3 ms·

Why the down votes? What is factually wrong with that statement?

• coolspot 3y ago
  Didn’t downvote you, but having unlimited energy source is worth it and can allow us to remove heat from earth. Human-caused CO2 alone contributes 2.1W/sqm while all current human energy production is 0.04W/sqm . Removing extra CO2 alone would offset 50x energy production growth. Then you can do things like placing reflective satellites between earth and sun.
• pfdietz 3y ago
  Because the argument involves unlimited future growth in energy use. Compared to the current energy use, fusion (assuming it could be made to work practically) would indeed solve global warming.
• EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
  The burning of 1 kg of coal heats the earth in two ways: A) the energy that is produced immediately (about 24MJ) B) the excess energy absorbed from the Sun over many subsequent years, caused by CO2 emitted burning that coal. The B is much larger than A. The fusion only produces A, but not B.
• constantcrying 3y ago
  The threat of the earth heating up by 0.3 degrees due to energy production is irrelevant or at least absolutely worth it as a tradeoff for working fusion. The dangers of climate change is not that the earth heats up by some small amount, the earth can easily cope with that. It is that continued greenhouse gas emissons are causing a ever increasing heatup due to trapped solar energy. (It is also extremely strage that he argues for geothermal in his comments. Does he not realize what that is? Literally heating up the surface of the earth with energy from below.)