Supporting Nuclear Energy

[Bored UCO Student]

https://www.alternet.org/nuclear-fus...-save-climate/

"In truth, any fusion breakthroughs are potentially of critical importance not as a remedy for our warming climate but for a future apocalyptic world of war. Despite all the fantastic media publicity, that’s how the U.S. government has always seen it and that’s why the latest fusion test to create “energy” was executed in the utmost secrecy at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. One thing should be taken for granted: the American government is interested not in using fusion technology to power the energy grid, but in using it to further strengthen this country’s already massive arsenal of atomic weapons."

No disrespect but this article is fear-mongering.

In order to weaponize fusion we must first learn how to ignite fusion without an initial fission reaction, more than one time. Secondly, once we do that, we then need to minimize the materials needed in order to generate the weapons that are spoken about in this article.

At this point in time, we are in no possible way able to scale this up in terms of generating power for cities. This also applies in the sense that we must also scale down the process in order of which we create this energy, hence the reason why nuclear fusion powering the world is still currently an impossible task. I mean it took 35 nations collaborating to be able to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, so in what way is it realistic to worry about us being able to scale down this technology enough in order to put it into a bomb, or some other type of weapon?

This is plausible to worry about, maybe, 30-50 years from now? We already have plenty of bombs that can decimate the world in a few minutes notice, while at the same time we can use that same technology to create relatively incredible amounts of power. This really isn't any different. Any technological breakthrough in human history has mostly likely had attempts and successes at weaponizing them.



also as a registered democrat i can tell by just looking at the headlines and word choice of the other articles in that news service that it is HEAVILY skewed to the left in the same way that newsmax is heavily skewed to the right and so i wouldnt use it as a reliable source of information tbh

[TheTravellers]

^^^ In order to do *anything* with fusion, it needs to happen more than one time and we need to minimize the materials....

And yes, either fusion weapons or fusion power is a few decades off.

Alternet sourced the article from TomDispatch, that's what it was originally written for, and yes, Alternet is left, and TomDispatch is too, but that doesn't mean the article doesn't have truth behind it. Weaponizing fusion is entirely plausible and probable, in my opinion.

[Laramie]

Black Fox Nuclear Power Plant (Inola, Oklahoma): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_...ar_Power_Plant

[BDP]

THE REAL OBSTACLE TO NUCLEAR POWER

Good article discussing the history of nuclear power, current innovations, and changing attitudes.

Or rather, to be more precise, what is newest and potentially most significant about Kairos’s test is not a technological invention. Rather, it is innovation more broadly conceived. First and foremost, Kairos is devising not a nuclear technology but a business technology: a method of organizing a very complex project to be faster, simpler, more efficient, and cheaper. This kind of process innovation may not look like much, but it’s what nuclear power needs if it is to fulfill its extraordinary promise.

[fortpatches]

^^^ In order to do *anything* with fusion, it needs to happen more than one time and we need to minimize the materials....

And yes, either fusion weapons or fusion power is a few decades off.

Alternet sourced the article from TomDispatch, that's what it was originally written for, and yes, Alternet is left, and TomDispatch is too, but that doesn't mean the article doesn't have truth behind it. Weaponizing fusion is entirely plausible and probable, in my opinion.

Do you mean a fusion weapon without a fission primary? Because we already have fusion weapons.... We have for decades.

[TheTravellers]

Do you mean a fusion weapon without a fission primary? Because we already have fusion weapons.... We have for decades.

Yes, fusion without fission is the gist of the article, whether it be for power generation or weapons.