3 ms·
We can but it means that you'll have solar captors (wind turbine, solar pv) littering the ground _or_ we'll just eat less energy. I'm afraid not many of us are
by wiz21c 5y ago
We can but it means that you'll have solar captors (wind turbine, solar pv) littering the ground _or_ we'll just eat less energy. I'm afraid not many of us are ready for any of these two. Fusion would allow us to go on as usual. If only we had reliable information about the "is fusion for real use possible" question...
- belorn 5y agoFor a lot of places in the world you would need more storage than you need production units, especially further away you get from the equator and deserts. Fixing enough production from wind and solar is already well economical up to a point of 100% capacity with some countries already there, but with around 50% of actually energy consumption being from renewable. We don't even need to litter the ground as ocean based wind farms are quite effective in using the wast amount of oceans we have. If however we are going to stop using fossil fuels we need to convert that energy into a storage medium like hydrogen, having massive pipelines to transport it, have large amount of storage facilities, and built equal amount of capacity of gas burning power plants as we have renewable capacity demands. The economics of that is the tricky bit.
- knuthsat 5y agowithouthotair.com goes through this scenario of future being fully powered with renewables and it's just not possible. China cannot meet it's energy demand increase even with building nuclear plants at a massive rate.
- wiz21c 5y agoI was about to refer to McKay's stuff. Too bad he's gone...