4 ms·

The catastrophic global warming you mention is not a boolean. It can always get worse, with the planet becoming more and more inhospitable, up to the point wher

The catastrophic global warming you mention is not a boolean. It can always get worse, with the planet becoming more and more inhospitable, up to the point where mankind can't survive (wet bulb temperature permanently above 35c --> everyone dies without air conditioning) - and beyond. Even if it's too late to avoid it completely, it still makes very much sense to work on not making it even worse. Suggesting to abandon efforts in something because it will anyway not be ready in time, or to stop restrictions because "anyway it's too late" is just the next step in the strategy of the deniers - or, rather, their agitators, motivated by immense profit.

t43562 5y ago
Should we build N Wind turbines or blow the money on more fusion research? I would guess that we need to keep fusion research alive but the real bulk of the money should be for things that will work now.
- rob74 5y ago
  Why not do both? Unless the wind turbines are in my back yard of course (which they can't be, according to the rules where I live wind turbines have to be ~2 km away from anyone's back yard, but still).
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Because money is fungible. A dollar spent on fusion is a dollar not spent on solar panels or turbines that would displace fossil fuels immediately. And, it would be a dollar wasted, because the fusion work will never produce any commercially competitive power, anyway. So, it is a choice between buying something that contributes to a solution, or just pissing it away.
    - rhn_mk1 5y ago
      > A dollar spent on fusion is a dollar not spent on solar panels or turbines that would displace fossil fuels immediately I see this claim a lot, but what makes this true? Why would money allocation be so inelastic, and why can't it become flexible?
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Meaning, why can't we just spend an unlimited amount on everything we think we might like?
        rhn_mk1 5y ago
        Who says we can't? Money is a social construct.
        hallway_monitor 5y ago
        Are you a troll? Come on. Money is a proxy for human labor. Human labor is not a social construct, it is a physical reality.
      - thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
        Because money, in the end, is just a proxy for labor, energy, land and raw materials. One can print money, but cannot print factors of production
        rhn_mk1 5y ago
        Sure, but then the poster said that we can't allocate labor to this specific goal without taking it away from that specific goal. Why would that be true? Energy supply takes a minuscule fraction of our total labor, and nothing stops us from supporting fusion without unsupporting solar. Or am I missing something?
        hallway_monitor 5y ago
        The argument is that it would be far more effective to take all of the allegedly wasted fusion research money and spend it immediately on wind and solar. No one knows the future but with the way things have gone so far, fusion in its current form looks like a giant waste of time and money.
        5y ago
- gruturo 5y ago
  We can, and we should, do both. Most of the money raised by MIT's ARC / SPARC project has not been taken away from wind and solar - it's extra money that people chose to invest because, financially, it looks like a decent gamble (or, in some cases, even without looking so profitable, but a step in the right direction, and some people value that). I'm a big believer in wind and solar, although their intrinsically intermittent operation causes me to also worry about baseload power options, and nuclear fusion is the most attractive and promising development in that field. I think it's stupid to look at one part of the solution and not at the other(s).
bratwurst3000 5y ago
I get your point but honestly you have to be an optimist to think that way. Al Gore was nearly voted in office on a global warming campaign. And since then nearly nothing good happened and it only got worse. So how can you judge someone who is just thinking about themself or profits at this times? I try to be optimistic and engage in politics to change the world a bit but as time pass by it feels more and more like a last „ grab what you can to have good life“ before catastrophe.

t43562 5y ago

Should we build N Wind turbines or blow the money on more fusion research? I would guess that we need to keep fusion research alive but the real bulk of the money should be for things that will work now.

rob74 5y ago
Why not do both? Unless the wind turbines are in my back yard of course (which they can't be, according to the rules where I live wind turbines have to be ~2 km away from anyone's back yard, but still).
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Because money is fungible. A dollar spent on fusion is a dollar not spent on solar panels or turbines that would displace fossil fuels immediately. And, it would be a dollar wasted, because the fusion work will never produce any commercially competitive power, anyway. So, it is a choice between buying something that contributes to a solution, or just pissing it away.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    > A dollar spent on fusion is a dollar not spent on solar panels or turbines that would displace fossil fuels immediately I see this claim a lot, but what makes this true? Why would money allocation be so inelastic, and why can't it become flexible?
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Meaning, why can't we just spend an unlimited amount on everything we think we might like?
      - rhn_mk1 5y ago
        Who says we can't? Money is a social construct.
        hallway_monitor 5y ago
        Are you a troll? Come on. Money is a proxy for human labor. Human labor is not a social construct, it is a physical reality.
    - thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
      Because money, in the end, is just a proxy for labor, energy, land and raw materials. One can print money, but cannot print factors of production
      - rhn_mk1 5y ago
        Sure, but then the poster said that we can't allocate labor to this specific goal without taking it away from that specific goal. Why would that be true? Energy supply takes a minuscule fraction of our total labor, and nothing stops us from supporting fusion without unsupporting solar. Or am I missing something?
        hallway_monitor 5y ago
        The argument is that it would be far more effective to take all of the allegedly wasted fusion research money and spend it immediately on wind and solar. No one knows the future but with the way things have gone so far, fusion in its current form looks like a giant waste of time and money.
        5y ago
gruturo 5y ago
We can, and we should, do both. Most of the money raised by MIT's ARC / SPARC project has not been taken away from wind and solar - it's extra money that people chose to invest because, financially, it looks like a decent gamble (or, in some cases, even without looking so profitable, but a step in the right direction, and some people value that). I'm a big believer in wind and solar, although their intrinsically intermittent operation causes me to also worry about baseload power options, and nuclear fusion is the most attractive and promising development in that field. I think it's stupid to look at one part of the solution and not at the other(s).

bratwurst3000 5y ago

I get your point but honestly you have to be an optimist to think that way. Al Gore was nearly voted in office on a global warming campaign. And since then nearly nothing good happened and it only got worse. So how can you judge someone who is just thinking about themself or profits at this times? I try to be optimistic and engage in politics to change the world a bit but as time pass by it feels more and more like a last „ grab what you can to have good life“ before catastrophe.