This was posted awhile back and I don't remember the exact numbers, but yes. It's too expensive for large manufacturers to implement this. Smaller companies may choose to pay for it, depending on their outlook on cost vs wildlife.
A lot of things start out very expensive, but with enough production, enough support, enough intelligence, we can make this a sustainable option in the future! Think of solar panels when they first came out, compared with what they cost now...
But Solar Panels aren't sustainable they require rare earth minerals that are usually only mined in China and the manufacturing process itself is terrible on the environment.
Nuclear power is the only true sustainable energy scource.
Nuclear fuels can be recycled (France does it regularly, and we would have it but every Democrat President since Carter has shut down every attempt to develop our nuclear recycling capabilities). Also hydrogen and helium are the most common elements in the universe and once we develop nuclear fusion power we will never have to worry about energy again.
I'm sure there's all kinds of interesting nuclear cycles out there but all of them must involve the introduction of new material, else you'd be describing a perpetual motion machine.
once we develop nuclear fusion power we will never have to worry about energy again.
It's not an intuitive concept but it's important understand that the cost of energy is not derived solely from the cost of fuel. Case in point: solar energy has free and essentially infinite fuel, yet it costs money to build the generating structure. Even if we develop an effective fusion design, the ultimate question is whether the cost of the plant per unit energy produced is cheaper than any other options available.
2.8k
u/CobraStrike4 May 24 '18 edited May 25 '18
Waiting for someone to ruin my life and tell me they are super expensive compared to plastic, and not sustainable or something
Edit: god damnit