So you'd argue that fission is a better way to go rather than fusion? I see China has built, but hasn't activated, a molten salt reactor. Why aren't they more popular?

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Basically, because of where all the thorium is. India would have a near stranglehold on the economy, and they're already heading into Saudi Arabia part 2 territory.

[–] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes ignore the fact that fusion has been under development since early 2000's by how many countries? But point out 1 country working off of partial plans from the 1960's. Yep that means its a total failure....

If there was as much money put into MSR as fissiob the world would be using them as the defacto reactors seriously what a stupid argument

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So I'm not saying one is better then the other because I don't think I'm informed enough to make that call. I'm just curious about what your opinion is. I honestly just want to see progress made in energy generally.

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, I'll step in here. MSRs are a boondoggle. I'll put in a more detailed comment above.