4 ms·
I agree that solar and wind have disadvantages, and they can't be used to cover 100% of the energy demand, but they are available right now, whereas controlled
by rob74 6y ago
I agree that solar and wind have disadvantages, and they can't be used to cover 100% of the energy demand, but they are available right now, whereas controlled fusion has been "10-30 years away" for the last 60 (?) years.
- melling 6y agoNo one said we should wait for fusion. That’s not what that statement means. “Relying solely on solar and wind is a fool’s hope, I think,”
- cygx 6y agowhereas controlled fusion has been "10-30 years away" for the last 60 (?) years One standard internet response to that is this graph[1]. No funding, no results. The international community decided to pool ressources with ITER. The founding members? The US, EU, Japan and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed, the US pulled out for a couple of years, other countries (eg Canada) joined and left gain, Brexit has put the future of JET (where some relevant preparatory experimentation is done) in doubt, etc. [1] https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png
- pfdietz 6y agoWhy can't solar and wind cover 100% of energy demand? Please explain just where the showstopper is, in your view.