3 ms·

> Commercially viable fusion energy. Will change a lot of things Considering that we already have a fusion reactor in the skies, I think that the room temp roo

by mrtksn 3y ago

> Commercially viable fusion energy. Will change a lot of things Considering that we already have a fusion reactor in the skies, I think that the room temp room pressure superconductor is the next best thing. Fusion is good but at this stage, the natural one will just do. Think global network of solar cells interconnected with LK-99.

ant6n 3y ago
Yeah. Perhaps add in some cheap battery technology to the mix of solar power and superconductor, and energy production could become co2 neutral. The creation of a global electricity network perhaps also has some effect on global cooperation. Now we just need reduce the use of fossil fuels (cars, aviation, heating, industry).
- moffkalast 3y ago
  Well we'd need cheaper panels for that. Currently they last like what, 30 years and take 3 years to pay off the energy it took to make them? That gives them a roughly a 9x return on investment. You need at least 30-40x to maintain our civilization as-is. Crude oil provides about 100x return. Luckily offshore wind is almost over 30x.
  - htrp 3y ago
    Doesn't matter if you can cover all of the Sahara with panels and get near lossless transmission. Economies of scale do apply.
    - moffkalast 3y ago
      They apply to some degree, but it still takes X amount of materials to make each panel, you don't magically get more because you're making a continent worth of them. Even if you magically reduce the overhead 50% somehow, that's still only 18x which is not even close. Plus the fixed cost of making a laughably absurd amount of superconductor, and the monumenal logistics of deploying and maintaining all of it likely puts the project into net negative for a decade or two. Saharan dust will also cover those panels in like a day. Probably makes more sense to float them on some body of water instead, with automatic washing and cooling?

by mrtksn 3y ago

ant6n 3y ago

Yeah. Perhaps add in some cheap battery technology to the mix of solar power and superconductor, and energy production could become co2 neutral. The creation of a global electricity network perhaps also has some effect on global cooperation. Now we just need reduce the use of fossil fuels (cars, aviation, heating, industry).

moffkalast 3y ago
Well we'd need cheaper panels for that. Currently they last like what, 30 years and take 3 years to pay off the energy it took to make them? That gives them a roughly a 9x return on investment. You need at least 30-40x to maintain our civilization as-is. Crude oil provides about 100x return. Luckily offshore wind is almost over 30x.
- htrp 3y ago
  Doesn't matter if you can cover all of the Sahara with panels and get near lossless transmission. Economies of scale do apply.
  - moffkalast 3y ago
    They apply to some degree, but it still takes X amount of materials to make each panel, you don't magically get more because you're making a continent worth of them. Even if you magically reduce the overhead 50% somehow, that's still only 18x which is not even close. Plus the fixed cost of making a laughably absurd amount of superconductor, and the monumenal logistics of deploying and maintaining all of it likely puts the project into net negative for a decade or two. Saharan dust will also cover those panels in like a day. Probably makes more sense to float them on some body of water instead, with automatic washing and cooling?