> ..would be rather 'pissing in the ocean' though on this issue, don't you think? (and thus could be considered a waste of money)
Again, as he stated. You are basing your hypothesis off of old nuclear technology. The same arguments were made against solar and wind. Many still believe it is a waste of money, yet we keep funding it. Why not also look into Thorium?
Comments
>It is not a counterargument against seed-level funding for [thorium]..
Nor did i ever suggest it was! (NB: 'OTOH').
>a couple of million
..would be rather 'pissing in the ocean' though on this issue, don't you think? (and thus could be considered a waste of money)
> ..would be rather 'pissing in the ocean' though on this issue, don't you think? (and thus could be considered a waste of money)
Again, as he stated. You are basing your hypothesis off of old nuclear technology. The same arguments were made against solar and wind. Many still believe it is a waste of money, yet we keep funding it. Why not also look into Thorium?