3 ms·
Fusion is irrelevant as a practical energy source here on earth. The simple reason is that we already have all the "fusion energy" we'll ever need from that bi
by jbotz 2y ago
Fusion is irrelevant as a practical energy source here on earth. The simple reason is that we already have all the "fusion energy" we'll ever need from that big fusion reactor in the sky... modern photovoltaics convert this energy to electricity at close to the same efficiency that you could convert the heat from a controlled fusion reactor to electricity. OK, yeah, photovoltaics still don't work at night, but there's a battery revolution underway that is solving that problem, and the two, photovoltaics + batteries, are already vastly cheaper than fusion can ever hope to be.
Fusion will be important for the future of humanity, especially in deep space, so we should keep researching and developing it. But it's not relevant to the climate crisis... the already existing technologies have that covered, we only need to deploy them faster.
- steelbrain 2y agoWhile I admire your optimism, this is not realistic. The earth is big and not all parts get the same amount or intensity of sunlight. Nordic countries cannot rely on Solar with batteries, for example.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> it's not relevant to the climate crisis... the already existing technologies have that covered, we only need to deploy them faster Going all in on solar and batteries either requires nuclear energy, thereby raising power costs, or natural gas, which means we can’t make our 2050 goals. We simply can’t manufacture the panels and batteries fast enough, the latter especially if we also want to decarbonise transportation. Fusion won’t come fast enough for the climate crisis. But it may be relevant for complete decarbonisation, e.g. replacing the natural gas plants we’re spinning up as quickly as we’re deploying solar.
- CELLOPHANET 2y agoNo, b/c we really need it as a weapon. Fusion lasers will finally provide the death ray of sci-fi. If you think "practical energy source" is what fusion research is really about then you've been bamboozled.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Fusion lasers will finally provide the death ray of sci-fi …why? If you want massive lasers you use a nuke to power it [1][2]. > If you think "practical energy source" is what fusion research is really about Outside the NIF, which is openly about stockpile stewardship, yeah. That’s what it’s about. Tokomaks aren’t militarily useful. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pumped_laser https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pumped_laser [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur
- nullpoint420 2y agoDon’t know why you’re so adverse to using the phrase “solar panels.” The biggest downside to solar is the amount of surface area required and cost per panel. Not to mention the amount of rare earth required to make just one. I’d be interested in much power fusion will output in terms of square footage and cost to compare them directly.
- bazodedo 2y agoTbh, i've encountered residental areas where the houses happen to have exposed roofs. I suppose that might be one of them places you could throw those panels. Regarding the amount of rare earth required to make just one solar panel, i was surprised to find out that effectively all you need is something called 'silicon' as well as an initial investment in energy to bake the thing. It just so happens to be that, according to google, this 'silicon' stuff is quite abundant and can for example be found in desert sand. Since you can stack those fusion reactors vertically, i suppose they'd come out on top in the power/sqft category.