5 ms·
Yes, but they have the incredible advantage that they produce large amounts of energy economically today, whereas, as the article states, it is not yet clear w
by deepspace 4y ago
Yes, but they have the incredible advantage that they produce large amounts of energy economically today, whereas, as the article states, it is not yet clear whether fusion will ever be able to produce significant energy, let alone economically.
- p1mrx 4y agoWind and solar only produce energy when the weather is cooperating, and it's difficult to predict how climate change will impact future availability. Hydrogen might be economical someday, but currently it's rather difficult to generate, store, and transport.
- ncmncm 4y agoThere is always wind and solar somewhere. It need only be transmitted or stored to be used in other places and times. Both of those are cheap. People advocating nukes wish they were not.
- mcronce 4y agoHand-waving away the transmission/storage required to make intermittent energy sources "reliable" does not magically make them trivial, or even solved, problems. I don't really care whether or not nukes are cheap when they're the only reliable low-carbon energy source we have, and when they're the safest energy source we have. Some things are more fundamentally important than economics.
- ncmncm 4y agoYet, people deciding where to spend their own money are spending it on solar. Nukes are always built with money coerced from other people.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pfdietz 4y agoWe can look at simulations using actual historical weather data and actual cost estimates to determine how much it would cost to deal with intermittency of wind/solar using storage. The result is something that looks cheaper than fission (or cheap than fusion is likely to achieve.) https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/
- rapsey 4y agoIf solar/wind is used to make hydrogen when they are available, you have a energy generating loop that provides energy usable at any time.