4 ms·

No. Fusion is completely different from solar. It can provide steady energy without going down for years. Solar goes down multiple times a day.

dymk 5y ago
Name a single fusion plant that has been running uninterrupted for years. Meanwhile Australia has retooled for 10% Solar and batteries in a matter of years, that number is rapidly increasing, and is turning off their coal plants.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > Name a single fusion plant that has been running uninterrupted for years. Minutes, even. Perhaps you meant fission?
  - dymk 5y ago
    No, I mean fusion. The parent comment claims "[Fusion can] provide steady energy without going down for years". I want a single example of this. Meanwhile, we have massive grids of solar and battery being installed _today_, and existing installations replacing coal plants. I'm tired of people talking about fusion (or even nuclear, as it's so mired in public FUD) as if it's some panacea. We have a solution right now: Solar and batteries. It works in places with cloudcover. It works in cold and hot climates. It works at night. It's getting cheaper every year.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      We haven't invented commercial fusion power, so none; but theoretically that is how they would function. Solar and batteries are nice but they're not yet cost effective. They're getting better. But you can't just handwave away real problems from your armchair viewpoint and assume thats all fine.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        > We haven't invented commercial fusion power We don't have working fusion power, at all. > Solar and batteries are nice but they're not yet cost effective "Cost effective" is a judgement call, not physics. If I told you that the cost of coal-generated electricity was that your great-grandchildren would live in an impoverished and difficult world, you might not view that a particular cost-effective either, yet somehow that's the "standard" against which things are judged.
        spywaregorilla 5y ago
        > We don't have working fusion power, at all. Sure we do. Look no further than this article. We can make it, but its not commercially viable. > "Cost effective" is a judgement call, not physics. If I told you that the cost of coal-generated electricity was that your great-grandchildren would live in an impoverished and difficult world, you might not view that a particular cost-effective either, yet somehow that's the "standard" against which things are judged. Ah yes, think of the children. Yes, coal is problematic, but the reality is that energy is expensive and we need a lot of it. If we tried to go full solar right now it would cost trillions of dollars, and the grid would still fail in the winter when heating is most important, and the economy would enter a massive depression as the cost of doing things gets both more expensive on average and extremely volatile. You say this is a judgement call, not physics, but then go on to just broadly make assumptions about all of the relevant facts. You're not the one being logical and fact based. You're the one observing, yes, we have a climate crisis, and thus assuming that a radical solution for which you have no particular understanding of the economic or infrastructure implications is the right one because it's at least different from what we have now. Renewables are good. They are getting cheaper. They're growing in capacity. And yet, I guarantee you, we cannot go full solar now. And I also guarantee that you do not have nearly sufficient of a view of the system dynamics to be making statements as bold as you are. This is hard. It's not just evil greedy coal mine operators ruining everything.
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        > Sure we do. Look no further than this article. We can make it, but its not commercially viable. Q total is way below 1 (translation: it took far more energy to make the energy that was produced, than was produced). We do not have working fusion power, if "working fusion power" means "you get more out than you put in". As for the rest of this, I have no idea who you think you're replying to. Just one follow up, neverthless: > And yet, I guarantee you, we cannot go full solar now. The USA spent more than US$300M per day on the war in Afghanistan, for 20 years. I guarantee you that if "we wanted to go full solar" now, we could. US$2T buys you a lot of anything, including even today's vaguely clunky battery tech.
- kimbernator 5y ago
  the sun
  - dymk 5y ago
    This is a great example, we should try to make use of all that sun (is there another word for that?) energy!
    - kimbernator 5y ago
      Obviously, it is a bit silly to point to the sun and say it's a successful fusion reactor in a discussion meant to refute solar's usefulness. Despite that, it is an example of the principles of fusion working quite reliably, and it should stand to reason that having smaller sun-like power sources would be preferable to relying on a single fusion reactor that's only available half of the time.
- ComradePhil 5y ago
  It can do that if they manage to make it work as planned Solar, even under ideal conditions, needs backup and much more manpower and management to make it work... and even then, it is not reliable. So, solar is not a replacement for fusion, or nuclear or coal for that matter. It is great for supplementation though.
  - socialdemocrat 5y ago
    No it doesn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
    - ComradePhil 5y ago
      They are high maintainence and very expensive, but the thermal storage is very promising, in that it doesn't have the worst downside of solar. China has been experimenting with them, so I'm hopeful that they will come up with a cheap way to do that.

