Recycling is definitely an important aspect of developing the technology to a maturity where it forms part of a power grid. But it’s not beyond the wit of man. If we can crack Q>5 for nuclear fusion, surely we can crack economically viable recycling for LLW. I don’t think it’s worth abandoning research on fusion over this issue.
I understand there’s no waste with a half life >100 years, and the activated steel can be recycled a few decades after commissioning?
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/P_1356_CD_web/Presentations/Thursday/Morning/El-Guebaly SESE-KN-2.pdf
No, you’re not, but the other commenter is coming across as blinded by their own self righteousness.
your view that with enough chances, it is inevitable that every possible outcome occurs at least once.
Can you point to what I have written that has led you to this misunderstanding? I’m not an idiot and I certainly do not believe this nonsense. Thanks.
And you can’t talk about Bayes theorem while simultaneously saying that this isn’t a discussion about probability.
I can, because you are forcing this discussion to be about probability
And you also can’t talk about natural laws without probability, either, as quantum mechanics itself is probability distributions.
Literally none of the effects you have chosen to discuss are quantum effects.
Look I’m sorry, but I don’t think the evidence points to p<10E-21 or anywhere near it. Why would the only solar system we’re able to study be so unique? It’s magical thinking. Apart from the moon and plate tectonics being nice, but not essential to complex life, which other factors are you proposing conspire to lower the probability of life to this practical impossibility?
It’s not probabilities that dictate these processes though, as stated above. It’s natural laws. Certainties. Like the increase of entropy, or the conservation laws. So a planet isn’t just 50% likely to form with rocky bias withín the frost line, it is certain to do so. I’m sorry but probability rarely tells even a small part of the story of natural processes.
The fact that something has happened nearly every time we see a chance of it happening very much does make it a high probability event, cf. Bayesian inference.
I think you need to let the deck of cards metaphor go! A deck of cards is specifically designed by intelligent minds to generate random outcomes, whereby natural processes follow predictable paths, and the outcomes are limited by natural laws. There is no intelligent mind altering the outcomes, or designing for or against randomness.
It’s a fair assumption to say we are not privileged observers if the universe because there is zero evidence to the contrary.
There are answers to all of your questions about elemental makeup of planets, magnetosphere, moon and tectonic plate formation, but it’s a lot of reading to get them.
Well I didn’t specifically say habitable planets are high probability. But it just so happens that they are. Firstly consider the Copernican Principle. If we live on a habitable planet then it’s logical to make the assumption that habitable planets are common. There are strong counterpoints to this, but it’s all very hypothetical anyway so it’s better to just point to the empirical evidence: astronomers estimate that [one in five stars has an earth sized planet in the Goldilocks zone](One in Five Stars Has Earth-sized Planet in Habitable Zone – W. M. Keck Observatory https://share.google/J40L3PlVnAvee7C7B).
In terms of the why, it’s a much more difficult question to answer, but the stages of planetary formation that are proposed include processes whereby heavier elements coagulate together, earlier, and those that end up massive enough then attract lighter elements and become gas giants. Rocky planets formed close to the sun because it was hotter there and water/ice couldn’t form and contaminate the denser elements, although it doesn’t seem to happen that way in other artist systems.
Everywhere we look we see rocky planets and we see water. It’s not unlikely that rocky planets therefore would have liquid water fairly often
The aggregate direction is always towards highest entropy, which means lowest energy state, stability etc. Planets tend to self organise into harmonic orbits with simple whole number ratios, because that’s the lowest energy state. But the result is that we have a nice, stable solar system where planets have relatively circular orbits with nice spacing. Despite the initial chaos of the formation, it’s very likely that all solar systems collapse into this kind of high entropy, regular stability, and what little observations we can make of other systems have confirmed it.
The point is that it’s not at all random, there are irresistible forces at play which narrow the space of what’s possible into a very small box, cosmologically speaking. Matter organises itself into spheres, then into orbits etc. We don’t see disc shaped planets for example because they’re physically impossible to make using natural processes. And we don’t see planetary collisions because they can only happen at the start, in the chaos of system formation. Then it all settles down into a stable, predictable, harmonically resonating system, as the laws of thermodynamics predict.
A deck of cards is actually random, whereas star, planet and solar system formation is constrained by a load of physical laws, mainly gravity. We know little about solar system formation, but sufficient to say it’s not a card deck shuffle, which is pretty much customised to be as random and unpredictable as possible. It’s counterintuitive in a way, that something as mundane as a deck of cards could be mathematically so extreme, while celestial bodies tend towards equilibrium and similar configurations, but it’s true.
By contrast, one of the most important scientific rationales of the enlightenment is the Copernican Principle, which states that humans do not have a privileged position in the universe: where we are is pretty typical. Or, at a large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.
But, in answer to your first question, no. We absolutely do not know this for sure. It’s just pretty solid reasoning.
100% agree. I hope to be alive to see it. Popsci would have me believe it’s coming any day now.
I kind of get the no waste framing, since the nuance is too technical for most people to bother with. If we say anything more complex than three words about waste, then we will lose public support for fusion. It’s still not right, but I see a greater cause in that lie than the increase in clicks which is the driver for the lie that it’ll be ready tomorrow.