|
Feb 2022
2:25pm, 9 Feb 2022
16,636 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Fusion is still a minimum 40 years away.
Don't lose sleep over it.
Won't help climate change.
And renewables will be cheaper and cheaper.
It's the same argument as other nuclear fission technologies. Show me a working commercial protoype with costs and then we'll talk.
Outstanding scientific achievement. Nothing to get excited about on the energy front.
|
|
Feb 2022
2:27pm, 9 Feb 2022
16,637 posts
|
rf_fozzy
And I wish people would get the stupid "baseload" argument/idea out of their heads.
It's stupid.
Wind and solar **are** stable. Wrong to say otherwise.
|
|
Feb 2022
2:30pm, 9 Feb 2022
41,366 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Fozzy, I used the perspective of 100 years actually, as you know! Fission always had dangerous, long term, radioactive waste as its problem. Fusion doesn't have that. It's really hard technology, but the one thing that humans do well is solve really hard technology problems!
Agree, it's not going to be commercially or environmentally beneficial in my lifetime. That's not a reason for not pursuing something though.
Also doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to fix and remove all the harmful things we are doing today. We absolutely should.  G
|
|
Feb 2022
2:34pm, 9 Feb 2022
2,616 posts
|
Fields
Doesn’t sound like I’ll be boiling any fusion-powered kettles in my lifetime.
Would l
|
|
Feb 2022
2:36pm, 9 Feb 2022
16,638 posts
|
rf_fozzy
But the point is that it'll be obsolete (in that context) before it's ready.
Wind and solar are only going to fall in price. Energy storage is already falling in price.
Fusion will probably only have a space for where a direct large source of power is needed because it'll be expensive.
Not saying it's not useful nor worth carrying on with the research, but the idea that it's going to be the saviour of Climate Change is simply not true.
We need to be at zero CO2 by 2040 latest. Fusion isn't going to be viable on that timescale.
|
|
Feb 2022
2:38pm, 9 Feb 2022
2,617 posts
|
Fields
Would like to see sustainable renewable electricity solutions being installed for all homes and households.
Funded or subsidised by a windfall tax on oil and gas and exiting nuclear power and weapons.
Subsidies bracketed depending on earnings. The govt has this data. They could have the money from the above. They just have to do it.
Won’t happen under this government. Could it happen under another?
|
|
Feb 2022
2:57pm, 9 Feb 2022
29,582 posts
|
macca 53
Probably not, Fields but they do have the ability to require the installation of such systems (ideally to passivhaus standards). Iirc Norwich council built some houses to this standard a couple of years ago.
|
|
Feb 2022
2:57pm, 9 Feb 2022
29,583 posts
|
macca 53
Should have added “in new builds”
|
|
Feb 2022
5:31pm, 9 Feb 2022
17,396 posts
|
3M (aka MarkyMarkMark)
Just to point out - technically, all "solar" power, and arguably all energy sources on the planet, are fusion powered since the energy is derived (either recently of a few million+ years ago) from the sun. (Even the kinetic energy of tidal power is gravitationally linked to the sun and the moon.....) I'll get me hat.
Although, if we ever want to get off this planet as a species in a sustainable and wholesale sort of way and need a reliable source of energy, fusion would be most likely.
|
|
Feb 2022
10:43pm, 9 Feb 2022
16,639 posts
|
rf_fozzy
^^^ agree with everything 3M says above.
(although tidal technically more moon than sun)
Wind is at least partially solar driven.
And yes fusion likely needed for interplanetary travel (although other options do exist).
|
