3 ms·

Yes and no. The first generation of fusion reactors will be expensive and monolithic, but we will learn a lot from them and it will prove their fundamental fun

Yes and no. The first generation of fusion reactors will be expensive and monolithic, but we will learn a lot from them and it will prove their fundamental functionality. The second generation reactors will likely be using better fuels and squeezing plasma into different shapes to keep them running as long as possible. Even if other renewable energy sources continue to get cheaper and become prolific, they still have the problem of energy storage. Simply put, we don't have anywhere near the resources required to build all that storage. So what we need instead is a solid mainline energy source (nuclear and fusion). In the case of a massive breakthrough in energy storage, at best it will just delay fusion power. We will still need to use fusion off planet.

hutzlibu 5y ago
"we don't have anywhere near the resources required to build all that storage." Sources? There are lithiumfree batteries, made from cheap metals. Saltwater batteries for example. Airpressure as energy storage. Hydrogen or more processed into methanol .... Etc., etc. all working technology as of today. And sure, sure, storage comes with lower efficency, but there is no reason, we cannot transform the various deserts into big solarplants. Fusion would be awesome to have. But I see no indication, that it will be ready anytime soon, when we need it, to produce clean energy at scale. And if it is ready, we probably still need resources, like Helium-3. Ready to mine the moon?