Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>
> Randy Yates wrote:
>
>> Nuclear is not a long-term viable solution.
>
> More looks like nuclear is the only viable solution.
>
>> We still haven't come
>> anywhere close to a good long-term solution for nuclear waste.
>
> You'd better get used to it.

What became of the new fuel cycle that creates only about a tenth of the
waste?

>> What we SHOULD be doing (and should HAVE been doing for 40 years) is
>> channeling more funding into fusion (say, 1/10th the amount we've fed
>> wars in the last 40 years?). Once we crack that nut, no one will ever
>> worry about energy again.
>
> Isn't 60 years of research enough to recognize and acknowledge that
> fusion does not work?

No. Fusion has been, is now, and will continue to be 20 years in the
future. :-)


--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