4 ms·
It doesn't seem like it's quick enough. We're, at minimum, decades away from it even being built out commonly, and to _really_ save ourselves we should have alr
by kadoban 5y ago
It doesn't seem like it's quick enough. We're, at minimum, decades away from it even being built out commonly, and to _really_ save ourselves we should have already replaced a substantial portion of the world's energy generation decades ago.
- NateEag 5y agoSure, it may be too little, too late. You don't know that until the failure is complete, though, and "it may fail" is a terrible reason to not try the best shots we have.
- kadoban 5y agoI mean, it _will_ fail at stopping global warming, there's no "may" about it. It will probably have other positive effects though. I'm very onboard for any potential fusion power generation, I just don't think it has any hope of saving us from global warming.
- nielsbot 5y agoCan we use it to put the CO2 back in the ground? I guess there are some irreversible effects once warming reaches a certain threshold however.
- avidphantasm 5y agoYes, this is part of what would need to happen: using a super abundance of essentially carbon-free energy to do geo-engineering on a massive scale (including artificial carbon sequestration).
- sandos 5y agoIt might in the future turn out to be more efficient with a "few" reactors than, say, lots of batteries and wind turbines and solar panels, from a resource perspective. But I think not even that will come true, if we optimize stuff enough, which we will have a long time to do before fusion is here.