10 ms·
Eh, nobody gets to make rational evidence based policy with nuclear, that ship has sailed. I think once fusion is cracked the 50-years away joke will just shift
by Already__Taken 7y ago
Eh, nobody gets to make rational evidence based policy with nuclear, that ship has sailed. I think once fusion is cracked the 50-years away joke will just shift into the planning permission department.
- growlist 7y agoI know but to replace it with coal??? Couldn't they have gone for e.g. LNG or more renewables phased in over time? The speed of the shift seemed mighty fishy.
- pgeorgi 7y agoPart of the reason of coal increase is that there were more than enough hold-outs that expected there to be another exit from the exit (2011) of the exit (2010) of the exit (2000) from nuclear, so that they saw no need to actually do something because surely the nuclear shutdown won't _actually_ happen. Well, it does and that assumption cost expensive time.
- jhayward 7y agoGermany did not replace nuclear with coal. Coal consumption is at 50% of pre-drawdown levels.
- oceanplexian 7y agoI mean for power generation, I guess sure. But coal is an essential part of steel production. And steel is the thing that literally all modern buildings and vehicles are made out of. So the whole "Green industry doesn't need coal infrastructure" thing is just BS.
- nl 7y agoWhat are you talking about? The comment was that nuclear was replaced by renewables for power generation. Neither nuclear or renewables replace coking coal. There is a hydrogen steel cycle that can though but not in industrial quantity yet.
- imtringued 7y agoThey added more renewables. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2a-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2019-1.png?itok=I3-p6ZmH https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...
- pfdietz 7y ago"Once fusion is cracked" is almost on par with "once perpetual motion machines are cracked." It presupposes that fusion being "cracked" is a reasonable thing to expect.
- rdtsc 7y agoHuge difference there. Legitimate scientists are working on fusion research and nobody but crackpots are into perpetual motion.
- pfdietz 7y agoYes, the huge difference is the crackpots are not costing society billions of dollars.
- brutt 7y agoPerpetual motion is not hard at all. Satellites are in perpetual motion around globe for decades. It doesn't violate anything. Universe is infinitely old and still moving. Perpetual motion _engines_ violate law of energy conservation, because perpetual source of energy can create infinite amount of energy, thus they are impossible, like perpetual source of water, or perpetual source of anything.
- quickthrower2 7y agoSatellites fall to the ground eventually unless their orbit is adjusted.
- martythemaniak 7y agoThis is either a bad joke, an incredible misunderstanding of physics. "perpetual motion machine" is not compatible with the laws of physics as we understand them. There's many working fusion reactors, we don't know which, if any, designs will be economical.
- pfdietz 7y agoNo, I understand that. What I'm pointing out is that if something has no realistic chance of being economically viable, then from the end user's point of view that's just as bad as if it were physically impossible. The only difference is society is spending billions while pretending an economic miracle will happen, even if that miracle is as implausible as discovery of a violation of the law of conservation of energy.
- outside1234 7y agoI am going go out on a limb and say that fusion is never going to be competitive with solar and batteries.
- i_am_nomad 7y agoFusion is never going to work at all. The only fusion reactor we’ll ever have is 93 million miles away.
- Xixi 7y agoFusion is already working. Not well enough to be commercially viable, but it's already working. ITER will produce more energy than it will be using - albeit only enough usable energy to break even. It's not a matter of making it work anymore, it's only a matter of getting it to work well enough. But maybe all we will ever need are solar panels, after all the sun is providing way enough energy as is... for now.
- i_am_nomad 7y agoLet me be more precise (for you and for the people who downvoted me): fusion will never be cost effective. Ever. There is no conceivable material for the walls of a reactor that could withstand the neutron bombardment from the reaction. Maybe there’s some super-inexpensive way to replace the entire reactor core every 18 months... but I seriously doubt it.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y agoMaybe we get [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion working in another '50' years? :-)
- pfdietz 7y agoThat's what Lawrence Lidsky was saying fusion people should work on, in his (in)famous 1983 article "The Trouble with Fusion". Then his PhD student Todd Rider shot down the very low neutron fuel cycles. D-3He remains possible, but that still produces neutrons, albeit fewer than DT (and requires mining bodies in space to get 3He).
- Tempest1981 7y agoTerraPower looks promising -- am I too optimistic? https://www.geekwire.com/2019/inside-terrapower-nuclear-lab/ https://www.geekwire.com/2019/inside-terrapower-nuclear-lab/ Safe from meltdown, uses existing nuclear waste as fuel, might be tested in China.
- petre 7y agoThe China thing is doomed after the trade war. I hope it otherwise materializes nevertheless.