5 ms·

>Fission already beats renewable by a good margin and Fusion puts some on top of that. This is not true, I don't think people realise how much the renewable pr

>Fission already beats renewable by a good margin and Fusion puts some on top of that. This is not true, I don't think people realise how much the renewable prices are currently dropping: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/nils-pratley-on-finance/2017/sep/11/hinkley-nuclear-power-no-match-for-renewables https://www.theguardian.com/environment/nils-pratley-on-fina... I can see the benefit of fusion though I'm not very convinced by the density argument (we do have space to put solar on our roofs, wind on our shores, batteries in our basements and distribution points, and plenty of spots to pump geothermal)

zaarn 9y ago
Uranium produces 80,620,000 MJ/kg [Wikipedia], Deuterium produces about 10% more. I'm not seeing any Solar Panels or Wind Turbines on the market that can output 80 TJ per Kilogram of Weight over their lifetime. The article you linked talks about Energy Cost, which is another issue. Though considering Hydrogen and Helium are the most abundant resources in the universe, I'm not holding my breath for any renewable resources consistently beating that. Cost =/= Density, otherwise we'd be powering electric cars with AAA batteries. >(we do have space to put solar on our roofs, wind on our shores, batteries in our basements and distribution points, and plenty of spots to pump geothermal) Yes but the point is that fusion requires a lot less space for a lot more power, doesn't depend on the weather or surrounding geology and is 100% clean.
- ben_w 9y ago
  Almost every application cares more about energy cost than energy density. I think only shipping (ocean, air, and space) care about energy density in any significant way, and the first two can fairly trivially use renewable-electrolysed hydrogen. (Space can also use it, but I wouldn’t say it is trivial because nothing about current space access is trivial).
  - zaarn 9y ago
    I'm confident that given time Fusion can outpace renewables in energy cost too. Uranium is somewhat difficult to obtain; you have to mine it from deep under (using what amounts to slave labor), clean the ore and then carefully and thoroughly enrich it (238 is almost unusuable in reactors, you need 235, which is only present in a small fraction of the ore). On the other hand, getting hydrogen can be achieved with electrolysis (electrolysis requires less energy than the fusion reaction produces), various other chemical processes or simply solar wind. Hydrogen is the most common material in the universe, it will and can outpace any other energy source. Renewables are simply different methods for capturing energy from the fusion happening in the sun with some efficiency.

zaarn 9y ago

Uranium produces 80,620,000 MJ/kg [Wikipedia], Deuterium produces about 10% more. I'm not seeing any Solar Panels or Wind Turbines on the market that can output 80 TJ per Kilogram of Weight over their lifetime. The article you linked talks about Energy Cost, which is another issue. Though considering Hydrogen and Helium are the most abundant resources in the universe, I'm not holding my breath for any renewable resources consistently beating that. Cost =/= Density, otherwise we'd be powering electric cars with AAA batteries. >(we do have space to put solar on our roofs, wind on our shores, batteries in our basements and distribution points, and plenty of spots to pump geothermal) Yes but the point is that fusion requires a lot less space for a lot more power, doesn't depend on the weather or surrounding geology and is 100% clean.

ben_w 9y ago
Almost every application cares more about energy cost than energy density. I think only shipping (ocean, air, and space) care about energy density in any significant way, and the first two can fairly trivially use renewable-electrolysed hydrogen. (Space can also use it, but I wouldn’t say it is trivial because nothing about current space access is trivial).
- zaarn 9y ago
  I'm confident that given time Fusion can outpace renewables in energy cost too. Uranium is somewhat difficult to obtain; you have to mine it from deep under (using what amounts to slave labor), clean the ore and then carefully and thoroughly enrich it (238 is almost unusuable in reactors, you need 235, which is only present in a small fraction of the ore). On the other hand, getting hydrogen can be achieved with electrolysis (electrolysis requires less energy than the fusion reaction produces), various other chemical processes or simply solar wind. Hydrogen is the most common material in the universe, it will and can outpace any other energy source. Renewables are simply different methods for capturing energy from the fusion happening in the sun with some efficiency.