as with all things, eventually runs out.
Nah. Cats are exempt from the first and second laws of thermodynamics, I’m pretty sure. They can just conjure more resources and more luck into existence at will. It’s why the ancient Egyptians worshipped them so much.
“I’spose” est facile. “J’suppose” est dur à dire, parce qu’on ne peut pas dire “j’s” comme “i’s”.
Eh, je ne sais. C’est plus difficile que “I’spose”, oui, mais je pense que c’est ok… Les cowboys fringants dit aussi “j’te”, “j’rentre”, et probablement les autres consonnes aussi, donc, généralement, je l’imagine comme si on bredouille un peu.
J’ai dû sortir mon français rouillé. Merci pour la pratique. Et oui, j’ai utilisé Google.
Et la même à toi! Mais j’utilise Google pour traduire du français vers l’anglais, après avoir premièrement écrit la français avec Collins et quelquefois Reverso (mon professeur français a toujours aimé ça). Je fais des corrections alors peut-être. Ainsi, Google me dit si j’ai fait des grosses erreurs, mais je pratique mon français tout seul.
We spent more on the Manhattan project than the disorganized fusion projects have spent in a decade, and will spend in the next decade as well.
That cost was overwhelmingly slanted towards implementation though, not research. The theory for fission was very simple compared to nuclear fusion: Gather enough fissile material in one place rapidly, and it explodes. Once the basic parameters and theory were proven, the actual project cost went overwhelmingly to just enriching enough nuclear material and then, separately, getting the Silverplate Superfortresses ready. They were so sure of the science that they didn’t even bother to test the bomb they dropped on Hiroshima. It wasn’t like fusion research at all, where for over half a century every new device that’s supposed to produce power instead just discovers new plasma instabilities which mean it simply doesn’t work.
Also, the cost comparison you’ve made is simply false. The Manhattan project cost no more than $20-30 billion, inflation-adjusted. ITER’s cost (from 2008 through to ~2025) is going to be at least €22 billion, and apparently $65 billion if the US is to be believed. That’s of course not even counting the various other “disorganized fusion projects”, like the ongoing operating costs for W7X, the NIF, JET, and whatever the Z machine, Shiva star, etc., and assorted Chalk Los Sandia Livermore national laboratories are doing for fusion research. Still worth it, probably— Hell, if it cost $10 trillion, it would probably still be worth it, as long as it actually works— But let’s not pretend it’s cheap or free or a safe bet or easy solution.
Thorium is a safe bet, but it also needs significant research.
On the other hand, why not both?
That would be far too much foresight, obviously.
…But there’s also never enough resources to go around, and you don’t want to be the country that sank all its money into a technology that didn’t pan out.
C’est un trait quebecois, je pense… les cowboys fringants la dit (“anyway”), donc je ne sais, c’est probablement ok… J’ai entendu “j’suppose” avant aussi, vraiment, je pense…? Est-ce que ça n’est pas comme “I’spose” en anglais? Reverso a beaucoup des examples pour “j’suppose”, quand même. (Je ne suis pas quebecois ou francophone, si tu ne peut pas voir pour quelque raison; je suis un idiot anglophone.)
…Am I not allowed to use “y’all”, north of the 49th parallel? Do we have to bring back “thou” so “you” can be plural again? Or is this part of the Quebecois plot to force everyone to parler en français donc nous pouvons utiliser “vous”? C’est bien, anyway, j’suppose.
Current uranium reserves are expected to be depleted by the end of the century, at current use.
More like somewhere between 200 years and a couple million years, assuming we fire back up and finish developing some 60-year old technologies.
Fission as a serious replacement for just coal plants is a pipe dream without asteroid mining.
pipe dream without asteroid mining
…Yeah, no. At least, not yet. Plus, the energetic and engineering challenges to just throw “asteroid mining” into the conversation are insane— So you’re burning either fossil or synthetic/biofuels for the launch, electric ion (which is itself insanely difficult and expensive) I presume (so, I.e. nuclear or solar) for in-orbit maneuvering, for rocks that aren’t even that that big and which you don’t even have the technology to do anything with.
We have most minerals in sufficient quantities in the Earth’s crust. And more importantly, we have the industrial processes to extract them efficiently. Fission is viable, has been for a long time, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
contrary to what people pretend we still don’t have a good answer for the waste.
It’s rocks. Processed “nuclear waste” is literally just rocks. (Well, technically it’s solid glass covered in welded steel.) It’s not like air pollution that we end up breathing in, and it’s not like the chemical waste from other industries (including from batteries and rare earth extraction) which finds its way to the water cycle where it then bioaccumulates. If you’re picturing a glowing green river, or a barrel full of leaking sludge— Well, that’s not it.
It can’t hurt you unless you powder it and huff it or build furniture with it or do something insanely stupid like that. And there are other much easier and more dangerous ways for malicious actors to hurt you too, that don’t involve breaking into secure facilities to steal the some of the heaviest elements known to exist.
