3 ms·

The very first sentence misplaces putative fusion generation's use: > It’s not about to solve climate change .. Well quite. Obviously no single measure 'solve

The very first sentence misplaces putative fusion generation's use: > It’s not about to solve climate change .. Well quite. Obviously no single measure 'solves' climate change, but even its logically possible contribution - decarbonising electricity production - isn't going to happen. We need to have thoroughly completed this project long before there's any realistic chance of fusion-generated electricity becoming widely available. So if/when fusion power is to hand, it will add to or replace existing decarbonised power sources. It's not any less exciting for that - if it lives up to a fraction of its potential, it could be utterly transformative for human activities, as were newly discovered energy sources before it. Some of those uses could include future climate change mitigation and adaptation measures - you just can't predict what might be possible with vast cheap energy surpluses on tap. But we have to get there first, which includes the formidable task of keeping a global technological society functional enough to be able to complete projects of this scope. A necessary condition for that is going to be to decarbonise while we can.

runarberg 4y ago
Interesting aspect about fusion power in relation to the current climate crisis and fusion technology still being decades away from mass adoption is that we do need to electrical infrastructure. We need a robust grid, we need electric transportation vehicles, we need electric heating and cooking, etc. If we got fusion tomorrow, it would be cool, but it still wouldn’t save us from the climate crisis because we simply don’t have the infrastructure to use all that electricity. Transferring to renewable energy as we build up the infrastructure and retrofit our housing is the smart choice here. And when fusion finally becomes a reality, we’ll be ready to use all that abundant energy from day one. Maybe we could use all this extra energy for sucking carbon out of the atmosphere in a giant cleanup effort.
- aussiesnack 4y ago
  Yes. At least we know how to build the infrastructure. It can be done very quickly if we so choose & fund. And again, yes, fusion could conceivably help us reverse some of the damage caused in the meantime. Re fusion power, the causality is the reverse of how it's normally expressed. We don't need fusion to fix the climate crisis (it comes too late). But we do need to fix the climate crisis to be able to create usable fusion power. The scale of research & implementation it relies on depends on a well-functioning global network of nations. If we collapse into multiple wars over who will take the hundreds of millions of mid-century refugees, who will and won't quit fossil fuels, not to mention the trivialities of Great Power politicking, then fusion power just won't happen.
ciconia 4y ago
> So if/when fusion power is to hand, it will add to or replace existing decarbonised power sources. There are a few misconceptions about energy I think it's important to clear up. - New energy sources have never replaced older ones. Instead they were just added to the pile. We are currently burning more biomass and more coal than ever before. So-called decarbonized energy sources have never replaced fossil fuels. - There is an interdependency, a symbiotic relationship if you will, between different energy sources. To pump oil you need steel, which means burning coal. To mine coal you need diesel-powered machines. To build solar panels you need to mine minerals with diesel-powered machines. To make wind turbines you need steel, and thus burn coal. To build nuclear reactors you need lots of steel, lots of cement, which also means burning coal. Even to be able to burn biomass (renewable, carbon-neutral, yay) on an industrial scale you need machines to cut all those trees, powered by fossil fuels. And so forth and so on... - The mining activity related with so called "decarbonized energy" (solar, wind, nuclear, lithium batteries etc) is heavily based on fossil fuels. This, in addition to its multiple disastrous environmental impacts: destruction of ecosystems, water pollution, air pollution, aquifer poisoning. - The global economy is still totally dependent on fossil fuels - for mining, global transport, food production and to a large degree manufacturing. Just about any object in your house or in your pocket was manufactured and delivered to you using fossil fuels. Those Teslas everybody is so enamored with won't exist without the coal burned to make the steel they contain, the oil burned to mine all the other metals (actually a substantial chunk of the periodic table), and also the oil burned getting them delivered to you. Not to mention the fact that you'll still need to burn some gas and coal in order to charge them. For nuclear fusion, even if the technology is advanced enough to create a stable reaction that releases more energy than it consumes, personally I highly doubt it will be sufficient to ween us off fossil fuels. Nuclear fission (the most dense energy source we currently have) has never done that.
- aussiesnack 4y ago
  I made no comment on the feasibility of decarbonising energy production (let alone that of any other sector), and won't because it's not really relevant to this thread. I'm just arguing that fusion power won't come about without prior substantial decarbonisation, therefore if that happens it ipso facto will be replacing or adding to already clean power generation facilities.
olau 4y ago
You're assuming it would be cheap. People assumed that with fission too. Meanwhile PV and wind turbines are getting cheaper.
- aussiesnack 4y ago
  True. I think it's a reasonable assumption. But it doesn't matter as I don't see there being much competition between it and solar/wind. The latter will be needed to get us to the stage of being able to do fusion at scale anyway. Fusion is such a huge project, I don't believe it can be done without a well-functioning global network of individually thriving nations, and think dealing with climate change is a necessary prerequisite for that. In other words, in my view for fusion to have become useful at scale, I think we already must have decarbonised electricity production (with solar/wind/geo etc). If at that stage fusion is cheap enough to give our civilisation a boost, all the better. If not, we'll be in better shape than looks likely now anyway.

