chaosmarine92

The reactors we use now can't run on depleted fuel. It's true that like 90% of the uranium is still present in deleted fuel but that's not the problem. The problem is the build up of fission products. The fuel itself is essentially a ceramic pellet in a metal tube. As it gets "burned" some of the atoms in the fuel split into new smaller atoms. Specifically some that are "poisons" and some that are gases. The poisons absorb neutrons much more easily than the fuel atoms, stopping the chain reaction. And the gases create pressure inside the fuel pellet. If enough gases build up this can cause the pellet to crack, releasing them into the metal tube. Now you have one less barrier to releasing radioactive material and your pellet isn't in the shape it's supposed to be anymore making it harder to know how it will react.

So we can't use them in current reactors, what about "low power" reactors? This is a problem of economics. Depleted fuel is hot, but not hot enough to quickly boil water and make steam. It's like asking why don't we power our house off all the free heat coming off a person all the time. The temperature difference and heat output is just too low to be useful in any but the smallest niche application.

So how do we deal with the depleted fuel? We reprocess it. Break down the fuel and dissolve it in acid so you can recover all the useful uranium to make new fuel. The leftover radioactive material can then be turned into glass and safely stored or you could feed it into a different type of reactor that "burns" the waste turning into something that only needs stored for 200 years instead of 20,000 years. All this has been well known and understood since the 80s but politics consistently gets in the way of actually doing anything.

I second your feelings on bazzite. Last year when I switched to Linux I spent a while researching the best distro for gaming and what I could find pointed to PopOS or Mint. Never even heard of bazzite.

I can only speak to PopOS as that's what I chose when I switched last year. It's been mostly fine but there have definitely been pain points. If you use a hard drive other than your os install drive then you need to go to the steam website to get the installer and not use the one in the built in app store. Getting mods working for games has been incredibly annoying anytime I have to use protontricks.

Non gaming related I've had numerous issues trying to manage permissions for my hard drives. Not sure if this is a Pop issue or general Linux issue.

It depends how they are designed. Same as regular uranium reactors. Thorium isn't a reactor fuel after all, it's what you use to breed more fuel. The actual fuel is still uranium. Thorium turns into uranium-233 then that is the fuel. Normal reactors use uranium-235. Both isotopes can be made to be passively safe.

Literally nothing you just said is correct.

Nonsensical or thoroughly debunked technobabble. The most annoying for me is faster than light communication via quantum entangled particles. Yes entangled particles will change each other's state faster than light but this effect CANNOT be used to send information of any kind. At all. Ever. This has been known since engagement was first discovered but Hollywood is always like "I'm just going to ignore that second part." I don't even have anything against ftl comms or any other physics breaking things, just use an explanation that isn't literally impossible and well known why it's impossible for God's sake.

There are a couple approaches that protection from radiation can take. You could pile up a few feet of dirt on top of your habitat. You could look for lava tubes to live in, which would be much bigger than earth due to the lower gravity. You could design your habitat to have an inner and outer shell that is filled with water, turning your water storage into radiation shielding. You could create an artificial magnetosphere by putting a satellite at the Lagrange point between Mars and the sun (estimates say 1GW of power going to a simple magnetic dipole could do this.) You could find a general cure for cancer and not worry about the radiation.

Radiation is scary but it's not the instant death that popular media makes it out to be. Even if you did nothing to mitigate it and just lived your life on the surface of Mars it will only give you an increased risk of cancer over years of exposure. If you shipped in a bunch of 20-30 year olds and left them on the surface then they would probably be more likely than not to get cancer by the time they hit 80, but they wouldn't just keel over and die after a couple years there.

Protection from radiation would only require a couple feet of dirt, not a mile of it.

Shooting two guns at the same time does in fact look cool. That's not a myth. Hitting two targets with two guns at the same time is really hard though.

Nowhere did I say or imply that capturing CO2 is a net positive of energy. It is in fact a huge energy sink. If you aren't using renewables to power CO2 capture then you're just making the problem worse.

We have to do both. If today our emissions went to zero we would still see more warming because of all that CO2 we've already released. First priority is to get to net zero so we can stop making the problem worse, then we have to remove all the CO2 we released. We have the technology now to do step one it's just a matter of scaling it up. While we work on step one we need to do the research on the best way to do step two so when we get to that point we have something ready to go. Pulling CO2 out of the air is going to be inefficient no matter what just from the physics of the problem but it still needs to be done and the energy to do so has to come from renewables.

Doing some back of the envelope calculations we have put about 1.6 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Latest estimates put the number of trees on earth at around 3 trillion. Looking at how much CO2 a tree takes up puts the average around 600lbs over the first twenty years. So combing all this if we want to plant enough trees to take up all the excess CO2 we would need about 5.3 trillion more trees, or almost double the total number of trees on the planet.

This is simply not achievable in a fast enough time span to make a difference. Nevermind that I was being super optimistic with all my calculations and the real number needed is likely much higher still.

It is simply a necessity to develop better methods to pull CO2 directly from the air and to do it on the same scale that we have been releasing CO2.