Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DonManuel t1_j0bgrlb wrote

Nuclear energy, fission or fusion, is still a technology causing more problems than it can solve. In general a centralized expensive and complex high tech is seen as outdated by many. Decentralized cheap low tech is much more resilient, safer and easier to adopt globally in the poorest countries too.

−35

TheZimmerian t1_j0bis22 wrote

What decentralised, low-tech, and cheap power source do you propose should be used instead that also has little to no emissions as well as running stable 24/7 while not being bound to its location's weather or environment?

23

Lolwat420 t1_j0btv84 wrote

I don’t think weather dependence should be such a priority. Produce excess and store it for the proverbial rainy day. Long term average calculations can be done to negate irregularities

3

TheZimmerian t1_j0d00iu wrote

The problem I see with supporting the entire grid with renewables isn't just weather, it's scale.

Right now, the total power consumption of the planet is covered to about 60% by fossil fuels (rough estimate of the global average on my part), and billions if not trillions had to be invested in not one, not two, but all renewable energy sources to even achieve 30-40% of the global need (not to mention the enormous toll the production of all of that took on our planet's environment).

The global need is also rising as new, more powerful technologies emerge that require more power output. Unless renewable energy sees several more breakthroughs of similar magnitude as this current one in nuclear fusion, I have my doubts that it will be scalable enough to cover the entire globe's power needs.

That is ignoring already all the communities (totalling millions of people) worldwide where no renewable energy source is viable or suitable to cover the people's power needs; where fossil fuels would need to continue being used.

Fossil fuels have been used for more than a century. Currently, 35 billion tons are burned each year. An unfathomable number that exceeds the capabilities of human imagination. Each year. You could say fossil fuels would be damn near "renewable" themselves, if it weren't our main power source and we wouldn't be using billions of tons a year. Switching the entire grid to renewables only delays the inevitable in my opinion. At some point wind won't power our house appliances anymore. Solar won't cut it for our EVs anymore. Hydro is only available at coastlines and near huge rivers. Good spots to harness geothermal energy are even rarer to find. Not because of a lack of effor, or technological prowess on our part, but simply because we evolve too fast. Our planet's natural forces will not be able to support our growth and our tech indefinitely. It's a part of the equation that often goes ignored: our own, future tech advancements and the power they will consume. Wind is only so strong. Only so much UV light gets through our atmosphere. Only so much force is carried by a wave. Magma only gets so hot. It may work for 20, 40, maybe even 80 years, but then the cycle will repeat. We used to burn wood for energy, until we realised we're destroying ourselves with that. Then we burned coal and oil, and now we realise we're destroying ourselves with that. The same will happen again with renewables. The same might happen with fusion, but with enough luck, maybe it'll take a lot longer to happen than it would with 100% renewables.

Either we invent some never-before-seen, huge ass batteries, or we find a way to make fusion work. I don't see any other ways for us to make it to the next century.

2

Lolwat420 t1_j0dpfj4 wrote

The point Don was trying to make is that as the tech for renewable energy gets better, it would be possible to power your property given the land you have, making a centralized power source be unnecessary.

The market today is full of solar solutions that can get you completely off-grid, with the panels available today of only 20% efficiency or less. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine panels getting cheaper and more efficient as the tech grows, making them a standardized part of properties in the future. Houses used to be built without plumbing and electricity, but today we won’t even consider it a house without it.

It’s unlikely that densely populated areas like NYC will ever go without centralized power, but there is no reason why offshore wind, wave, or tidal energy can’t be implemented to offset the cost of outsourcing energy.

It’ll take some creativity, and basic economics, but we’ll work our way to nearly 100% renewables soon enough. Coal is well on its way out, regardless of what fat cats and politicians wanted. The same is happening in regards to electrifying transportation.

Just saying, “it’s never going to work” or “it’s not possible” when it comes to overcoming technical challenges has been proven wrong time and time again. There is no reason why going nearly 100% renewable should be any different. So I disagree with the fundamentals of your comment

1

dewafelbakkers t1_j0ej222 wrote

Please help me understand why arguments for the viability of renewable energies can rely so heavily on "its possible to make the tech better, the tech gets better over time" but this phenomenon is never afforded to something like fission.

For the record I support both. It's just so bizarre to me to see people list out numerous problems with fission and say see that? See all the problems this tech has?

Theb when all the challenges associated with renewable energy are raised, the resounding response is "the tech will get better, just give it more time"

2

TheZimmerian t1_j0gs8wq wrote

I never said "it's never going to work" and neither did I say "it's not possible". From your response I can only conclude you didn't actually read what I wrote and simply took offense at me saying that renewables aren't the pinnacle of energy generation technology, followed by the recitation of the most common arguments pro-renewables, none of which I have attacked or disputed. I actually agree that renewables are worth investing in, despite my point about it likely not fulfilling the increasing energy needs in the future 20-80 years from now.

Five paragraphs spent to argue against a point I never made.

1

Lolwat420 t1_j0gucpj wrote

I apologize if I came off as rude, and I had no intention to start a fight or anything.

My point was that existing renewables technology can fulfill the energy needs of today, and in some instances whole cities can actually go a day or two entirely on renewables.

As energy demands increase in 20 to 80 years, renewables will also increase in potency, efficiency, and affordability. The argument you make that renewables can’t achieve this, is where I politely disagree with you.

