The Forum > General Discussion > Climate Emergency
Climate Emergency
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 72
- 73
- 74
- Page 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- ...
- 114
- 115
- 116
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
It's not the information that I have questions about. It's on whether the reactor will deliver what it's promised. Honestly it comes down to the idea that seeing is believing. I think what is offered by salt reactors is great and worth an investment of at least one to see how well it does. If it does well and measures up to all the information that's out there for it, then awesome. Great. Wonderful. If it doesn't deliver on all the qualities info-graphed without a reliable test reactor, but still delivers on some then that's still great, just not as great. For instance if the reactor can eat up nuclear waste, but the energy it produces takes much longer then the energy that is used up by the sourounding area, then that's not as great, but still is worth it in the long run of needing a solution to nuclear waste. In that case it'd be on par with other green energy ideas, as far as energy production, but still worth it with the solution to take nuclear waste from around the world. Think of it on a economic level, Australia being the first country that can safely and permanently dispose of nuclear waste. There's a large scale economic recovery in that equation
The reactor promises so much, can you blame a guy for being skeptical of if it can deliver everything it promises? But on the other hand it DOES promise so much, skeptism or not it's worth an investment to give it a chance.