4 ms·
There aren't enough raw materials to 1st world lifestyle the whole globe in any capacity. Serious adjustments will need to be made, or we need major technologi
by jackmott42 4y ago
There aren't enough raw materials to 1st world lifestyle the whole globe in any capacity.
Serious adjustments will need to be made, or we need major technological breakthroughs. It isn't just a question of fossil fuels lasting forever or there being enough lithium. Almost every resource is under pressure. Drinkable water, fertilizer, copper. Good luck everyone. And no need to explain the economics ideas about how price spurs investment and so on, I know.
- rcme 4y agoBoth fertilizer and drinkable water can be synthesized from sea water. Our only problem as a species is that we can’t produce enough power cleanly. Fingers crossed for fusion.
- hedora 4y agoSea water processing has elastic power demands. If we power the grid off renewables, then we’ll barely have enough electricity on calm winter weeks. That implies we’ll have more energy than we can use in the summer or on windy days. Fusion or fission are useful for meeting inelastic demand when there isn’t enough production capacity. We need those too, but not for sea water processing.
- panick21_ 4y agoNon of that changes the original issue. We are energy limited, we are not limited with anything else.
- hedora 4y agoWe are not energy limited. Building new energy production is cheaper and more sustainable than ever.
- panick21_ 4y agoWhat we are actually limited by is the political system of many countries. But going back to the original discussion, its not copper, water, fertilizer or lithium, or oil.
- panick21_ 4y agoWhy do people keep talking about fusion? Fission literally already provides practically unlimited energy and we discovered all the needed science and most of the needed technology in the 1960s.
- clouddrover 4y ago> Why do people keep talking about fusion? Because of its benefits over fission.
- panick21_ 4y agoMost of those are imaginary benefit. And it also ignores the many, many drawbacks of fusion.
- clouddrover 4y agoSure, kid.
- panick21_ 4y agoOk please tell why its so much better rather then being patronizing asshole. Lets start with some really basic economics, the most important being capital cost, fuel cost and operating cost. In terms of capital cost, a fission reactor is a far, far simpler device. Its so much simpler that its not even a comparison worth making. Fission reactors can often run for many decades without major maintenance on any of the core structures. Unless the vision of really tiny fusion reactors comes to pass, i.e. not anytime soon, this is a clear win for fission. Fuel cost is also no comparison. Fusion will require complex fuel breeding, often requiring the fusion reactor itself to breed fuel. With Fission uranium and especially thorium are almost free, thorium being a waste product of rare earth mining. Operation cost, on that we have no idea what fission will be like in practice. Seem to me containing a little Sun inside a box will lead to much higher maintenance requirements. In fusion the there is a plasma that can escape, even at far lower radioactivity. I rather life next to most GenIV fission designs. If you want to build interstellar spaceships, yes fusion is your fiend. If you want to make cheap power on earth fission will always beat fusion unless its for some dumb political reasons.