4 ms·
MIT figured out fusion this month, water shortages are on the verge of being solved since water is not scarce, just dirty/salty - it's an energy problem.
by thinkloop 9y ago
MIT figured out fusion this month, water shortages are on the verge of being solved since water is not scarce, just dirty/salty - it's an energy problem.
- dx034 9y agoI think the recent 200GW solar power deal between Saudi Arabia and SoftBank has more potential to solve desalination problems than Fusion (at least over the medium term).
- thinkloop 9y agoThat too, although solar still has relatively high costs per watt. Fusion can make energy nearly free.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- adrianN 9y agoIf your reactors are nearly free or last a very long time, which, given they use all kinds of super advanced stuff and have parts that are bombarded by Neutrons, I doubt.
- rgbrenner 9y agoNo, fusion wont make energy nearly free. Let's pretend a fusion plant is completely free to build, maintain, operate, and decommission. 50% of the cost of electricity is from transmission and distribution. Those costs aren't going anywhere. So at most, you'll get a 50% savings. But you're not getting that either, because that fusion plant definitely wont be free.
- fspeech 9y agoFor the purported usage (desalination) distribution is not an issue. But obviously fusion generated electricity won't be free, though marginal cost of production may approach that (if it ever becomes a reality).
- dx034 9y agoBut for AC, you have both distribution and variable demand. Not sure how easy fusion plants will be able to react to demand. If they're like nuclear plants, you'll need a sizeable amount of peaker capacity as well (not that solar wouldn't need that).
- thinkloop 9y agoYes, fusion will make energy nearly free. Fusion reactors are mechanically simple and safe and can be made in tiny form factors, including engines. They are predicting container-sized "plants" that can power hundreds of thousands of homes. Fusion will heavily decentralize the grid (partially because of transmission costs). Nothing is totally free of course, but fusion can do for energy what the internet did for distribution, which we can round to having made it free.
- alimbada 9y agoThat sounds like complete fantasy at this point given the technology isn't even working yet.
- bryondowd 9y agoWell, if transmission charges factor in losses during transmission, then the generation cost would influence some part of the transmission cost. If generation was an order of magnitude cheaper, then presumably the amount of power lost between the generator and the end user would cost a negligible amount, whereas I would assume it's currently a good chunk of your distribution costs. ianaEE
- yorwba 9y agoThe cost per watt of solar comes from the expenses associated with making solar panels, averaged over their lifetime. The cost per watt of fusion will come from the expenses associated with making fusion plants, averaged over their lifetime; additionally you need something to fuel the fusion reaction. I doubt that fusion is going to be cheaper than solar anytime soon, given that solar has the advantage of an established manufacturing process, while fusion is still in the research phase.
- paulie_a 9y agoSolar actually exists, fusion doesn't in a realistic comparison
- collyw 9y agoReally as I though such an achievement would have gathered a lot of press attention. It could literally "save the planet". All I saw in the news was Kardashians.
- muthdra 9y agoBy that logic, what isn't an energy problem?