3 ms·
It's not clear yet that fusion is a desirable source of energy. It sounds quite expensive: You need a high tech gizmo running a plasma and steam turbines to tur
by adrianN 4y ago
It's not clear yet that fusion is a desirable source of energy. It sounds quite expensive: You need a high tech gizmo running a plasma and steam turbines to turn the heat into electricity. I'm doubtful that this can be cost-competitive with renewables+storage.
- anonyfox 4y agowell to be fair, _large scale_ storage is also far from being a solved problem. Renewables are already exceptionally good to create energy and even getting more efficient… but the „on-demand“ part is the difficult one. Fusion might just be the clean „baseline“ supply we need
- adrianN 4y agoHydrogen is a proven, scalable technology for storing large amounts of energy. Power sources with high capex like nuclear and (presumably) fusion are incompatible with variable generation like renewables. Running them only makes economic sense when you run them at 100% all the time.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y agoDepends on the fusion process and reactor. There are ones which omit the steam step by directly using the charged particles, turning them into electricity. In theory, OFC.
- candiodari 4y agoYou forget the applications this would have. Every fusion reactor we have, even ITER, would easily fit into an aircraft carrier. The W7-X can fit in a super-yacht sized vessel, and give it enough power to fly to the moon (not in a convenient/usable form, but certainly enough). And yeah, so can a nuclear reactor of course, but if it manages to blow up halfway it would poison half the earth. Yet fusion reactors are safe. What if we told NASA engineers they can use a gigawatt of power to drive ion engines? The applications of this kind of power go far beyond keeping apartments warm.