Game_boy said:
Actually, there is something much better than this. Nuclear fusion is under active development with several demonstration reactors operating at a slight loss but are proof of concept - within 20 years commercial reactors are viable. Nuclear fusion is: - Emission-free - Renewable: Deuterium and Tritium are practically limitless - Free from long-term nuclear waste - the reactor shell may be irradiated but it need only be replaced once in 10 years and it is short-term radioactive. - Even complete containment loss (very unlikely) would result in only the immediate area being damaged with weakly or not at all radioactive substances, rather than the regional or global effects of a nuclear fission disaster. - Cheap as it can be done on any scale - Can be done anywhere at any time with a constant output - Does not depend on foreign countries for raw materials - Provides practically unlimited power |
Well I agree that fusion would be a great solution and I agree with you about all the potential benefits. I just haven't seen anything showing the technology is far along enough to become a viable energy source. Can you point me in the direction of any of those studies? I'd love to read up on them.
I will throw out one major drawback though...public perception. It would take a major PR effort to connivence people to build these on major scales. My research was in organic solar cells and OLEDs and one of my favorite parts of the project is that because the topic contains the word "organic" the public assumes the materials are all happy, fun loving, and healthy. They aren't the worst compounds in the world but god help you if you were to ingest any appreciable amounts.
