4 ms·

The billions of dollars of investment is nothing compared to the positive effect that this will have on our society. The fact that this looks difficult from wh

The billions of dollars of investment is nothing compared to the positive effect that this will have on our society. The fact that this looks difficult from where we sit is not a good reason to not do the research. Many of the biggest discoveries in history looked impossible before they became ubiquitous.

tsotha 15y ago
The billions of dollars of investment is nothing compared to the positive effect that this will have on our society. You missed the point entirely. Billions of dollars in research, even if successful, will have no positive effect whatsoever if they don't lead to a commercially viable means of generating power. It's not enough to get to break even. The end result has to be cheaper than the alternatives. I'm not a big solar power fan, in general, because I think it's too expensive. But if we're going to pretend cost doesn't mean anything, we'd be far better off taking those billions and building out a solar infrastructure with technology we have today rather than taking a dodgy gamble on something that a) may never work at all and b) probably won't be cheaper than solar if it does work.
- Yaggo 15y ago
  > I'm not a big solar power fan, in general, because I think it's too expensive. Solar energy has already reached grid parity¹ in Australia². [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity [2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-07/solar-industry-celebrates-grid-parity/2875592/?site=sydney http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-07/solar-industry-celebra...
  - tsotha 15y ago
    Sure... with feed-in tariffs and as long as you don't account for the idle capacity that needs to be there in case the sun isn't shining. If you ignore all that... grid parity!
- jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
  Basic research can have a net positive effect even if it does not result in a commercially viable product; that's how basic research works. Anyway, if we go by straight cost/benefit, nearly all of the viable alternatives are polluting. And it's a fantasy to assume that we'll completely replace our energy consumption with renewables.
  - tsotha 15y ago
    Basic research can have a net positive effect even if it does not result in a commercially viable product; that's how basic research works. Projects like NIF and ITER aren't basic research, and in any case there are all sorts of competing interests when it comes to research - we'll get better bang for our basic research buck funding, say, the Web telescope or something like the LHC. The argument for ITER and NIF has always hinged on the promise that they'll be able to produce something useful within a few decades. Anyway, if we go by straight cost/benefit, nearly all of the viable alternatives are polluting. And it's a fantasy to assume that we'll completely replace our energy consumption with renewables. It's not a fantasy because we can't do it. It's a fantasy because we can't do it for a price we're willing to pay. But what fusion advocates are asking is we instead pay for something that's going to be even more expensive.

tsotha 15y ago

The billions of dollars of investment is nothing compared to the positive effect that this will have on our society. You missed the point entirely. Billions of dollars in research, even if successful, will have no positive effect whatsoever if they don't lead to a commercially viable means of generating power. It's not enough to get to break even. The end result has to be cheaper than the alternatives. I'm not a big solar power fan, in general, because I think it's too expensive. But if we're going to pretend cost doesn't mean anything, we'd be far better off taking those billions and building out a solar infrastructure with technology we have today rather than taking a dodgy gamble on something that a) may never work at all and b) probably won't be cheaper than solar if it does work.

Yaggo 15y ago
> I'm not a big solar power fan, in general, because I think it's too expensive. Solar energy has already reached grid parity¹ in Australia². [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity [2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-07/solar-industry-celebrates-grid-parity/2875592/?site=sydney http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-07/solar-industry-celebra...
- tsotha 15y ago
  Sure... with feed-in tariffs and as long as you don't account for the idle capacity that needs to be there in case the sun isn't shining. If you ignore all that... grid parity!
jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
Basic research can have a net positive effect even if it does not result in a commercially viable product; that's how basic research works. Anyway, if we go by straight cost/benefit, nearly all of the viable alternatives are polluting. And it's a fantasy to assume that we'll completely replace our energy consumption with renewables.
- tsotha 15y ago
  Basic research can have a net positive effect even if it does not result in a commercially viable product; that's how basic research works. Projects like NIF and ITER aren't basic research, and in any case there are all sorts of competing interests when it comes to research - we'll get better bang for our basic research buck funding, say, the Web telescope or something like the LHC. The argument for ITER and NIF has always hinged on the promise that they'll be able to produce something useful within a few decades. Anyway, if we go by straight cost/benefit, nearly all of the viable alternatives are polluting. And it's a fantasy to assume that we'll completely replace our energy consumption with renewables. It's not a fantasy because we can't do it. It's a fantasy because we can't do it for a price we're willing to pay. But what fusion advocates are asking is we instead pay for something that's going to be even more expensive.