Gud

>>7943102
Why do you think it can't go on for another 100 years? Peak oil?

efficient power storage would also work, but the illuminati keeps that under wraps for now.

Yeah, it's not as though we have a source of practically unlimited energy that will be around for the next few billion years. Oh wait...

>>7943102
Fission could still be good, but it would probably have to be done with government spending because it's not profitable, and lots of idiots are paranoid about it.

>>7945285
>have to be done with government spending because it's not profitable

Wtf u srs br0? Fission would be incredibly profitable, the government is what's holding it back

>>7945288
If it was incredibly profitable, someone would go somewhere with a government that isn't holding them back. Like China. And I do believe fusion is being pretty heavily studied in China.

>>7943102
Ok, thanks for sharing.

>>7943102
Such a breakthrough has recently occurred.

There are now feasibly constructible energy-positive fusion plants that work on paper. This was not the case before 2015.

http://news.mit.edu/2015/small-modular-efficient-fusion-plant-0810

saying a breakthrough is needed helps literally nobody

a breakthrough in what exactly?

the best thing in my mind would be a breakthrough in energy capture for X-rays and charged particals so DPF fusion is viable

File: snrub.png (33 KB, 321x480) Image search: [Google]

33 KB, 321x480

Graphene would do it. Fission is much more cost effective and far reaching if we have a near perfect storage medium.

>>7943102
Fission is just fine. See: MSRs and IFR.

>>7945263
Not really.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
We have efficient power storage. It's just too expensive - money wise and thermodynamic-wise. Pumped water storage is pretty efficient, round-trip conversion efficiency.

LFTRs and MSRs WHEN!!!!

This shit drives me up the wall and makes me want to switch majors

>>7945487
It is insanely profitable, China is installing 200 GW of nuclear by 2030