactor in every state.

but no, we have to kill sand niggers who worship the same god we do incorrectly, and also something something oil, and something something corrupt sellout to the military industrial complex.

https://youtu.be/8y06NSBBRtY

[Anonymous No.10048362]

>>10048351
Most people call outdated technologies that still serve a useful purpose "Legacy Systems."

[Anonymous No.10048369]

>>10048359
>muh military
How about removing all welfare you fucking retard.
You know, the thing that's ten times bigger than the military budget and serves no purpose except to practice intense dysgenics.

[Anonymous No.10048373]

>>10048369
the military is wellfare you fucking retard
corporate wellfare for the corrupt military industrial complex
and a jobs program for retarded trigger happy failures

[Anonymous No.10048374]

>>10048362
Regardless of semantics, to my limited understanding of the problematic, ITER seems like a European version of SLS. A sunken cost fallacy of enormous proportions.

[Anonymous No.10048388]

>>10048374
>Regardless of semantics, to my limited understanding of the problematic, ITER seems like a European version of SLS. A sunken cost fallacy of enormous proportions.
The United States, China, India, and Russia are all involved in the project.

[Anonymous No.10048425]

>>10048374
you are disregarding the learning value of the project.

[Anonymous No.10048450]

>>10048210

Coal power kills millions of people per year in direct air pollution and causes climate change, threatening to hamper global growth and BTFO Tuvalu and other shitty islands

>BuT WhAT AbOUt Le NuClEAR WaSTe!.!?!?.!

[Anonymous No.10048466]

>>10048450
Putting carbon into the atmosphere is very good for Humanity due to easier farming and crops more resistant to drought due to lack of oxygen corruption during carbohydrate production.

[Anonymous No.10048471]

>>10048466

[Anonymous No.10049146]

>>10047443
Do you have a source where I can learn more deeply about this man made nuclear fusion? Like an advanced one because I have a background in physics do I will handle it

[Anonymous No.10049438]

>>10048369
The US military exists to maintain the US dollar as the world reserve currency
If the US loses this status, they will no longer be able to run the deficits they are, and the nation will instantly implode
You get to enjoy your handouts and high standard of living because of the military's efforts and they do indeed need every last dollar of that 600 billion

[Anonymous No.10049441]

>>10049438
Misreplied
>>10048373

[Anonymous No.10049732]

>>10047399
Fusion is a scam. Scientists spread this myth. They make impossible promises to get huge amounts of taxpayer money for expensive plasma experiments. That's it.

[Anonymous No.10049898]

>>10047406
Yeah, people are so paranoid, it's not as though a meltdown renders an area unable to be lived in due to high radiation for decades. It's not as though half the ocean wasn't contaminated. It's not clean, the wastes it produces can have very long half lives. With that being said, I'm personally fine with fission reactors as long as you put them away from the ocean.

[Anonymous No.10049902]

>>10049732
>put nuclear reactors on the moon
>beam energy down to earth using lasers and photovoltaic receivers
>receive all of nuclear energy's benefits and none of the danger

[Anonymous No.10049905]

>>10049438
we could just threaten to nuke everyone if they abandon the US dollar as the reserve currency. Since your argument is that we threaten them with our military to achieve the same goal i suggest we just go strait to the big stick and get rid of the unnecessary window dressing.

there is effectively nothing the nuclear threat doesnt accomplish that the military threat does.

[Anonymous No.10049909]

>>10047406
If you have a look at the calculations, the energy that can be harvested from a single helium or hydrogen atom fusing is like 20x as much as can be harvested from breaking an uranium atom. I realise right now it takes a lot of energy to fuse atoms, and that makes it not worth it. But we should be striving for fusion.

[Anonymous No.10049915]

>>10049902
Except you wouldn't recieve all of the benefits, you'd recieve barely any actually. That energy transfer would be extremely inefficient. You do realise light intensity has an inverse squared relationship with distance right?

[Anonymous No.10049920]

>>10049902
oh that's real smart. Put massive lasers on the moon pointed at Earth. Real Fucking smart. Choke yourself, idiot.

[Anonymous No.10050163]

Even in the most optimistic scenario the first experimental fusion power plant could be build in 2060. And it would be in China.