b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Message 10378142 (Thread)

# True enough about the industry.
I'd make them all not-for-profit. Nuclear is definitely the way to go, though. By that, I don't necessarily just mean fission. With any luck, the polywell 'wiffleball' will soon be tested further to see if it can be used for large-scale energy production. That would kick some serious ass.
In the meantime, a switch to thorium-based fission would get rid of much of the cost and also massively reduce the waste produced from current U/Pu reactors.
I love science, me.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:10, archived)
# *slowly backs away*
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:12, archived)
# nice ideal yes but trouble is..."not for profit" will never be
pretty obvious
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:15, archived)
# theyre saying the same things about fusion now as they did about fission in the 50s
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:16, archived)
# That's what the scientists said!
/ac
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:19, archived)
# Problem with thorium
You can't make nuclear weapons from the byproducts. So until governments figure out "Hey! Our need for energy is greater than our need to blow the crap out of each other!" we're stuck.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:26, archived)
# I'm thinking of building my own atomic super-reactor
which will involve hanging a potato inside a cardboard box and filling it with wasps
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:33, archived)
# *narrows eyes*

(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:37, archived)
# No it isn't
Nuclear is prohibitively expensive once you factor in the decommisioning which costs several billion pounds and takes at least 30 years.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:55, archived)
# ^
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:59, archived)
# And yet people keep building them.
Funny that. Places like Japan they make sense as there's no significant coal or gas resources to exploit.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 12:52, archived)
# Yeah the not for profit part is bloody unlikely.
The rest is all geek to me.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 18:49, archived)