you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I mean I would guess it's for energy density not environmental savings of any kind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I would guess it's because it's likely very low cost and easy to build, but there are obvious environmental savings that fall out of it naturally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child)

    savings that fall out of it naturally.

    sigh.... Buh dim tish.

    On the topic, I really doubt it's about savings at this scale, which is very much proof of concept. I mean it could be but at this stage it's more important to show it's potential. And for some thing that's gonna run for thousands of cycles..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment