4 ms·

>> every dollar spent on fusion is a dollar not spent on building more solar panels and wind turbines. > You care to back your armchairing with data? I'm conf

by SamBam 3y ago

>> every dollar spent on fusion is a dollar not spent on building more solar panels and wind turbines. > You care to back your armchairing with data? I'm confused by your confusion. I'm literally saying we could optionally be spending the money we currently spend on fusion on solar panels instead. This isn't a statement that needs data. The question is simply which is going to go further in decarbonizing our energy: $1 spent on solar or $1 spent on fusion research? That's an open question, of course, and people don't have the answer, since one is based on probabilities of future success. Note, though, that even if fusion is successful, it may still be more expensive than solar, and so then would it actually be successful? We would have saved more tons of CO2 by making more solar panels. [1] [2] [3] 1. https://www.wired.com/story/no-fusion-energy-wont-be-limitless/ https://www.wired.com/story/no-fusion-energy-wont-be-limitle... 2. https://futurism.com/elon-musk-fusion-more-expensive-wind-solar https://futurism.com/elon-musk-fusion-more-expensive-wind-so... 3. https://engineering.princeton.edu/news/2023/03/16/fusions-future-u-s-could-come-down-dollars-and-cents https://engineering.princeton.edu/news/2023/03/16/fusions-fu...

junofan 3y ago
> I'm literally saying we could optionally be spending the money we currently spend on fusion on solar panels instead. This isn't a statement that needs data. We can’t. Who is picking between fusion research and 7% IRR solar projects? Two totally different risk profiles. > We would have saved more tons of CO2 by making more solar panels. If that’s your sole metric it’s probably worth thinking a little broader towards a solution. I don’t think Mohammed bin Salman is going to cap Ghawar Field because we put up a bunch of solar panels over here. He’s going to sell to somebody else. I think it’s better to let the market work towards solutions that compete across all dimensions—density included—and let that drive the energy transition.
bandyaboot 3y ago
So the question is, what is a better energy infrastructure investment—definitely spending a dollar on fusion research, or not spending that dollar on fusion research and instead maybe, in theory, spending it on solar panels. I’ll take the good plan now vs the maybe a better plan later option.
- fch42 3y ago
  "Solar vs. Fusion" isn't really important as long as trillions of $/€/£/... are sunk into fossil fuel extraction and use ? There's plenty to reaearch in Solar Panels still as well - Perovskite is hot now, but other material systems, engineering optimisation, inverter efficiencies, BIPV, non-Li-Ion battery systems, all these and then some are actively researched and developed right now. And not all of that will productise. Yet, move money off fossil subsidies to those first ... and only after bash nuclear, whether fission or fusion. Even if fusion is the energy source of the future and will always be that - fossil fuels are that of the past. They shall be, or remain, buried. This really isn't about renewable vs. renewable.
belorn 3y ago
Comparing basic science research with commercial product research is comparing apples with oranges. Governments spend research money on space research, particle accelerator, fusion research, basic medical research, and similar that do not intend to turn a profit. National Institutes of Health for example spends more on basic medical research than all of industry combined. The health industry takes that research and uses it to develop products, which combined R&D are several times that of the budget of NiH. $1 of NiH basic medical research is not the same as $1 R&D by a medical company, and especially not the same as $1 going into production. Spending $1 to produce a pill may save a life. $1 of NiH basic medical research may save a population.
huytersd 3y ago
We could but it’s a short sighted perspective. It’s like telling someone working on the steam engine to stop spending money because we could buy so many horses instead.

by SamBam 3y ago

junofan 3y ago

> I'm literally saying we could optionally be spending the money we currently spend on fusion on solar panels instead. This isn't a statement that needs data. We can’t. Who is picking between fusion research and 7% IRR solar projects? Two totally different risk profiles. > We would have saved more tons of CO2 by making more solar panels. If that’s your sole metric it’s probably worth thinking a little broader towards a solution. I don’t think Mohammed bin Salman is going to cap Ghawar Field because we put up a bunch of solar panels over here. He’s going to sell to somebody else. I think it’s better to let the market work towards solutions that compete across all dimensions—density included—and let that drive the energy transition.

bandyaboot 3y ago

So the question is, what is a better energy infrastructure investment—definitely spending a dollar on fusion research, or not spending that dollar on fusion research and instead maybe, in theory, spending it on solar panels. I’ll take the good plan now vs the maybe a better plan later option.

fch42 3y ago
"Solar vs. Fusion" isn't really important as long as trillions of $/€/£/... are sunk into fossil fuel extraction and use ? There's plenty to reaearch in Solar Panels still as well - Perovskite is hot now, but other material systems, engineering optimisation, inverter efficiencies, BIPV, non-Li-Ion battery systems, all these and then some are actively researched and developed right now. And not all of that will productise. Yet, move money off fossil subsidies to those first ... and only after bash nuclear, whether fission or fusion. Even if fusion is the energy source of the future and will always be that - fossil fuels are that of the past. They shall be, or remain, buried. This really isn't about renewable vs. renewable.

belorn 3y ago

Comparing basic science research with commercial product research is comparing apples with oranges. Governments spend research money on space research, particle accelerator, fusion research, basic medical research, and similar that do not intend to turn a profit. National Institutes of Health for example spends more on basic medical research than all of industry combined. The health industry takes that research and uses it to develop products, which combined R&D are several times that of the budget of NiH. $1 of NiH basic medical research is not the same as $1 R&D by a medical company, and especially not the same as $1 going into production. Spending $1 to produce a pill may save a life. $1 of NiH basic medical research may save a population.

huytersd 3y ago

We could but it’s a short sighted perspective. It’s like telling someone working on the steam engine to stop spending money because we could buy so many horses instead.