1

TheZimmerian t1_j0i3s6j wrote

Again, I didn't argue about today, and I didn't argue about the potency of the technology, as I've stated in my original comment:

>Not because of a lack of effort, or technological prowess on our part, but simply because we evolve too fast. Our planet's natural forces will not be able to support our growth and our tech indefinitely.

As I've already clarified, there is only so much energy in the forces our planet provides, and I believe it to be in the realm of possibility that we will surpass that maximum potential within the next 20 years at the earliest, within the next 80 at the latest.

The only tech we currently have that might be able to keep up is solar, and at this point we might as well create a dyson swarm. That would probably take less funding and less time than trying to make solar panels power the entire planet. What would likely take even less funding and even less time than that is making fusion work. I mean, fusion already is a emission free, near limitless "force of nature" if you will. Solar is just our current technological method for harnessing the fusion power of the sun.

1

Lolwat420 t1_j0in182 wrote

You can power 100% of the worlds energy needs with less that 5% of the area of the US. Solar is renewable, limitless, emission free energy. It’s getting cheaper, is being produced faster, and is well into the consumer market. The percentage of energy generated through renewables instead of fossil fuels is increasing exponentially. Meanwhile general technology is getting increasingly more energy efficient, and energy usage is marked as a global climate problem. All of which further drives the demand for renewable energy in all its forms.

I’m arguing that for just solar alone, we can hit energy independence, and it’ll be shockingly less challenging than you’re making it out to be

1

DonManuel t1_j0bjwny wrote

> running stable 24/7 while not being bound to its location's weather or environment?

Nothing anyone really is needing basically. The transition to 100% renewable energy from many sources including storage is actually happening. Mainly because big power and money, aka government and corporations, already have understood that this is the only viable future. High tech fans from the social web can't change that.

−8

Not_Buying t1_j0bw1e9 wrote

If “government and corporations” have understood that, then why are billions still being invested to research fusion? It’s because they all know that it’s the end-game for the future of humanity. It’s those people that have poured decades of blood, sweat and tears into this … not randos on social media.

They have already said the recent experiment demonstrates the viability of the concept and lays the groundwork for further research. The scientists tackling the venture already know the existing designs need to be refined, the drivers become more efficient, etc for the technology to become commercially feasible, and it will take many years.

Innovation of this scope and potential does not happen if scientists look at the breadth of the challenges in front of them, and throw up their hands in defeat.

2

DonManuel t1_j0cxvfr wrote

A lot of the money justified for science has no economic use.

1

Not_Buying t1_j0el5d6 wrote

Except fusion research is not just science for the sake of science. They didn’t spend 70,years on this just to see if they can do it. The return on investment is economic and national security.

0

Zilreth t1_j0bl6e6 wrote

Never thought I would see anti-fusion sentiment in this sub. It is the literal endgame of energy generation and would enable so many things technologically. Not sure how you can think that wouldn't be worth it in the long run.

15

FarmhouseFan OP t1_j0cgsfz wrote

It's insane. It's like they want a complete up and running 9000% efficiency, world powering fusion reactor, or nothing. I don't understand why fusion breakthroughs get so much hate here. I posted this very tame and easy to understand article that shows both sides of the discussion to hopefully quell that type of talk but it hasnt helped. People just yelling about the headline without reading the article. People are chomping at the bit to just hate on it.

0

Zilreth t1_j0ch6qv wrote

yeah i mean it really is just a matter of time and considering the scale of impact it would have on humanity I'm surprised it doesnt get at least 10-100x the current amount of funding.

1

FarmhouseFan OP t1_j0chhhl wrote

Yeah I'm all for pouring tax dollars into this rather than something like the F35 which is just a 412 BILLION dollar dust collector.

−1

DonManuel t1_j0blnsp wrote

That's because like many enthusiasts you reduced your opinion on favorable aspects only, ignoring all economic, scientific and technological problems - such as obviously your sources.
A reddit comment of course cannot be sufficient to compensate for all that lack of knowledge.

−15

TheZimmerian t1_j0bo87v wrote

And like any doomer in this sub you only talk about the existence of problems without naming any of them.

"You're wrong because I'm right."

10

DonManuel t1_j0bpvbh wrote

To name one, as a starter you may educate yourself about neutron flux and its consequences for commercial operations of nuclear plants. And insulting out of ignorance doesn't make you look smarter.

−1

Lrauka t1_j0bq9q0 wrote

The link you provided states neutron flux occurs in fission, not fusion reactors.

2

dewafelbakkers t1_j0ekc3d wrote

I'm just dropping in and didn't really read the rest of the back and forth between you two. But fusion and fission reactors result in neutron Flux. In fission energy and neutrons are released when atoms of fissile material in the fuel matrix split apart. In fusion reactions, hydrogen atoms fuse into helium, and energy and a neutron are released. When there are neutrons passing through a measure of space, you have a Flux. And high energy neutron Flux can activate certain materials when they pass through said Flux

1

DonManuel t1_j0bqpd6 wrote

Well, if you follow the link about neutron radiation it says

> Neutrons may be emitted from nuclear fusion or nuclear fission,

You really think you are the informed person here capable to research such a complex topic?

−1

Carbidereaper t1_j0cex48 wrote

Different fusion reactions produce different fusion byproducts. Some produce neutrons protons or gamma rays or alpha particles. Deuterium tritium fusion is just a stepping stone to something bigger

1

Zilreth t1_j0br1ju wrote

This is a known process that scientists are aware of, perhaps you could elaborate on the supposed threat?

0