6 ms·
Totally disagree. Solar + battery will never match the energy density of fusion.
by grej 4y ago
Totally disagree. Solar + battery will never match the energy density of fusion.
- seanmcdirmid 4y agoSolar is basically indirect fusion.
- ksaxena 4y agoWell, with that logic, coal is also indirect fusion
- gruturo 4y agoYeah. And Wind, Gas, Hydro, etc. Basically everything except fission, tidal and a portion of geothermal. Admittedly it's not a terribly useful classification.
- seanmcdirmid 4y agoSolar is less indirect than they. It’s like if we made our own fusion reactor and rather than using it to boil water close by to generate steam, we put the water a few miles out.
- Ekaros 4y agoSo is all other energy production methods we use... Apart from some fraction of geothermal.
- delecti 4y agoAnd even that, the heavy elements of the earth (basically anything heavier than Helium) only exist because of the sun's predecessor, making the heat from the core also just recycling from fusion.
- scatters 4y agoAnd tidal.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kadonoishi 4y agoTidal would rely on orbital energy.
- epistasis 4y agoAnd fusion will never be able to stop emitting massive amounts of waste heat that must be dealt with somehow. I'm not sure what benefit density provides, especially since people obsessed with density seem to only focus on the reaction chamber, which is the smallest part of the massive building and heat rejection apparatus that will be needed. Rejecting waste heat is a real difficulty, and part of the reason that's France's fission fleet is at less than 50% capacity right now. Thermal electricity production has a chance of becoming obsolete compared to direct conversion of photons into electricity. When solar plus storage costs less than steam turbines plus heat rejection, then it doesn't matter how cheap or dense the fusion part is in terms of economics.
- sacrosancty 4y agoWhy do we need high energy density? Are you imagining a future society with much higher energy use?