4 ms·
Agreed, but grid and storage technology that will completely solve the renewable intermittence is probably as far in the future as commercial fusion reactors.
by rnhmjoj 5y ago
Agreed, but grid and storage technology that will completely solve the renewable intermittence is probably as far in the future as commercial fusion reactors.
- pfdietz 5y agoThis is a gross mischaracterization of the situation. There are a wide variety of energy storage schemes that promise to make renewables + storage cheaper than fission, which in turn is likely to be much cheaper than fusion. Simply dumping excess renewable power into a resistively heated thermal mass and using that to drive a power plant is likely to be cheaper than fusion.
- ncmncm 5y agoThe only open question about large-scale energy storage is which of many viable alternatives will turn out cheapest, and when their price will bottom out. Battery storage that starts at 1/3 of lithium cost, before price begins to fall, is coming to market. Until prices do start to bottom out, investment in storage is wasteful, so dollars go to generating capacity of known utility. Each square meter of panel that goes online delays climate disaster by a precisely understood amount. Each panel made can go into service almost instantly. No matter how big the project, it can start delivering power anytime. There is no smallest-useful facility, right down to the residential rooftop. Every dollar diverted to Tokamak instead brings climate disaster nearer.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]