3 ms·

This is what happens when you skim a 48 min talk in 3 minutes ... > * Speaker appears to be advocating for fusion as a viable technology to solve climate chang

This is what happens when you skim a 48 min talk in 3 minutes ... > * Speaker appears to be advocating for fusion as a viable technology to solve climate change when no production commercial fusion generation technology exists. You missed the part where he addresses this. This was the point of his talk -- work on fusion. > * Speaker states that renewables can't compete with paid off fossil fuel plants. This is false; renewables are already cheaper than continuing to run existing sunk cost thermal generators [4] [5]. Did you miss the 40% cutoff point explained in the video?

toomuchtodo 8y ago
I am not arguing against working towards fusion and funding it with R&D dollars. I am arguing against using it as a Hail Mary when it isn't proven and renewables are. > Did you miss the 40% cutoff point explained in the video? I did not miss it [1]. The speaker is incorrect. Solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels beyond that point (I included citations above regarding that point). Renewables have gotten that cheap. This is good, as it strands fossil generators as stranded assets, and forces investment in battery storage (which is necessary not just for energy storage, but also grid services such as frequency response, as demonstrated by the Hornsdale Power Reserve [built by Tesla]). [1] https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k?t=1162 https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k?t=1162