3 ms·
Fusion has advantages over Wind and PV; it works like a nuclear power plant. That means you can build a large plant where the power is needed and then provide i
by zaarn 7y ago
Fusion has advantages over Wind and PV; it works like a nuclear power plant. That means you can build a large plant where the power is needed and then provide it continously without stopping. Wind and PV can't do that unless you add buffer technology, but even that has limits.
Fusion can easily provide 100% of our baseline power needs and because it's powered by the most common elements in the solar system, it can easily be harvested (even from solar wind, which should deliver more than enough to power humanity with fairly little effort). Fusion is essentially the key to unlocking unlimited power (insert emperor palpatine here).
With only 100'000 tonnes of water, filtered for deuterium, the US could cover it's annual electricity needs entirely. The Mississipi provides this much water over 6 seconds.
60 seconds are enough to cover the entire world's annual energy needs.
- pfdietz 7y agoFusion has the disadvantages of nuclear. It will be very expensive. Nuclear is not competitive even if the nuclear island is FREE; the non-nuclear thermal power plant part is too expensive. Since fusion reactors themselves are unlikely to cost negative dollars, fusion power plants won't be competitive either.
- zaarn 7y agoI don't think that is true for baseline power provision, only for the peak demands during the day alternatives are viable. For baseline, Fusion doesn't compete with PV and Wind, it competes with Batteries powered by PV and Wind, which is a whole different price calculation. That plus the fuel is common and cheap to obtain, unlike Uranium or some of the rare earth metals for PV.
- pfdietz 7y agoOn a levelized basis, nuclear is grossly uncompetitive. This means that when the wind is blowing, or the sun is shining, nuclear cannot sell for close to what it needs to make ends meet. Cheap batteries are just going to be the final nail in the coffin. At the current rate of decline of battery prices I expect most operating nuclear reactors to shut down within a decade. Oh, and please don't repeat the "PV needs rare earth metals" lie. They don't use rare earths, or for that matter need any rare elements at all. The only somewhat rare element silicon PV uses is silver for front contact wires, but that can be substituted for with copper (with a migration barrier layer to prevent reaction with silicon) if silver gets too expensive.
- zaarn 7y agoI don't think your expectations are realistic and underestimate the cost of baseline power. Baseline means this is how much the grid is pulling 24/7 without any pause. You'd cycle batteries fairly fast if that was the only option which would increase the price, plus you'd now operate two powerplants; PV and battery. Fusion and other thermal plants are more suited to providing baseline load. A fusion reactor that is running at a predictable minimum of 30% would cost far less than any PV/Wind/Battery system every could.
- pfdietz 7y agoI think you're committing the common error of thinking that baseload demand requires baseload supply. But baseload supply was just the most economical way to supply baseload demand. I emphasize was. We are moving into a new situation where intermittent sources are much cheaper than those old reliable baseload sources, when they are available. If this cost discrepancy becomes too large, the optimum mix of sources will change abruptly, to some combination of intermittent sources and various forms of storage. The levelized cost advantage of renewables has become very large. Right now, they pair with dispatchable sources (gas, primary hydro), but storage is beginning to undercut that. Baseload nuclear is already grossly uncompetitive; in the US to compete with the current gas/renewable mix new nuclear would require a CO2 tax of $300/ton or higher. Even existing nuclear is struggling to meet its operating costs here.