3 ms·
Solar+wind(+energy storage) needs a lot more materials and land to produce the same amount of energy. So the footprint of fusion would be a lot smaller. Also
by joak 5y ago
Solar+wind(+energy storage) needs a lot more materials and land to produce the same amount of energy.
So the footprint of fusion would be a lot smaller.
Also for the same reason deployment would be faster allowing a faster phase out of fossil fuels.
- pfdietz 5y agoSolar and wind can be deployed very quickly, and can be deployed today. Fusion will be available somewhere between "decades from now" and "never".
- stevenhuang 5y agoA tired response, and a false choice at that. Deploying solar and wind does not preclude continued research and development into alternative energy production methods.
- pfdietz 5y agoIt's a direct rebuttal to the false statement "Also for the same reason deployment would be faster allowing a faster phase out of fossil fuels." Fossil fuels had better be phased out soon, and fusion cannot be available in that time. IMO, the prospects of fusion reaching a practical state are so remote that even the current level of funding on it is difficult to justify. There are fundamental engineering constraints that render it inferior to fission -- and fission is now going extinct itself, being too expensive.