{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/16/2014 10:48:49 AM
29
Why aren't we persuing Thorium power yet?
For shit's sake, it's clan, safe, efficient, plentiful, and produces SERIOUSLY USEFUL STUFF AS WASTE PRODUCTS, not to mention we can use it to neutralize nuclear waste stockpiles we've already accumulated.
-
Because other, influential people make money off of other fuel sources, so switching to a different one that is much cheaper and better would be a big no-no for them. Also, because it could be so efficient, it probably couldn't be taxed and charged as high as fuels like oil and gasoline, which is also a big no-no for people who controlled the new energy's transportation and use.
-
1 返信Our politicians are idiots. You mention nuclear and all they think about is bombs and Chernobyl.
-
4 通の返信Because oil companies currently have their dicks scratching the back of every governments' throat.
-
Some of the boys have already got nuclear fusion up and running. Sorta, their first prototype is due 2017 I believe? Which is miles ahead of the presumed 2050-something when the first prototyped was estimated to be developed. I'll find a link. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/02/16/breakthrough-on-nuclear-fusion/
-
1 返信Boltにより編集済み: 2/17/2014 6:09:17 AMWith the current trade agreements in place, as well as the capital required to develop the new technology, it's cheaper for companies to continue using uranium, and much cheaper to continue burning Russia's old weapons. And I really hate the line that "THOREEUM ARE SAFE BECAUZ NO YOO-235!!11!" The thorium fuel cycle does produce U-233, and you could produce a fission weapon from that that's just as powerful as one from U-235. It just hasn't been done because, ironically, it's a lot less safe to handle thanks to the U-232 and its daughters you get as a by-product. That, and it would be less efficient in terms of raw mass vs critical mass than plutonium.
-
2 通の返信
-
3 通の返信
-
7 通の返信SomeGuyにより編集済み: 2/16/2014 11:57:59 AMNever heard of it, i know that a few governments are working on a nuclear fission station in france. I might mean fusion can remember which one, but which ever one it is its one of or the best method of producing power that we know of EDIT: its a fusion reactor
-
It's being pursued. Nuclear energy is staggeringly expensive, and much of the public is (mistakenly) wary of it. Besides, India already has a commercial thorium reactor, so it's not as distant as you may think.
-
1 返信
-
1 返信
-
1 返信
-
4 通の返信[i]Because tearing down, properly disposing of, and cleaning up of our old power generation facilities then designing, sourcing, and building a whole new set of facilities costs billions of dollars![/i]
-
2 通の返信
-
3 通の返信I know right? I was talking to my nuclear submarine officer cousin (he's run a nuclear power plant in the US as part if his training) why we don't use thorium, he said there is no good reason not to.
