3 ms·

"is about to thrust us into a world where for long periods of time, we have massive energy abundance of zero-marginal cost energy generation. " We're nowhere n

"is about to thrust us into a world where for long periods of time, we have massive energy abundance of zero-marginal cost energy generation. " We're nowhere near that. I don't believe that energy will be truly available in abundance until fusion or later. The 'new capabilities' we need are in storage, smarter regulation about transmission because the monopolies are ugly etc.. Any new technical game changers are in the works. Disruptive technologies don't come out of nowhere. There's someone in a lab, working away on something, already publishing papers for what will one day be fairly transformative.

epistasis 5y ago
I don't think that fusion will ever provide terrestrial energy abundance. The current fusion schemes under consideration all resort back to being a heat source to boil water and drive a turbine. Renewable energy + storage is within striking distance of undercutting the just the steam turbine side of fusion. Since the only benefit of fusion I've ever heard is a huge amount of energy from a small amount of space, which presumably allows lower costs for that heat energy, let's assume best case of zero cost for fusion. In that scenario, fusion-driven electricity is more expensive than renewables, so it will be renewables providing abundance, not fusion. If somebody figures out direct conversion of fusion to electricity, that would change my projections. Also it's possible that for non-terrestrial applications, fusion might be the best applications. But I think it's far too early in the development of space travel to predict what sort of energy mechanisms we may use.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Renewables are nowhere near what you indicate, that's the problem. There is no future in which a Canadian throws up a panel and gets vast amounts of cheap energy. Fission would by far and away be the cheapest form of energy: it's literally hot rocks that boil water. What makes it expensive is dealing with the radiation ans safety. Fusion, without those artifacts might yield vast amounts of free energy. But we don't really know. Wind and Sun are never going to provide vast surpluses of electricity, they're just going to help us come down a bit off of fossil fuels.

epistasis 5y ago

I don't think that fusion will ever provide terrestrial energy abundance. The current fusion schemes under consideration all resort back to being a heat source to boil water and drive a turbine. Renewable energy + storage is within striking distance of undercutting the just the steam turbine side of fusion. Since the only benefit of fusion I've ever heard is a huge amount of energy from a small amount of space, which presumably allows lower costs for that heat energy, let's assume best case of zero cost for fusion. In that scenario, fusion-driven electricity is more expensive than renewables, so it will be renewables providing abundance, not fusion. If somebody figures out direct conversion of fusion to electricity, that would change my projections. Also it's possible that for non-terrestrial applications, fusion might be the best applications. But I think it's far too early in the development of space travel to predict what sort of energy mechanisms we may use.

jollybean 5y ago
Renewables are nowhere near what you indicate, that's the problem. There is no future in which a Canadian throws up a panel and gets vast amounts of cheap energy. Fission would by far and away be the cheapest form of energy: it's literally hot rocks that boil water. What makes it expensive is dealing with the radiation ans safety. Fusion, without those artifacts might yield vast amounts of free energy. But we don't really know. Wind and Sun are never going to provide vast surpluses of electricity, they're just going to help us come down a bit off of fossil fuels.