3 ms·

Gas plants require gas. That means drilling, processing, and transporting. Gas plants require huge amount of backing logistics to be able to operate. Nuclear p

Gas plants require gas. That means drilling, processing, and transporting. Gas plants require huge amount of backing logistics to be able to operate. Nuclear plants use readily available resources in very small quantities, no pipelines, no supporting logistics. You can literally build one anywhere where there is an electrical grid, without logistical considerations.

epistasis 8y ago
Fine, so eliminate those logistical considerations, what sort of big advantage is there? Turns out, about none. What new applications are opened up? What is now possible? Not much. And most fusion that I've heard does require massive processing to get enough input fuel, just read through all the technical discussions down below. Take a coal plant (or bigger), and remove the need for fuel and the emissions. What's the big benefit over what we have now? And I say this as somebody who views climate change and carbon emission as the biggest issue of our time. I just can't get the least bit excited about fusion. Solar, wind, and batteries will deliver, we know now that they will be cheap enough to outcompete gas and coal and everything within a decade or two. I maintain that the only thing that was ever promising about fusion was the potential for cheap electricity, the fabled "too cheap to meter" type of energy. However it's really clear now that fusion will never deliver that, unless there's also huge technology gains in direct conversion. And we've known this a long time. Go back and look at articles from 50 years ago, and you'll see different criticisms of fusion that still apply today. Today, we also have the decreasing cost of renewables + storage. In developing countries, we will likely see solar and storage built, without even needing that hugely expensive transmission grid. That's more of a black swan event than what fusion can hope to provide.
- fgonzag 8y ago
  I guess our differing point of view comes mainly from the fact that I don't see energy storage solutions become viable in the near or medium future. I believe battery tech is progression slower than fusion. We will also need a clean baseline power solution, and AFAIK only fusion can give us that.
  - epistasis 8y ago
    Energy storage is viable and being deployed right now. Moss Landing California has one of the larger installs in the near future, at more than 1 GWh, because it's cheaper than gas peakers. Recent bids for solar/wind attached to storage are coming in at record braking prices in Colorado, Nevada, and Indiana. Every month there are "record breaking" bids for storage projects, today's news is about Hawaii: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hawaiian-electric-industries-announces-mind-blowing-solar-plus-storage-cont https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hawaiian-electr... But in a few weeks there will be a new low cost somewhere. Batteries are getting cheaper faster than anybody expected, just like solar and wind did before. Fusion is progressing more slowly than anyone imagined, and will likely never be financially competitive. Nobody even talks about it being cheap anymore when I ask people why they think fusion is exciting. At best we're getting simplified supply chains, or baseload power. Even baseload power is not desirable, coal plants are shutting down all over. And in addition to all the grid storage that will be added, people with electric cars will keep 3 days worth of their own electricity in their garages at night. Huge amounts of storage will be deployed by the EV switch, and as those batteries age out they can have second lives as grid storage, before finally being recycled.

epistasis 8y ago

Fine, so eliminate those logistical considerations, what sort of big advantage is there? Turns out, about none. What new applications are opened up? What is now possible? Not much. And most fusion that I've heard does require massive processing to get enough input fuel, just read through all the technical discussions down below. Take a coal plant (or bigger), and remove the need for fuel and the emissions. What's the big benefit over what we have now? And I say this as somebody who views climate change and carbon emission as the biggest issue of our time. I just can't get the least bit excited about fusion. Solar, wind, and batteries will deliver, we know now that they will be cheap enough to outcompete gas and coal and everything within a decade or two. I maintain that the only thing that was ever promising about fusion was the potential for cheap electricity, the fabled "too cheap to meter" type of energy. However it's really clear now that fusion will never deliver that, unless there's also huge technology gains in direct conversion. And we've known this a long time. Go back and look at articles from 50 years ago, and you'll see different criticisms of fusion that still apply today. Today, we also have the decreasing cost of renewables + storage. In developing countries, we will likely see solar and storage built, without even needing that hugely expensive transmission grid. That's more of a black swan event than what fusion can hope to provide.

fgonzag 8y ago
I guess our differing point of view comes mainly from the fact that I don't see energy storage solutions become viable in the near or medium future. I believe battery tech is progression slower than fusion. We will also need a clean baseline power solution, and AFAIK only fusion can give us that.
- epistasis 8y ago
  Energy storage is viable and being deployed right now. Moss Landing California has one of the larger installs in the near future, at more than 1 GWh, because it's cheaper than gas peakers. Recent bids for solar/wind attached to storage are coming in at record braking prices in Colorado, Nevada, and Indiana. Every month there are "record breaking" bids for storage projects, today's news is about Hawaii: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hawaiian-electric-industries-announces-mind-blowing-solar-plus-storage-cont https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hawaiian-electr... But in a few weeks there will be a new low cost somewhere. Batteries are getting cheaper faster than anybody expected, just like solar and wind did before. Fusion is progressing more slowly than anyone imagined, and will likely never be financially competitive. Nobody even talks about it being cheap anymore when I ask people why they think fusion is exciting. At best we're getting simplified supply chains, or baseload power. Even baseload power is not desirable, coal plants are shutting down all over. And in addition to all the grid storage that will be added, people with electric cars will keep 3 days worth of their own electricity in their garages at night. Huge amounts of storage will be deployed by the EV switch, and as those batteries age out they can have second lives as grid storage, before finally being recycled.