4 ms·
But there's only a few hundred years' worth of uranium and coal remaining (and we better not be burning the latter for that long for greenhouse reasons). There
by drjesusphd 13y ago
But there's only a few hundred years' worth of uranium and coal remaining (and we better not be burning the latter for that long for greenhouse reasons). There is millions' of years worth of fusion fuel on Earth.
The fact that it's "only" half a coal plant is hardly a criticism.
- prewett 13y agoWell, $20 billion and counting for half a coal plant is a bit of a problem... And actually, it's not half a coal plant, because the half coal plant is net + 500 MW, and since ITER isn't supposed to reach the ignition point, the output is 500 MW, but the input is > 500 MW. If fusion requires wonder-of-the-world kind of technology to not even break even, it makes me somewhat pessimistic. (However, I still say, more power to them, fund them, let's see where this goes)
- drjesusphd 13y ago> since ITER isn't supposed to reach the ignition point, the output is 500 MW, but the input is > 500 MW. Actually, it's supposed to reach about 10x breakeven, but there can be reasonable debate on how possible that is. Ignition is something different, when the fusion power itself keeps the plasma hot enough to sustain it. This is unlikely for ITER. But your point is valid. It won't actually function as a power plant. > If fusion requires wonder-of-the-world kind of technology to not even break even, it makes me somewhat pessimistic. (However, I still say, more power to them, fund them, let's see where this goes) I agree, and I too think it's well worth it. I'm certainly not suggested we rely entirely on fusion research for getting us through the upcoming energy crisis, but it will be essential if we ever want long-term (centuries) sustainable industrial growth.