4 ms·

Well while I think it was a mistake to do in the short term, Germany has been preparing for this for a while. However for greener energy advocates it looks lik

Well while I think it was a mistake to do in the short term, Germany has been preparing for this for a while. However for greener energy advocates it looks like Fusion really is close to being viable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_ignition#2021_and_2022_ignition_reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_ignition#2021_and_2022_...

smt88 3y ago
Fusion is not close[1] and it's insane to give up on fission while waiting for it. Fission is safe and inexpensive. With the addition of batteries to spread out the base load, we should be expanding it globally. 1. https://theconversation.com/amp/limitless-power-arriving-too-late-why-fusion-wont-help-us-decarbonise-176974 https://theconversation.com/amp/limitless-power-arriving-too...
- iamerroragent 3y ago
  Um fusion being close to being viable, which your link is supporting, doesn't mean it's close enough to help us this century with regarding climate change (which is what your link is about), which isn't what I said it would do. I apologize if I worded it a way that you felt implied that. South Korea I understand is investing heavily here[1]. If I'm not mistaken so is China. Too bad we (Western society) can't work with Iran on this as well. However, please consider when we talk about changing our sources of energy over, that what will work has to work within costs and regulatory conditions. If I'm not mistaken it can take around 20 years for an experienced nuclear capable nation to get a reactor up and running from initial phase of saying yes you can build a reactor. Solar is outpacing that.[2] Which your link also supports. "The pattern of power supply is changing. The massive take-up of solar power by households means we have now permanently shifted from the old model of large power stations to one where supply is distributed around the network. " Fission (by itself) is not solving climate change this century either. Additionally I think fission powered cargo ships would be a great option to reduce carbon emissions too. Since the U.S. Navy is very experienced with nuclear powered vessels and Russia has that nuclear powered icebreaker, I think it's technology possible. Unfortunately setting up a regularity system for that is likely completely unrealistic though I'm happy to be wrong here. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea 2. https://news.energysage.com/solar-vs-nuclear-battle-for-the-best-carbon-free-power/ https://news.energysage.com/solar-vs-nuclear-battle-for-the-...
game_the0ry 3y ago
But why not keep a perfectly good source of energy active until fission and green make up the difference? Makes no sense.
- iamerroragent 3y ago
  Fukushima happened and that was how Germany decided to respond.

smt88 3y ago

Fusion is not close[1] and it's insane to give up on fission while waiting for it. Fission is safe and inexpensive. With the addition of batteries to spread out the base load, we should be expanding it globally. 1. https://theconversation.com/amp/limitless-power-arriving-too-late-why-fusion-wont-help-us-decarbonise-176974 https://theconversation.com/amp/limitless-power-arriving-too...

iamerroragent 3y ago
Um fusion being close to being viable, which your link is supporting, doesn't mean it's close enough to help us this century with regarding climate change (which is what your link is about), which isn't what I said it would do. I apologize if I worded it a way that you felt implied that. South Korea I understand is investing heavily here[1]. If I'm not mistaken so is China. Too bad we (Western society) can't work with Iran on this as well. However, please consider when we talk about changing our sources of energy over, that what will work has to work within costs and regulatory conditions. If I'm not mistaken it can take around 20 years for an experienced nuclear capable nation to get a reactor up and running from initial phase of saying yes you can build a reactor. Solar is outpacing that.[2] Which your link also supports. "The pattern of power supply is changing. The massive take-up of solar power by households means we have now permanently shifted from the old model of large power stations to one where supply is distributed around the network. " Fission (by itself) is not solving climate change this century either. Additionally I think fission powered cargo ships would be a great option to reduce carbon emissions too. Since the U.S. Navy is very experienced with nuclear powered vessels and Russia has that nuclear powered icebreaker, I think it's technology possible. Unfortunately setting up a regularity system for that is likely completely unrealistic though I'm happy to be wrong here. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea 2. https://news.energysage.com/solar-vs-nuclear-battle-for-the-best-carbon-free-power/ https://news.energysage.com/solar-vs-nuclear-battle-for-the-...

game_the0ry 3y ago

But why not keep a perfectly good source of energy active until fission and green make up the difference? Makes no sense.

iamerroragent 3y ago
Fukushima happened and that was how Germany decided to respond.