Dig a big hole and toss the waste a kilometer or two down the Canadian Shield, and it will sit there inert for a billion years long after it’s burnt through all its dangerous levels of residual radioactivity.
We need a global fusion research project
We already have a couple of those. If everything goes perfectly for them, they might become commercially widespread right around the same time the hard-to-reverse effects of climate change might become truly apocalyptic in the second half of this century. If the past history of this field of research is any indication, they quite possibly won’t really work, will work but only a decade or two behind schedule and several times over budget, or will lead nowhere except for some media coverage that’s good for military-industrial stock prices or whatever.
This isn’t Sid Meier’s Civilization, where you can click “Global Fusion Research Project” and get a +100% boost to production after 20 turns. To quote Randall Munroe, “Magnetohydrodynamics combines the intuitive nature of Maxwell’s equations with the easy solvability of the Navier-Stokes equations”. Fusion is hard, or else we’d already be doing it, and though we know it’s definitely possible, there’s no guarantee of anything when it comes to actually engineering it.
orbital solar.
Uhh… No. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to blast photovoltaics into an incredibly hostile environment, where they can’t even be cooled by dissipating into the atmosphere, is not probably going to bring energy costs down, at current or near-future technology levels.
Plus any system capable of precisely beaming terawatts of power from space into localized collectors on the planetary surface is (1) probably by definition an omnipresent death ray and (2) probably at least going to fuck up a lot of migrating birds and components of the atmosphere.
Simple as that.
…
but the issue with uranium is that it’s basically in dictatorships
Don’t say that, @FlyingSquid. You’re beautiful, and when us primates are doing ruining ourselves, you will inherit the earth and fly over mountains and forests as well.
Who is this “God” Person Anyway?
…That’s a salt, though, right?
If you’re counting non-NaCl salts as answers, then basically any “mineral” our body needs would probably be delivered at least partly in salt form. Just reading off some multivitamins here:
(I haven’t fully checked all of these are salts— But I mean, a lot of of them are blatantly chemical analogues of stuff that definitely is salt (E.G. “Potassium Iodide” vs. “Sodium Chloride”), plus they’re metals bonded to ionic groups so they’re definitely not alloys or covalent molecules or ceramics.)
This is probably because in order for our body to absorb stuff, it basically has be water-soluble, which means salts work quite well.
When eating real food (plants, animals, and fungi), I assume a lot of this won’t be in salt form, but rather it will mostly be bound up in proteins and DNA and such. For example, iron should be primarily in hemoglobin instead of ferrous fumarate. But some of it, for example the potassium, will definitely be technically in the form of dissolved salts/minerals in the fluids inside the food.
You can of course also rearrange the compounds around. For example, this can of Windsor-brand “salt free salt substitute” I have here further lists:
You’ll note that these are some of the same components as in the list above, just a different combination. I’m pretty sure any ionic mineral that includes at least one ion that our body needs technically counts as “food”, as long as the other half isn’t poisonous— They should be basically the same when they dissolve in the water in our stomachs anyway.
Meats can also be preserved by adding nitrates and nitrites to it, though technically I guess that’s more of a likely-carcinogenic additive than part of the “food”.
Fun fact: Your body sorta knows when it’s low on minerals, and will want to start eating dirt and rocks in order to make up for it! Over 100 different types of primate do it too. So in that case, you could probably argue that plain rocks and soil literally are food, in that they provide vital nutrients the body needs and that your brain is smart enough to know that. …These days it’s apparently considered a mental disorder, but I swear it made much more sense back when the likeliest thing you were going to eat was some mud, rather than lead-contaminated radioactive refrigerants or whatever it is we’ve surrounded ourselves with.
I am not a doctor. Don’t go around eating rocks unless you’re a bird or some other type of dinosaur.
Definitely fly both at once, or overlay them tastefully or something, instead of going full pride-version.
Mutilating the country’s flag in order to show your “patriotism”, as certain groups do, is… Certainly an interesting symbolic choice.
Wearing or sporting an American flag gets all the wrong kind of attention. I really don’t want to deal with it. Frightening minorities and getting thumbs up/nods from racists isn’t really my thing.
Then stick it next to a rainbow flag, or a Statue of Liberty, or a peace sign, or the date of the Emancipation Proclamation, or any of the symbols that y’all actually do still have for actual freedom.
It’s all about the messaging. Make it clear: “This is the flag of the nation, for everybody in the nation, and anyone who flies a mutilated version of it is a coward.”
There’s a slim chance someone with a regular American flag isn’t a nationalist twat.
Y’all should really reclaim that. It’s a good flag, and it’s supposed to mean some things that are actually quite nice.
Ideally you duct-tape a grenade to each of your “decoys” so it doesn’t really matter either way which target they choose to prioritize