> . Fusion however, if fully realized in its most ideal form, would allow us essentially turn seawater into fuel

Incorrect. Seawater is not H3 and cannot be fused.

> Also fuel for fusion contains abot 100 times the energy per pound compared to fission.

Citation? I thought energy densities were pretty similar.

From an electrical grid perspective, wind and coal aren't that different.

That's not really a concern. It's tiny amounts, we have ample places to put it, that is a political issue, not a science problem

I think you're a little bit too hung up on your US comparisons. Just because the EU has a superficially similar structure to two forms of government that were briefly used in the US hundreds of years ago, doesn't mean it's the same in every respect or that it will have the same fate. Tbh this is something I see from Americans a lot: whenever you see a political situation going on in another country, you seem to have an instinct to imagine something similar happening in the US and assume everything will play out the same as it would within the US system.

> By comparison, in the US our government actually has two speeds; glacially slow, and lightning fast. Generally, Congress does nothing, but in genuine emergency situations consensus emerges pretty quickly and Congress can pass legislation in the blink of an eye. The EU has no such ability, because it's own bureaucracy and laws stand in the way of the EU central government by design.

The EU can make arbitrary changes very quickly if all member states are in agreement, simply by agreeing new treaties. In contrast, the US is stuck with its Constitution, and it seems that the only realistic way to change it is by gradually appointing Supreme Court justices who you think will eventually "interpret" it in a slightly different way.

You could point to the sudden changes in economic and military policies in the EU following the invasion of Ukraine as an example of the EU reacting quickly to something.

Though I think it should also be borne in mind that the EU's strictly limited competences (i.e. policy areas where it has power) limit the kinds of emergency situations in which it is even relevant. For example, it doesn't have a military or police force to speak of, and it has little involvement in public services and social policies.

No buddy, without the risk of radiation, we can put them everywhere. That is huge.

From an electrical grid perspective, not from "how it makes energy" perspective

And H3 is not the most abundant element in the universe.

saying they are zero carbon footprint is not true. you have to factor in the mining of resources, building of the physical power plants, huge amounts of cement and steel, etc., backup power sources, all of the vehicles and other fossil fuel related activity used in maintenance, operation, construction, waste 'disposal,' etc. the only part of the process that's carbon neutral is the part that proponents of nuclear like to think about; the f(us,iss)ion.

Fission and fusion aren't that different, just opposites. One takes radioactive materials and splits an atom making more radioactive waste. Fusion starts with hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, and outputs helium. No long lasting radioactive waste and can produce a literal metric fuck ton more energy.

Probably nothng as long as greed is such a big motivator in the world. Someone will buy the technology to protect their outdated technologies place in the energy market.

You really believe the power companies would pass those savings on to the consumers?

This isn't really that accurate. Yes, both fission and fusion have zero carbon footprint and in the end will (at least in most cases) just boil water. Fusion however, if fully realized in its most ideal form, would allow us essentially turn seawater into fuel (so the source is basically limitless). Also fuel for fusion contains abot 100 times the energy per pound compared to fission. Finally, fusion has much less risk (but not zero risk) of danger from radioactive byproducts.

Oh okay, I think I understand now. Thank you so much for being so patient with me.

this link says that they did not

Well it is eli5. Things are going to get simplified

Except for the spent nuclear fuel from fission…

>Oh, so it’s like the US in short.

Again, not exactly. It has a lot of systems that are very similar to the US, but their central government is exceptionally weak and unable to actually function that well in a crisis, which is a huge difference in terms of why the US is more powerful than the EU despite the EU having a larger population and a larger economy.

> but when we travel between states we all use the same money

I think you're significantly exaggerating how close-knit the EU is. Its member states are generally more closely aligned on economic matters than in other areas, but not all of them even use the same currency. Currently, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Sweden all have their own free-floating currencies, while Bulgaria, Croatia and Denmark have currencies that are loosely pegged to the euro. In areas such as criminal law, social policy and national elections, the EU has basically no say whatsoever and the member states are free to do what they want. The member states are also free to leave the EU, and their national governments have a much bigger say over the EU's decision-making than US state governments have over the US federal government.

Oh, so it’s like the US in short. (I hope this doesn’t sound dumb, no one has ever sat down and told me about the EU)

That's not at all what it means. And it makes no sense. Net energy positive has nothing at all to do with cost or price of development. And as I said, comparing output value to production cost (rather than running cost) also makes no sense without a time span.

If you run it long enough, even a trillion dollar reactor that produces only a milliwatt of power will eventually have produced more value out than it's production cost.

They don't exactly "resolve" conflicts, they just attempt it. It doesn't always work, and even when it does it's glacially slow.

By comparison, in the US our government actually has two speeds; glacially slow, and lightning fast. Generally, Congress does nothing, but in genuine emergency situations consensus emerges pretty quickly and Congress can pass legislation in the blink of an eye. The EU has no such ability, because it's own bureaucracy and laws stand in the way of the EU central government by design.

>I also think that all their med schools are intertwined and it’s easier to get a job in other EU countries.

That's not exactly groundbreaking, though. The US has had similar systems for professional degrees in place for decades, whereby individuals in one state can have their credentials honored in other states.

The only difference is that the individual EU "nations" continue to pretend that they're independent from one another. Hence, the nations of the EU continue to call themselves separate countries, whereas that isn't done in the US.

False on the red santa. A quick Google search shows he was repeatedly shown wearing a red coat before that guy drew Santa.

So all the overarching EU really does is resolve conflict/have a common currency? I also think that all their med schools are intertwined and it’s easier to get a job in other EU countries.

Well, economically, it means that for every $1.00 spent in production costs, the reactor returns a $1.10 worth of electrical power (just made up #s). That means that energy prices will, inevitably, get lower and lower across the board.

​

Now, think about your life if you no longer had to pay (or paid a MINIMAL COST) for electricity. How much MORE $$$ will you have to spend, in that scenario? Then factor in that EVERYONE, including businesses, will be in the same boat.

​

Everyone LITERALLY becomes "wealthier overnight".

In this case, it's the overarching EU that's weak, entirely because too much power is maintained by the nations of the EU.

It gets a little confusing because the EU isn't formally a confederated nation, they just functionally act in that manner.