progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 67,899
- 42,705
- 2,615
look at it this way,, we know beyond an absolute fact that nuclear is cheaper and safer than fossils, but a new plant hasnt been built since the 70s in the USA while dozens have been built around the world,according to the science behind it (yeah, i know science got a bad rep since covid, but hear me out on *different* scientists' analyses),
it's simply not technically or economically viable enough to be put to commercial use.
so it needs more R&D time and/or money.
what will it take for you people to back that 'money' aspect of the needs of the fusion R&D communities?![]()
why if not for money reasons hasnt that happened??
even if fusion was ready for public use would it be used if nuclear isnt being used??
thats not even taking into account the advances in nuclear since the 70s