5 ms·

Fusion is cool and all but it will not save us from anything. We already have enough tech to make emission free and cheap electricity. "All" we need is politic

by pjerem 2y ago

Fusion is cool and all but it will not save us from anything. We already have enough tech to make emission free and cheap electricity. "All" we need is political action to build more clean power plants (nuclear, solar …) and continuation of research to electrify more sectors. Fusion will not solve any of those important issues. It will only be the cherry on the cake if it become deployed globally anytime in the future. But we are far from it and we shouldn’t be that excited or hope for it to make a better world. I very much see fusion as going to the moon : it’s not going to solve any short time issue but it can be a milestone in human advancement if we manage to survive until it becomes our primary source of energy.

mrkandy 2y ago
The main challenge is to ensure a sustainable 10-x increase in energy production over the next 10-20 years with at least support current level of prices. All other problem will be solvable, I we archive this goal
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> "All" we need is political action to build more clean power plants We’re building solar about as quickly as we can, and without cannibalising EV battery supply chains are also maxed out on batteries. Fission power remains uncompetitive with natural gas; you’d have to convince Western consumers to bear higher prices for reduced emissions which nobody is willing to do.
- catskull 2y ago
  Exactly this. If we drop the cost per kWh by half, the market will respond. The market doesn’t ultimately care about the planet which is why we need govt but bringing the price per kWh with clean fusion kills two birds with one stone.
  - pjerem 2y ago
    That’s why I talk about political action. Public is exactly here to act when the market doesn’t care about something important.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > why I talk about political action. Public is exactly here to act when the market doesn’t care about something important Which is why I mentioned consumers. Voters have made this incredibly clear every time polled: we are not wiling to pay more to reduce emissions.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        Can you mention a recent time they were polled and make this incredibly clear?
        snapplebobapple 2y ago
        Right now in Canada the libs are just one no confidence vote away from irrelevance, at least partly because of the carbon tax. It's not a direct poll though, as the liberal politicians are basically the junkest junk that party has ever gotten elected and all the corrupt and/or stupid things they have been up to are all coming to light at once. The carbon tax isn't helping them but it is unclear if it's the major problem for the voters or just one of the very large basket of problems that are becoming obvious.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        > It's not a direct poll though That's putting it mildly.
        lenkite 2y ago
        “We will frack, frack, frack and drill, baby, drill,” Trump said in Detroit on Oct. 18. “I will cut your energy prices in half within 12 months. … Cut them in half within 12 months of taking office. That’s going to bring everything down.”
- skulk 2y ago
  How do I square this with claims that the US heavily subsidizes fossil fuels? Are those claims false or am I misunderstanding how the market works?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > How do I square this with claims that the US heavily subsidizes fossil fuels? By noting it’s irrelevant. Solar production isn’t capital constrained. Certainly not in the West.
    - skulk 2y ago
      > Fission power remains uncompetitive with natural gas; you’d have to convince Western consumers to bear higher prices for reduced emissions which nobody is willing to do. I was mainly reacting to this. Can nuclear really not compete with gas even if the government subsidized both equally? (with all the caveats that come with comparing subsidies)
      - moomin 2y ago
        I have no idea whether fission plants are competitive with gas plants, and knowing a bit about multi-decade projects, I suspect no-one does. It’s all guesswork. What I do know is fission has a horrible cost profile. First there’s a huge build cost, which can often skyrocket unpredictably. Then you’ve got a hugely profitable part where you’re basically printing money. Then there’s an enormous cost at the end. Huge cleanup costs, whether it’s nuclear or coal, basically means either government has its eye on the ball to an excellent extent (Australia seems to be good here.) or it’s not going to be fixed except by the same government that didn’t tie down the guys who made the money enough. I’d call fission a bad choice for countries with weak or chaotic government. You need a rock solid civil service to allow it. (You’ll observe the same is true of almost every mineral extraction project.)
  - nradov 2y ago
    That really depends on what you count as a subsidy. The federal government isn't really making direct payments to fossil fuel companies. Some of them are allowed to lease federal lands at what might be considered below-market prices. The US military helps to provide free security for some oil exporting countries. Fossil fuel producers and customers are allowed to emit pollutants without paying for cleanup or remediation costs. Are those subsidies? Depends on your perspective.
HDThoreaun 2y ago
Fission just isn't a competitive source of energy economically. Nobody is willing to pay 10x as much for energy just to get nuclear. Seems clear to me that the actual solution we need are cheap batteries so we can scale renewables
- JackSlateur 2y ago
  This is funny Here in France, most of our power is from nuclear. This gets us really cheap power production, compared to our neighbors in Europe.
jsbisviewtiful 2y ago
> We already have enough tech to make emission free and cheap electricity. As much as I am a proponent of green energy, this claim is outlandish. If we had started building more nuclear reactors 10 years ago, sure, but by themselves wind and solar aren’t quite sufficient enough for places like the US to fully replace fossil fuels. There are limitations for both, namely the need for space and acceptable weather conditions. Solar panel energy yield still has potential to unlock, as well. Last update I’d seen about panels said they still only hover around 25% energy yield.

by pjerem 2y ago

mrkandy 2y ago

The main challenge is to ensure a sustainable 10-x increase in energy production over the next 10-20 years with at least support current level of prices. All other problem will be solvable, I we archive this goal

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> "All" we need is political action to build more clean power plants We’re building solar about as quickly as we can, and without cannibalising EV battery supply chains are also maxed out on batteries. Fission power remains uncompetitive with natural gas; you’d have to convince Western consumers to bear higher prices for reduced emissions which nobody is willing to do.

catskull 2y ago
Exactly this. If we drop the cost per kWh by half, the market will respond. The market doesn’t ultimately care about the planet which is why we need govt but bringing the price per kWh with clean fusion kills two birds with one stone.
- pjerem 2y ago
  That’s why I talk about political action. Public is exactly here to act when the market doesn’t care about something important.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > why I talk about political action. Public is exactly here to act when the market doesn’t care about something important Which is why I mentioned consumers. Voters have made this incredibly clear every time polled: we are not wiling to pay more to reduce emissions.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      Can you mention a recent time they were polled and make this incredibly clear?
      - snapplebobapple 2y ago
        Right now in Canada the libs are just one no confidence vote away from irrelevance, at least partly because of the carbon tax. It's not a direct poll though, as the liberal politicians are basically the junkest junk that party has ever gotten elected and all the corrupt and/or stupid things they have been up to are all coming to light at once. The carbon tax isn't helping them but it is unclear if it's the major problem for the voters or just one of the very large basket of problems that are becoming obvious.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        > It's not a direct poll though That's putting it mildly.
      - lenkite 2y ago
        “We will frack, frack, frack and drill, baby, drill,” Trump said in Detroit on Oct. 18. “I will cut your energy prices in half within 12 months. … Cut them in half within 12 months of taking office. That’s going to bring everything down.”
skulk 2y ago
How do I square this with claims that the US heavily subsidizes fossil fuels? Are those claims false or am I misunderstanding how the market works?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > How do I square this with claims that the US heavily subsidizes fossil fuels? By noting it’s irrelevant. Solar production isn’t capital constrained. Certainly not in the West.
  - skulk 2y ago
    > Fission power remains uncompetitive with natural gas; you’d have to convince Western consumers to bear higher prices for reduced emissions which nobody is willing to do. I was mainly reacting to this. Can nuclear really not compete with gas even if the government subsidized both equally? (with all the caveats that come with comparing subsidies)
    - moomin 2y ago
      I have no idea whether fission plants are competitive with gas plants, and knowing a bit about multi-decade projects, I suspect no-one does. It’s all guesswork. What I do know is fission has a horrible cost profile. First there’s a huge build cost, which can often skyrocket unpredictably. Then you’ve got a hugely profitable part where you’re basically printing money. Then there’s an enormous cost at the end. Huge cleanup costs, whether it’s nuclear or coal, basically means either government has its eye on the ball to an excellent extent (Australia seems to be good here.) or it’s not going to be fixed except by the same government that didn’t tie down the guys who made the money enough. I’d call fission a bad choice for countries with weak or chaotic government. You need a rock solid civil service to allow it. (You’ll observe the same is true of almost every mineral extraction project.)
- nradov 2y ago
  That really depends on what you count as a subsidy. The federal government isn't really making direct payments to fossil fuel companies. Some of them are allowed to lease federal lands at what might be considered below-market prices. The US military helps to provide free security for some oil exporting countries. Fossil fuel producers and customers are allowed to emit pollutants without paying for cleanup or remediation costs. Are those subsidies? Depends on your perspective.

HDThoreaun 2y ago

Fission just isn't a competitive source of energy economically. Nobody is willing to pay 10x as much for energy just to get nuclear. Seems clear to me that the actual solution we need are cheap batteries so we can scale renewables

JackSlateur 2y ago
This is funny Here in France, most of our power is from nuclear. This gets us really cheap power production, compared to our neighbors in Europe.

jsbisviewtiful 2y ago

> We already have enough tech to make emission free and cheap electricity. As much as I am a proponent of green energy, this claim is outlandish. If we had started building more nuclear reactors 10 years ago, sure, but by themselves wind and solar aren’t quite sufficient enough for places like the US to fully replace fossil fuels. There are limitations for both, namely the need for space and acceptable weather conditions. Solar panel energy yield still has potential to unlock, as well. Last update I’d seen about panels said they still only hover around 25% energy yield.