Search results

As I thought, you don't understand the difference between spend and committed spend. And even if this were already spent, your IT superskills might tell you that 2bn - 1.4bn = 0.6bn, which you need to find to equal my figure, let alone disprove it.

Since you're incapable of doing even basic research, I guess you'll have to keep on suspecting.

Ask your carer to summarise it for you, after your 'bathroom break'.

I think perhaps you've not been following the conversation.

Why would we need solar panels if we have fusion energy?

Because I looked it up, perhaps? Give it a go, and make sure you distinguish between spending and commitments (which are almost, but not quite, as paltry). So in order for a country to decide how much to spend on technological innovation, they should add up how much the rest of the world spends...

It's not much of a joke, since it's a given that if you don't invest in something you're not likely to see results. The total spend doesn't amount to even £2bn. That's £26m per year. To put that in proportion, it's 0.18% of the foreign aid budget.

I don't pretend to be an expert on funding, but the basics are freely available and show clearly that almost nothing has been spent on fusion research, and almost nothing is committed to be spent. It would only be someone with no respect for reality that claims otherwise. As for nuclear power...

What reading would you like me to do?

Most of which wasn't funded by the UK government. And even if it were, £2bn is nothing.

It's not the builder's business what the home owner intends to do with their house. He caused damage so he either repairs it to the original standard or he pays. If he does neither, take him to court.

Well they do, because they are a direct result of the poor output of clean energy production and the polluting nature of fossil fuels. Fusion power would mean we wouldn't need to insulate houses to any degree beyond preventing ingress of the elements.

It's difficult to under-deliver when the UK government's funding for fusion, including total historic funding and future commitments not yet realised, is less than is spent on illegal immigrant hotels every 16 weeks.

I never mentioned insulating buildings. Are you on drugs? I have no idea what you're talking about, which makes two of us.

I have an idea. I just wrote it down. I don't find the need to gather the details for someone who plugs SSDs into PCs for a living and thinks they know everything.

It would be cheap, too. A couple of generations after the initial investment, it would be basically free. Free energy, zero pollution, unlimited power. Not what any government wants, of course.

Nowhere close. I haven't worked it out but including Net Zero, even with the predicted "oops, we forgot all about nuclear so let's do something now" approach I'd be surprised if nuclear funding will amount to 25% of clean energy. And if we had decided to chuck the money we spent on foreign wars...

It's as clean and safe as any physical process can be. Operating pollution is essentially zero whilst decommissioning is much simpler than for fission waste, not least because the half-life of neutron activated components is relatively short and their contamination very low.

If the country had invested the same amount of money into nuclear research as 'clean energy' since the 80s instead of obsessing over windmills and solar panels, we'd likely be some way to building the first fusion plants. Zero cost energy, completely unlimited, zero operating pollution. The...

The bit where you say he was arrested under suspicion of alleged rape, when in fact he was arrested under suspicion of rape.