3 ms·
It's a bit odd to me that you seem to deem fusion power realistic, while discounting other ways of generating and storing power that are basically available alr
by svara 6y ago
It's a bit odd to me that you seem to deem fusion power realistic, while discounting other ways of generating and storing power that are basically available already.
Power from renewables can be stored for the long term as hydrogen. That's well understood technology, scaling up is an engineering problem. When the sun shines and the wind blows, solar and onshore wind are the cheapest ways to make electricity, so there's a huge economic incentive to solving the storage issue.
- usui 6y agoThanks for pointing out, because now that I think of it, my view does come off as odd. What I think it reflects is that despite nuclear fusion being a technical, engineering problem, I believe getting companies/governments to abandon carbon for wind/solar to the point of carbon-neutral is even more insurmountable. Does that viewpoint make sense? For them to get off fossil fuels, it's going to need a ball-out-of-the-park solution. It's too hard to compete with the fracking revolution.
- nicoburns 6y agoWhy do you think economic incentives won't be enough? Solar and wind are already the cheapest energy sourve in terms of production. We just need large scale storage to become cheap and practical and we're sorted. The UK government has committed to being carbon neutral by 2050. That's well before you're even prediciting the fusion becomes available.