So you’d argue that fission is a better way to go rather than fusion? I see China has built, but hasn’t activated, a molten salt reactor. Why aren’t they more popular?
I’ve seen her videos before and they’re fantastic. I hadn’t seen this one yet obviously. What I took away from this is for right now CO2 is the immediate threat but waste heat will be a problem at some point. If a doctor had a patient with cancer and a bullet wound. He or she will treat the bullet wound before ordering a round of chemo. If I can get all star treky, it sounds like some kind of perfect Maxwell’s demon might be the holy Grail in converting waste heat into free energy. Regardless though the immediate concern should be reducing CO2.
Do you have a source on the claim that nuclear fusion will lead to global warming? I did a very cursory search and I’ve found articles that talk about how the technology is being exaggerated but all the ones I’ve seen said that it does not contribute to global warming.
I really appreciate this. It’s important to be aware of all the facts
This was a problem that I had never even heard of before. Ugh. It seems like ecologically it’s just bad news after bad news.
One strike against nordvpn is they will give you a deal on a three year purchase then put you on an expensive annual plan and charge you a couple months before the three year purchase lapses. I had to threaten a charge back on my credit card for them to refund their annual subscription charge.
I haven’t seen anyone mention these (but I might have missed it):
Religion for Breakfast - academic but understandable, digestable and knowledgeable videos about religion.
Soft White Underbelly - interviews with all kinds of people but mostly people living on the street.
The ghost of Carl Sagan should visit the article’s author and treat him or her to an evening à la Dickens’ A Christmas Carol.
I just started using Firefox with ublock & ghostery so I’m not seeing some of that stuff anymore. If I had noticed that it was a malignant site I would have looked for another one. Thanks for the link
Yes I read the Wikipedia article too. My point is that colorful, non-scientific language has been used to describe scientific principles.
That looks fantastic.
The media got it from the title of his book
Is it any more egregious than the Higgs boson being called the “god particle?”
So I’m not saying one is better then the other because I don’t think I’m informed enough to make that call. I’m just curious about what your opinion is. I honestly just want to see progress made in energy generally.