IKAROS was a great step in testing the tech that we currently have, but that was a probe, an actual ship will require much more going on than we are currently ready for. Also IKAROS was designed with solar cells in the sail to power it, because it was essentially facing the sun and so that worked. If youre in a manned ship, youre not always heading towards the sun, so you would still need an alternative power source, if the solar can generate enough to power a manned vessel like it did the probe.

I think a solar sail would be a good secondary deployable mode of transport and possibly power from solar as well, maybe just to save power if theres no rush or something.

> Why do we allow those who benefit massively from the status quo to stymie any change or progress?

Democracy. The current governance of the country is literally The Will of The People.

And in case you're the type to criticize it, first realize: it is literally our most sacred institution (as seen on TV - over, and over, and over).

Why doesn't IKAROS count?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKAROS

We currently do not have the technology to provide a baseline for energy without nuclear or fossil. Hydro cannot grow, while solar and air depend on weather/time of day. There are risks with nuclear, but they're not as dramatic as what you seem to think.

This fallacious idea of capitalism not thinking in long terms has long been refuted. We don't even have to go to the roots of ideas for this, just watch the major corporations today and their plans. Uber's been losing money for a lot of years, and many other enterprises are in the same venue. Amazon keeps getting more and more sophisticated and you can barely call it a 'marketplace' today given the scope of its operations and the general road they want to take.

If anything, I believe this 'nuclear is incompatible with capitalism' is more like 'nuclear is incompatible with the free market' because unless you find a way to calm everyone, you are always a threat to people everywhere. The disaster chernobyl could have caused to the entire world means nobody, not even a government should run something so devastating as such. Same for nuclear weapons.

If something is foolproof, the universe will give us a greater fool.

Too true.

Well, the thing is, you have to make it reasonably easy and simple to check it and make sure there are at least 3:1 ratio of competent people that will actively do the job and know what they're doing.

I mean if the philosophy of giving a difficult job to a lazy person so they could find the most efficient route applies here. Then great.

We can put nuclear waste into a thorium salt reactor. The initial costs and contruction times of reactors is the big hindrance but in terms of paying for itself, it always does. And it has the least amount of deaths per killiwatt hour of any energy source.

What discussion? You are totally delusional mate and besides that this is reddit, put the stick out of our ass and have some fun god damn.

> Liberalism is truly a mental disease.

Resorting to political garbage just makes you look childish, in case it matters to you at all. Would you like to actually join the discussion or are you just trolling?

People will try everything against a consistent ecological politics, they will blame us for protesting fracking, for rejecting 'natural' gas, and nowadays reddit nerds love to talk pretentiously about the 'safeness' of nuclear energy

Your welcome mate and if i am allowed to say your contribution was also very valuable," you know bruh we need more...eh...technology and with more technology we will beat nature and all laws that constitute our reality....yeah just more technology bruh", just AMAZING mate. Liberalism is truly a mental disease.

You know I actually would have zero problems with it. As long as my location fulfils the criteria for storage.

>Nuclear is preferable to fossil fuels, of course, but it runs into a fatal problem; it's incompatible with capitalism. Plants are expensive and time consuming to build, and the returns simply don't come within the timescale this economic system (especially in its late stage) allows.

Yeah france is the least capitalistic country in the world, you got it mate.

P.s. Fuck atomic energy;)

Thanks for your valuable contribution to the discussion.

Perfect, we have a volunteer, from now on we will store all radioactive waste under your house. Appreciate your courage mate:)

That was my point, its not an issue we have no solutions for, and it only gets better as we grow those technologies. Honestly I tend to consider people thinking nuclear waste is some big problem are people who haven't actually looked into nuclear technology and are just parroting things they heard.

Nuclear waste management is already here man, I saw an article not too long ago about a scientist developed a system to use lasers to reduce the half-life of the spent fuel rods, while others were working on recycling and reusing the nuclear material as new rods.

The actual amount of waste can fit inside of a football field, and of that only a small percentage is the really bad waste. The vast majority of it can be recycled and with the laser tech (once fully developed), reduce its effects to something far manageable.

I honestly don't know what your experience is with nuclear, but seriously look into it. It's not just a single save all fulcrum device like on an oil rig. There are safeties upon safeties upon safeties.

Palo Verde nuclear plant near Phoenix, from what little I know have at a minimum 3, redundancies for any major system on top of redundancies for those systems. Not to mention the insane safety precautions and procedures required for anything to happen.

Thats not to say shit doesn't happen or won't happen. At least in the US, the regulation bodies are beyond anal about keeping things safe. Reactor technology is lightyears ahead of what it was decades ago making it incredibly safe and viable for energy production.

To say anything can fail is why I don't like it is ignorant.

Hi all.. I'm wondering if someone would help put forth some strong arguments about whether they think (both morally and politically) whether capital punishment should still exist.

I've been doing some research and I'm divided and would like someone to push back and provide insight into their own beliefs.

I'm particularly interested in the notion that "we shouldn't give the state the power to carry out the DP"

Don't we as a people vote to have the DP? And don't we allow the state to somewhat govern many aspects of our lives for freedom and liberty?

Thanks

So you tell me you don't understand that by design, if the water inside the reactor boils the reaction stops, is foolproof? This means you don't believe in the absoluteness of the laws of physics. Big claim on your part.

When I say that current gen are foolproof, I mean they are humanproof. You would have to literally distort the functional possibilities of physics to have a meaningful accident, or cause a literal cataclysm on the site of the powerplant that would make the underlying nuclear accident a joke in comparison.

The reactors do no rely on valves or other complicated industrial design gor security. They rely on basic geometry and physics. If you don't want to hear that from a lowly internet lurker, i can understand, but refuting an expert on the subject would be much harder; so i invite you to read :

Atomic Accidents: A History of Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters: From the Ozark Mountains to Fukushima by James Mahaffey, an actual seasoned nuclear energy scientist and PhD.

Ya I just repeating what the person said that I was commenting on. Your correct, there have been 2. There has also been breaches of nuclear waste containment(Washington State is the only one I know of but there could be more). Again, all these things can be mitigated with proper funding, engineering and oversight.

Speaking of bad faith arguments, we're in a thread discussing the safety and deaths and disasters of different energy sources, and when you I do exactly that you tell me I'm justifying turning the other way from world ending disasters. I'm not here telling you that you think global warming is ok because your concerned about nuclear. It must be possible to discuss the comparative risks of energy sources without trying to twist each other's words to have a go at each other.

Unless we go without energy it has to come from somewhere. If not generating energy is not an option, then the risks and harms of the alternative energy sources is relevant to any discussion of the risks and harms of nuclear.

The thousands or possibly millions of people living on islands across the planet with active volcanos being what formed them would disagree, but okay.