Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Loaded questions, or ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5. A loaded question is one that posits a specific view of reality and asks for explanations that confirm it. These usually include the poster's own opinion and bias, but do not always - there is overlap between this and parts of Rule 2. Note that this specifically includes false premises.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations

• Subjective or speculative replies are not allowed on ELI5. Only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for speculation or subjective responses (Rule 2).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Loaded questions, or ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5 (Rule 6).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Funny that you bring up populations... Less than a quarter of the world's population would "suffer" under your supposed situation of greedy power companies... Both the largest and the second largest countries by population are nuclear powers, and both have massive stakes in fusion research as well.

Maybe, just maybe, you guys can look beyond how "big" your problem is, actually go out and vote for something worth believing in, and change the rules in favour of the people in stead of the corporation...

This is the only correct answer in the thread. All the nonsense about pagan festivals is just people inventing a backstory that doesn't exist. It's just a cultural development, and isn't universal at all. Christmas colors in Eastern Europe often lean into the light blue of frost and ice.

Here's a thread on how thoroughly modern, at most 500-600 years old, Christmas celebrations are.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/rfijy0/pagan_traditions_in_modern_christmas/

There is no scientific evidence or logical proof that the concept of a "soul" exists. The concept of a soul is a belief that comes from various religious and philosophical traditions. Some people believe in the existence of a soul because they find it personally meaningful or because it provides them with a sense of purpose or comfort. Others may reject the idea of a soul because they do not find it to be scientifically or logically plausible. Ultimately, whether or not someone believes in the existence of a soul is a matter of personal belief and faith, and it is not something that can be proven or disproven through scientific or logical means.

[removed]

[removed]

The chart shows 338 vs 86 TJ/kg for fusion vs breeder reactor. That's about 4x, not 100x. The U-235 is essential for the process but not the only source of energy in a fission chain reaction, which can convert U-238 to unstable plutonium.

However, as basically every fission reactor out there is a non-breeder reactor, I can see your point. If we count all the non-fissile parts of the fuel in the density equation (which is a debatable metric), then sure, the fuel density goes way down. But ultimately that isn't too relevant for figuring out the efficiency of the process overall.

The VAST majority of the western world capable of nuclear power is capitalistic and will not see a monetary benefit from nuclear fusion/fission on the consumer level. But congrats to those handful of Nordic countries with tiny populations that are lucky enough to have socialist programs for necessities I guess. But most of us aren't that lucky.

Seawater contains Deuterium (D) which can be used in a full cycle fusion reactor. Basically D+D creates either Tritium (T) + H or He3+ a neutron. Those products can then react with one another. The easiest reaction to do is D+T since it requires the lowest temperautures but Tritium needs to be manufactured which can be difficult.

[deleted]

You can find it in this table on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density_Extended_Reference_Table Or at this site: https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/student-journals/index.php/PAMR/article/download/1383/1464?inline=1#:~:text=Energy%20density%20of%20Deuterium%2Dtritium,reactants%20and%20products%20%5B1%5D.

The key detail is that pure uranium is only about 1/3 the energy density of Tritium-Deuterium but fission rods are only a couple percent U-235.

Yeah, probably, don't touch it the next 1000 years and let's hope nature doesn't freak out. Ow, and not in my backyard please.

Ofcourse Fukushima and Chernobyl are unicorns, but why even risk it.

Nuclear is better than burning stuff, but fusion is even better.

It's not false and I never said he wasn't drawn in red. Prior to the Coca-Cola marketing, he was drawn as a slimmer man in green, blue or red (but mostly green or blue) suits and not always with a giant beard or sack. The designer from Coca-Cola marketed his new design so well that now, we almost exclusively see him as a fat, jolly, bearded man in red. Coca-cola is the reason that when someone says "Santa" the image that most people immediately think of is this and not this or this.

Functionally it would mean cheap, green, unlimited energy for mankind. Hydrogen is just everywhere and there are no harmful byproducts, unlike fossil fuels or nuclear that are non renewable resources. Granted they use mostly dueterium and tritium currently which are a little more rare and expensive.

Important to note that the reaction didn't really get "more energy out than they put in" in fact they put in about 100 times more energy than they got out. However it is still a massive achievement, but I wouldn't hold my breath and wait for fusion reactors to come online. Probably about ten more years.

Just want to point out that you also need to figure in operating and maintenance costs, and cost of capital. If you invest a trillion dollars, you need to generate at least $50B-ish per year just to cover the interest on the loan. You ain't gonna make $50-B-ish per yera on a milliwatt. You also need to consider opportunity cost. If you took that trillion and invested in gas fired turbine plants, you'd get back your investment....

The grid doesn't care about anything other than power. Wind only generates when there is air movement and coal only generates when it's burning.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations

• Whole topic overviews are not allowed on ELI5. This subreddit is meant for explanations of specific concepts, not general introductions to broad topics (Rule 2).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Well not really, "electricity too cheap to meter" opens up all sorts of possibilities. Internal combustion engine transportation will be obsolete and transportation costs will collapse. The cost of running data centers collapses because refrigeration and electricity for powering computers, the major costs, becomes insignificant, so computing power will dramatically expand. Urban night will become like day with streetlights everywhere. Climate control will be available to almost all of the world population. Indoor agriculture will be feasible for most crops and worldwide hunger will be eliminated. We can expect major advances in science and technology because some scientific research is bound by the cost of energy. This just scratches the surface. Dirt cheap electricity will make changes akin to the industrial revolution.

> saying they are zero carbon footprint is not true

Fair point. I was specifically focusing on the reaction, but your point is a god one. However, the carbon footprint of building a reactor of any type can't really be avoided.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations

• Subjective or speculative replies are not allowed on ELI5. Only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for speculation or subjective responses (Rule 2).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

There is ample storage that exists, today, for storing spent fuel rods.

Yes they are. Wind only generates power when the wind is blowing,. Coal has a carbon footprint per unit of electricity made.

>The EU can make arbitrary changes very quickly if all member states are in agreement

And the US can make arbitrary changes very quickly if only 50% of the house and 60% of the senate is in agreement. That's a hell of a lot easier to do than the insane unanimity required for EU legislation.

>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.

It was still far too slow to matter.

>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.

And the only reason this isn't an immense problem is entirely because the US props up the EU from a defense perspective.

Not everyone lives in capitalist america... In some places, power providers are not-for-profit or state-owned, meaning any real savings in production costs automatically get passed on to users.