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?
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.
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.
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
Checks out, but that is... Fucking nuts.
It's probably more expensive. But they can also probably improve the process to make it more competitive.
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind