3 ms·

Imagine a second Manhattan Project, except this time, it's to produce fusion energy and try to save the world from climate disasters instead of making a weapon.

Imagine a second Manhattan Project, except this time, it's to produce fusion energy and try to save the world from climate disasters instead of making a weapon. Who would you tap to participate in/lead this?

throwaway44023 3y ago
Elon Musk and his ability to gather financing and top engineers
- astrange 3y ago
  Better get him to rehab first.
killingtime74 3y ago
Oppenheimer again
Karellen 3y ago
Why do you think finishing the fusion research (just another 10 years? again?), and then designing commercial reactors, and then building out all the fusion generation capacity we need, could possibly take less time/money/effort than just building out all the wind/solar/battery capacity instead, which we already know how to make?
- m463 3y ago
  I think it's a good strategy to have alternate energy sources. We use energy in so many ways, we should also generate it in many ways too. We should develop a portfolio of energy sources. Yes, the top ways might be solar, wind, batteries. But what if we need energy at night during cold weather without wind? We will continue to burn giant oil tankers full of fossil fuels. Looking back, the outlook for Solar PV in president carter era seemed just about as unsatisfying as fusion is now. I also think fission should get some predictable sustained research funding, and political will to make it a part of the picture, but safe and modern.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Things to ponder if you're having these conversations. > a portfolio of energy sources. Yes, the top ways might be solar, wind, batteries. Batteries are energy storage, not a source. Other storage methods are worth finding out about. > what if we need energy at night during cold weather without wind? We will continue to burn giant oil tankers full of fossil fuels. We already burn vast amounts of fossil fuels (how much per day globally | by various countries? it's worth a look). The key thing here is how much less would be used if a country is only "topping up" energy storage and delivery during renewable down times? What are the differences between a coal fired power station that drives a turbine and a gas powered power station that drives a turbine (ramping up | always "on" times, etc). > I also think fission should get some predictable sustained research funding In which country though? South Korea and China are steadily building fission power reactors, the USofA has had ongoing fission research as part of being a nuclear nation since the Manhatten project, it's DoE straddles nuclear for weapons and nuclear for power, they had nuclear submarines, etc.
thrance 3y ago
We already have the ITER project, a well-funded international (~35 nations) attempt at building a fusion reactor prototype. Also we probably shouldn't count on a miracle to save us from climate change.

throwaway44023 3y ago

Elon Musk and his ability to gather financing and top engineers

astrange 3y ago
Better get him to rehab first.

killingtime74 3y ago

Oppenheimer again

Karellen 3y ago

Why do you think finishing the fusion research (just another 10 years? again?), and then designing commercial reactors, and then building out all the fusion generation capacity we need, could possibly take less time/money/effort than just building out all the wind/solar/battery capacity instead, which we already know how to make?

m463 3y ago
I think it's a good strategy to have alternate energy sources. We use energy in so many ways, we should also generate it in many ways too. We should develop a portfolio of energy sources. Yes, the top ways might be solar, wind, batteries. But what if we need energy at night during cold weather without wind? We will continue to burn giant oil tankers full of fossil fuels. Looking back, the outlook for Solar PV in president carter era seemed just about as unsatisfying as fusion is now. I also think fission should get some predictable sustained research funding, and political will to make it a part of the picture, but safe and modern.
- defrost 3y ago
  Things to ponder if you're having these conversations. > a portfolio of energy sources. Yes, the top ways might be solar, wind, batteries. Batteries are energy storage, not a source. Other storage methods are worth finding out about. > what if we need energy at night during cold weather without wind? We will continue to burn giant oil tankers full of fossil fuels. We already burn vast amounts of fossil fuels (how much per day globally | by various countries? it's worth a look). The key thing here is how much less would be used if a country is only "topping up" energy storage and delivery during renewable down times? What are the differences between a coal fired power station that drives a turbine and a gas powered power station that drives a turbine (ramping up | always "on" times, etc). > I also think fission should get some predictable sustained research funding In which country though? South Korea and China are steadily building fission power reactors, the USofA has had ongoing fission research as part of being a nuclear nation since the Manhatten project, it's DoE straddles nuclear for weapons and nuclear for power, they had nuclear submarines, etc.

thrance 3y ago

We already have the ITER project, a well-funded international (~35 nations) attempt at building a fusion reactor prototype. Also we probably shouldn't count on a miracle to save us from climate change.