runarberg 4y ago

Interesting aspect about fusion power in relation to the current climate crisis and fusion technology still being decades away from mass adoption is that we do need to electrical infrastructure. We need a robust grid, we need electric transportation vehicles, we need electric heating and cooking, etc. If we got fusion tomorrow, it would be cool, but it still wouldn’t save us from the climate crisis because we simply don’t have the infrastructure to use all that electricity. Transferring to renewable energy as we build up the infrastructure and retrofit our housing is the smart choice here. And when fusion finally becomes a reality, we’ll be ready to use all that abundant energy from day one. Maybe we could use all this extra energy for sucking carbon out of the atmosphere in a giant cleanup effort.

aussiesnack 4y ago
Yes. At least we know how to build the infrastructure. It can be done very quickly if we so choose & fund. And again, yes, fusion could conceivably help us reverse some of the damage caused in the meantime. Re fusion power, the causality is the reverse of how it's normally expressed. We don't need fusion to fix the climate crisis (it comes too late). But we do need to fix the climate crisis to be able to create usable fusion power. The scale of research & implementation it relies on depends on a well-functioning global network of nations. If we collapse into multiple wars over who will take the hundreds of millions of mid-century refugees, who will and won't quit fossil fuels, not to mention the trivialities of Great Power politicking, then fusion power just won't happen.

ciconia 4y ago

> So if/when fusion power is to hand, it will add to or replace existing decarbonised power sources. There are a few misconceptions about energy I think it's important to clear up. - New energy sources have never replaced older ones. Instead they were just added to the pile. We are currently burning more biomass and more coal than ever before. So-called decarbonized energy sources have never replaced fossil fuels. - There is an interdependency, a symbiotic relationship if you will, between different energy sources. To pump oil you need steel, which means burning coal. To mine coal you need diesel-powered machines. To build solar panels you need to mine minerals with diesel-powered machines. To make wind turbines you need steel, and thus burn coal. To build nuclear reactors you need lots of steel, lots of cement, which also means burning coal. Even to be able to burn biomass (renewable, carbon-neutral, yay) on an industrial scale you need machines to cut all those trees, powered by fossil fuels. And so forth and so on... - The mining activity related with so called "decarbonized energy" (solar, wind, nuclear, lithium batteries etc) is heavily based on fossil fuels. This, in addition to its multiple disastrous environmental impacts: destruction of ecosystems, water pollution, air pollution, aquifer poisoning. - The global economy is still totally dependent on fossil fuels - for mining, global transport, food production and to a large degree manufacturing. Just about any object in your house or in your pocket was manufactured and delivered to you using fossil fuels. Those Teslas everybody is so enamored with won't exist without the coal burned to make the steel they contain, the oil burned to mine all the other metals (actually a substantial chunk of the periodic table), and also the oil burned getting them delivered to you. Not to mention the fact that you'll still need to burn some gas and coal in order to charge them. For nuclear fusion, even if the technology is advanced enough to create a stable reaction that releases more energy than it consumes, personally I highly doubt it will be sufficient to ween us off fossil fuels. Nuclear fission (the most dense energy source we currently have) has never done that.

aussiesnack 4y ago
I made no comment on the feasibility of decarbonising energy production (let alone that of any other sector), and won't because it's not really relevant to this thread. I'm just arguing that fusion power won't come about without prior substantial decarbonisation, therefore if that happens it ipso facto will be replacing or adding to already clean power generation facilities.

olau 4y ago

You're assuming it would be cheap. People assumed that with fission too. Meanwhile PV and wind turbines are getting cheaper.

aussiesnack 4y ago
True. I think it's a reasonable assumption. But it doesn't matter as I don't see there being much competition between it and solar/wind. The latter will be needed to get us to the stage of being able to do fusion at scale anyway. Fusion is such a huge project, I don't believe it can be done without a well-functioning global network of individually thriving nations, and think dealing with climate change is a necessary prerequisite for that. In other words, in my view for fusion to have become useful at scale, I think we already must have decarbonised electricity production (with solar/wind/geo etc). If at that stage fusion is cheap enough to give our civilisation a boost, all the better. If not, we'll be in better shape than looks likely now anyway.