ncmncm

24 ms·

241.
by ncmncm 4y ago
There is also the problem of extracting grams of tritium every day from a thousand tons of lithium "blanket" so you will have fuel to operate from tomorrow. But the biggest problem is no one will pay more than 10 cents for what co
242.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Probably neither of those will find substantial use.
243.
by ncmncm 4y ago
There are numerous practical methods.
244.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Most storage will be built after there is renewable capacity to charge it from, therefore available to build it with.
245.
by ncmncm 4y ago
On the bright side, it would be low-level waste in a century. If you built it underground to begin with, you wouldn't need to bury it.
246.
by ncmncm 4y ago
There is plenty of lithium, but we won't be burning any except in H-bombs. We may hope not there, either. If we don't fend off climate disaster, there will be plenty of that soon enough.
247.
by ncmncm 4y ago
The pigeons need to be gulled again.
248.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Will you believe Deep Mind when it tells you it cannot work?
249.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Nobody is screaming. Even presuming usable structural materials can be discovered (not worked on in 3 decades) and tritium at PPB concentration can be extracted from thousands of tons of blanket material every day (never worked on at all),
250.
by ncmncm 4y ago
There are no natural fission reactors operating on Earth, and have not been any for billions of years.
251.
by ncmncm 4y ago
It would be stupid to put money into storage before there is excess renewable capacity to charge it from. So, people instead put money into generating capacity. When we have any use for storage, we will build out storage.
252.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Obviously you can fuse about anything by accelerating nuclei at each other fast enough. If it takes more energy to do it than you can get back, it is of purely academic interest. Firing lasers comes up many orders of magnitude short. Anothe
253.
by ncmncm 4y ago
There is in fact no problem of "footprint" of renewables for nukes to pretend to solve.
254.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Renewables have long since demonstrated ability to replace fossil fuels, and are being built out at an always increasing rate, already exceeding 20% in many places. France is importing power.
255.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Storage is not, in fact, a problem. Numerous methods using century-old tech are cheap and practical, and only need to be built out. They are not being built out yet because there is not excess renewable generating capacity to charge them fr
256.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Money is fungible. A billion dollars spent chasing fusion is exactly a billion not spent displacing CO2 production.
257.
by ncmncm 4y ago
There is no reason to expect that p-11B fusion is possible. It might be, in a hundred years, if our present understanding is wrong, and somebody figures out how to reflect gamma rays.
258.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Making empty promises about fusion tech is a good way to collect investors' money with no risk of fraud indictments, and no need ever to pay any back. Work done under government grants is similar.
259.
by ncmncm 4y ago
The overwhelming majority of storage used will not be batteries, unless some new chemistry's cost is very low. Large-scale storage will be very cheap, on par with panels. It really is just civil engineering. Any competent civil enginee
260.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Engineering work halted 30+ years ago. There has been no recent work on structural materials that could withstand the neutron bombardment, and no work on extracting bred tritium at parts per billion concentration from thousands of tons of
261.
by ncmncm 4y ago
The necessarily super-expensive fusion would be a strict liability. It will, in consequence, not be built. All work toward that is pure waste. The DoD does spend a great deal of our tax money on fusion, but not for "abundant cheap cl
262.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Most storage will not be batteries. Most energy expended building storage will be from renewables.
263.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Perovskite longevity is up to five years, which at the price is already sufficient to be immediately useful in many places. There will be no fusion.
264.
by ncmncm 4y ago
False. There is exactly zero need to devote any land surface at all exclusively to the solar panels that will provide for all our needs. Solar coexists nicely with numerous other uses. Similarly, for wind turbines. Storage may consume som
265.
by ncmncm 4y ago
There are no "increasingly rare components". So, no, it is not any sort of legitimate question. It is, rather, concern trolling.
266.
by ncmncm 4y ago
No and no. Solar panels use a little bit of silver and more copper, and no rarer materials. There are numerous battery chemistries. None competing for utility-scale use involve any rare materials or substantial carbon emission. Likely che
267.
by ncmncm 4y ago
There is no "large scale battery problem". Energy storage is a simple matter of civil engineering: a big job to construct enough, but requiring no new technology. We are not building it now because it would be stupid to build stor
268.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Neither one.
269.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Fusion will absolutely not be "10x cheaper", in any possible circumstance. Rather, it would necessarily be at least 10x as costly as fission; and fission is not now competitive, and gets less competitive all the time. Solar and wi
270.
by ncmncm 4y ago
"I enjoyed programming in Java, and being relieved of the responsibility for producing a quality product." - Mark Dominus https://blog.plover.com/prog/Java.html

More ›