51
submitted 3 days ago by Valuy@lemmy.zip to c/science@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] bitteroldcoot@piefed.social 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Low monetary cost, or low environmental cost?

Edit: Read the article, it sounds like it's a closed loop system that should be environmentally safe. But it can't be that easy. They make it seem like they found the holy grail. Nothing is ever this easy and good. Prove me wrong?

[-] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago

It might be. Fluorine chemistry is not exactly the most widely researched avenue simply due to the inherent danger of it.

I'm hopeful. A lot of true breakthroughs are relatively simple and seemingly obvious in hindsight.

[-] lemmyseikai@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Agreed. We made the nuke before the compound bow because precision machining wasn't that easy to do, but one we got it down, tools changed rapidly.

[-] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago

First bow- Paleolithic 48,000 BC or older Longbow- 4,000 BC or older Composite bow- 3000-1200 BC Compound bow- 1966 AD Fission nuke- 1945 Fusion bomb 1952

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Checks out, but that is... Fucking nuts.

[-] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

It's probably more expensive. But they can also probably improve the process to make it more competitive.

this post was submitted on 29 May 2026
51 points (98.1% liked)

science

27253 readers
650 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

lemmy.world rules

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS