@yogthos Interesting. I understand that overzealous nuclear regulation in the US precluded us from doing things like breeder reactors which burn the byproducts of uranium. Hopefully, those policies get re-examined because nuclear is I believe the most practical way to eliminate carbon while keeping up with energy demand.
@weex yeah I definitely think nuclear has to be part of the solution at least in the near term. We need to immediately shift away from fossils and anything that gets us there faster must be utilized.
@weex @yogthos a good reason to not re-examine current nuclear reactors is that the same product of the processes for enriching uranium for nuclear reactors is used uranium for nuclear bombs: https://nuclear-energy.net/nuclear-power-plant-working/nuclear-fuel/uranium/enriched-uranium
(the stable uranium that refuses enriching is used in anti-tank projectiles, because of its ridiculous mass, and given its alpha decay, you can shield yourself with a paper bag while handling it, while its not moving with 2000 km/s (rough estimate))
@meena @yogthos It's that old saw about tools, and how they can be used for good or ill. The root problem is that none of the ways we have to meet energy demands come without downsides. Controlling the movement of fissile material seems to be doable as evidenced by the record of nuclear detonations and so-called dirty bombs. Then there's always MAD as deterrent.
Discover & explore Mastodon with no ads and no surveillance. Publish anything you want on Mastodon: links, pictures, text, audio & video.
All on a platform that is community-owned and ad-free.
Hosted by Stuxhost.