Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheZimmerian t1_j0gs8wq wrote

Reply to comment by Lolwat420 in Nuclear fusion breakthrough: A physicist answers three vital questions by FarmhouseFan

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