• dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Well nuclear is great, so even “not much better” would be great.

      • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yea one of the most interesting applications of fusion reactor research is the requirements in advancements for material science also benefits fission and even solar power generation, so the research bears fruit well and above the stated goals.

    • Golden Lox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      not to say its the greatest form of energy production ever, but, what are your gripes with nuclear these days anyway?

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Well, really it’s the opposite, nuclear works already. So why not just build nuclear plants at 1/20 the cost? (and actually get some net positive energy)

        Just saying…

          • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I understand that, it can’t be. Because fusion power generation hasn’t all been worked out yet. Unlike fission. That’s my point.

            Also, once fusion does work, it will still be the most expensive way to generate energy man has ever devised, so there’s that too.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      if I remember correctly, the output of a nuclear fission reactor can be used in a nuclear fusion reactor for a near-net zero loss in materials.

      there’s like three different fusion reactors, so it’s likely one of the three that can do this, but still better than fossil fuels.