▲ 419 ▼ Climate change activists disrupted the US open last night, protesting the use of fossil fuels. (feddit.uk) submitted 2 years ago by SomeoneElseMod@feddit.uk [M] to c/confidently_incorrect@lemmy.world 52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] RIP_Cheems@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Might I throw onto the table thorium power plants? permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You can throw up all over the place for all the difference it makes. Sure, there are benefits that sound great, but the reality is they don’t exist. I think India has the biggest investment in trying to figure it out, but it’s not there yet and may never be permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RIP_Cheems@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What do you mean, thorium is far more common than uranium and require less processing to be used. Plus, it isn't always active like uranium, meaning it can be controlled a little better. It's worth looking into. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago That’s exactly what I mean. There are benefits that sound great. However there’s not a practical reactor based on that, yet. In some ways it seems like fusion. Every few years you see a flurry of headlines of how great it would be, and we’re only ten years away, but it hasn’t happened permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You can throw up all over the place for all the difference it makes. Sure, there are benefits that sound great, but the reality is they don’t exist. I think India has the biggest investment in trying to figure it out, but it’s not there yet and may never be permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RIP_Cheems@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What do you mean, thorium is far more common than uranium and require less processing to be used. Plus, it isn't always active like uranium, meaning it can be controlled a little better. It's worth looking into. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago That’s exactly what I mean. There are benefits that sound great. However there’s not a practical reactor based on that, yet. In some ways it seems like fusion. Every few years you see a flurry of headlines of how great it would be, and we’re only ten years away, but it hasn’t happened permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RIP_Cheems@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What do you mean, thorium is far more common than uranium and require less processing to be used. Plus, it isn't always active like uranium, meaning it can be controlled a little better. It's worth looking into. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago That’s exactly what I mean. There are benefits that sound great. However there’s not a practical reactor based on that, yet. In some ways it seems like fusion. Every few years you see a flurry of headlines of how great it would be, and we’re only ten years away, but it hasn’t happened permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago That’s exactly what I mean. There are benefits that sound great. However there’s not a practical reactor based on that, yet. In some ways it seems like fusion. Every few years you see a flurry of headlines of how great it would be, and we’re only ten years away, but it hasn’t happened permalink fedilink source parent