• sunbeam60@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    So does 4 other fission power plants we can imagine. Now sure why we’re so Darwindamned fixated on fusion - I suspect it’s just the name.

    • deegeese
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fissionable isotopes are yet another nonrenewable fuel.

      Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

      • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        With reprocessing, which we already do, and new Gen IV power plants, there’s enough energy to last us thousand of years with currently known resources. And that’s before we start scooping it out of the water.

        • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s assuming a lot of ifs resolve our way, and without power needs increasing. It’s more sustainable than coal/gas/oil for sure, but with current energy development needs it’s barely long term (IIRC about 60-140 years)

          Also, on centuries timescale, we will need to find more fissiles in space. And according to our current understanding of the universe, they should be quite rare, especially compared to hydrogen.

          Basically, figuring out fusion power would solve our needs for the first level on the Kardashev scale, and has the potential to be portable fuel for the rest of the lifespan of the universe.

          • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My aim is not to stop research on fusion - just making the point that we know how to do nuclear and it seems to me we are letting perfect be the enemy of good.