dymk 5y ago

Name a single fusion plant that has been running uninterrupted for years. Meanwhile Australia has retooled for 10% Solar and batteries in a matter of years, that number is rapidly increasing, and is turning off their coal plants.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> Name a single fusion plant that has been running uninterrupted for years. Minutes, even. Perhaps you meant fission?
- dymk 5y ago
  No, I mean fusion. The parent comment claims "[Fusion can] provide steady energy without going down for years". I want a single example of this. Meanwhile, we have massive grids of solar and battery being installed _today_, and existing installations replacing coal plants. I'm tired of people talking about fusion (or even nuclear, as it's so mired in public FUD) as if it's some panacea. We have a solution right now: Solar and batteries. It works in places with cloudcover. It works in cold and hot climates. It works at night. It's getting cheaper every year.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    We haven't invented commercial fusion power, so none; but theoretically that is how they would function. Solar and batteries are nice but they're not yet cost effective. They're getting better. But you can't just handwave away real problems from your armchair viewpoint and assume thats all fine.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      > We haven't invented commercial fusion power We don't have working fusion power, at all. > Solar and batteries are nice but they're not yet cost effective "Cost effective" is a judgement call, not physics. If I told you that the cost of coal-generated electricity was that your great-grandchildren would live in an impoverished and difficult world, you might not view that a particular cost-effective either, yet somehow that's the "standard" against which things are judged.
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        > We don't have working fusion power, at all. Sure we do. Look no further than this article. We can make it, but its not commercially viable. > "Cost effective" is a judgement call, not physics. If I told you that the cost of coal-generated electricity was that your great-grandchildren would live in an impoverished and difficult world, you might not view that a particular cost-effective either, yet somehow that's the "standard" against which things are judged. Ah yes, think of the children. Yes, coal is problematic, but the reality is that energy is expensive and we need a lot of it. If we tried to go full solar right now it would cost trillions of dollars, and the grid would still fail in the winter when heating is most important, and the economy would enter a massive depression as the cost of doing things gets both more expensive on average and extremely volatile. You say this is a judgement call, not physics, but then go on to just broadly make assumptions about all of the relevant facts. You're not the one being logical and fact based. You're the one observing, yes, we have a climate crisis, and thus assuming that a radical solution for which you have no particular understanding of the economic or infrastructure implications is the right one because it's at least different from what we have now. Renewables are good. They are getting cheaper. They're growing in capacity. And yet, I guarantee you, we cannot go full solar now. And I also guarantee that you do not have nearly sufficient of a view of the system dynamics to be making statements as bold as you are. This is hard. It's not just evil greedy coal mine operators ruining everything.
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        > Sure we do. Look no further than this article. We can make it, but its not commercially viable. Q total is way below 1 (translation: it took far more energy to make the energy that was produced, than was produced). We do not have working fusion power, if "working fusion power" means "you get more out than you put in". As for the rest of this, I have no idea who you think you're replying to. Just one follow up, neverthless: > And yet, I guarantee you, we cannot go full solar now. The USA spent more than US$300M per day on the war in Afghanistan, for 20 years. I guarantee you that if "we wanted to go full solar" now, we could. US$2T buys you a lot of anything, including even today's vaguely clunky battery tech.
kimbernator 5y ago
the sun
- dymk 5y ago
  This is a great example, we should try to make use of all that sun (is there another word for that?) energy!
  - kimbernator 5y ago
    Obviously, it is a bit silly to point to the sun and say it's a successful fusion reactor in a discussion meant to refute solar's usefulness. Despite that, it is an example of the principles of fusion working quite reliably, and it should stand to reason that having smaller sun-like power sources would be preferable to relying on a single fusion reactor that's only available half of the time.
ComradePhil 5y ago
It can do that if they manage to make it work as planned Solar, even under ideal conditions, needs backup and much more manpower and management to make it work... and even then, it is not reliable. So, solar is not a replacement for fusion, or nuclear or coal for that matter. It is great for supplementation though.
- socialdemocrat 5y ago
  No it doesn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
  - ComradePhil 5y ago
    They are high maintainence and very expensive, but the thermal storage is very promising, in that it doesn't have the worst downside of solar. China has been experimenting with them, so I'm hopeful that they will come up with a cheap way to do that.