3 ms·

The first part is very likely wrong. Fusion won’t be a major grid player in this century and by extension may be “too late” for meaningful climate change. How

The first part is very likely wrong. Fusion won’t be a major grid player in this century and by extension may be “too late” for meaningful climate change. However, we may be more fucked than people think. Seasonal energy storage (10^14 Wh scale) has no solutions. Where are the low carbon alternatives to base load power production? The second part is entirely wrong. That only applies to IEF programs in the US. NIF is the weapons program. Most of the money going into fusion energy research is to say “at least we tried” when the energy crisis causes a societal collapse.

Retric 6y ago
There is zero need for seasonal storage. Solar is insanely cheap, just build excess capacity. If on average 50% of annual solar generation was wasted, that bumps it up to ~4c/kWh. Assuming 40% of your energy needs comes from battery‘s that adds 10c/kWh * 40%. So your total 24/7 365 grid energy including peaking power averages to just 8c/kWh which is vastly less than nuclear. Further that’s optimistic from nuclear’s perspective, hydro and wind power significantly reduce the needs for battery storage.
ncmncm 6y ago
You seem to be saying that all that is needed to conceal weapons-targeted budgeting from you is to label it "EIF"?
- willis936 6y ago
  Sorry I should have said “ICF”: inertial confinement fusion. IEC is inertial electrostatic confinement. It’s a confusing set of acronyms that are easy to fumble. NIF has always been a weapons project. It was made to step around test ban treaties. That’s how it was bankrolled. It’s time on energy research is up and its current primary objective is to keep a team of nuclear weapons experts sharp. The next largest ICF machine is tiny by comparison. I don’t generalize “all ICF machines”, but NIF is the representative of the technology, similar to W7-X for stellarators and ITER for tokamaks.

Retric 6y ago

There is zero need for seasonal storage. Solar is insanely cheap, just build excess capacity. If on average 50% of annual solar generation was wasted, that bumps it up to ~4c/kWh. Assuming 40% of your energy needs comes from battery‘s that adds 10c/kWh * 40%. So your total 24/7 365 grid energy including peaking power averages to just 8c/kWh which is vastly less than nuclear. Further that’s optimistic from nuclear’s perspective, hydro and wind power significantly reduce the needs for battery storage.

ncmncm 6y ago

You seem to be saying that all that is needed to conceal weapons-targeted budgeting from you is to label it "EIF"?

willis936 6y ago
Sorry I should have said “ICF”: inertial confinement fusion. IEC is inertial electrostatic confinement. It’s a confusing set of acronyms that are easy to fumble. NIF has always been a weapons project. It was made to step around test ban treaties. That’s how it was bankrolled. It’s time on energy research is up and its current primary objective is to keep a team of nuclear weapons experts sharp. The next largest ICF machine is tiny by comparison. I don’t generalize “all ICF machines”, but NIF is the representative of the technology, similar to W7-X for stellarators and ITER for tokamaks.