[OC] Cost of Carbon Zero - Historical Look At U.S. Funding of Fusion EnergySubmitted by Metalytiq t3_zlqyox in dataisbeautiful
SecurelyObscure t1_j08eogk wrote
Reply to comment by lungben81 in [OC] Cost of Carbon Zero - Historical Look At U.S. Funding of Fusion Energy by Metalytiq
Well yeah, there's no uncertainty in whether or not you'll get an energy source after extracting oil from the ground. But there's a chance that after billions of dollars and half a century of research that fusion won't be useful for energy.
lungben81 t1_j08lca0 wrote
We know that fusion power works in the sun and in thermo nuclear bombs. Therefore, I think it is unlikely that it is impossible to make a practical fusion reactor. But it may need to be very large and very precise, requiring large R&D costs.
SecurelyObscure t1_j08qmzx wrote
Yeah gravity works there, too, and people have spent countless hours trying to use it to make perpetual motion machines to create green energy. But we wouldn't be celebrating a graph of that.
I'm just pointing out the difference in spending money on procuring a known source of energy vs research on a potential one. They're really apples and oranges.
brandontaylor1 t1_j08t5ac wrote
We use gravity to store and generate energy all the time.
Perpetual motion and fusion aren’t really comparable. One we know is impossible and the other we know exists. It’s like comparing cats and unicorns.
pdinc t1_j095hbx wrote
Yeah this is what happens when not enough people are science literate.
There are literally dams used to store energy by pumping up water and converting to energy back on the way down.
Perpetual motion is theoretically impossible (as in violates all the laws of physics). Fusion is practically impossible - the same way nuclear fission was until we solved the engineering problems. They're not comparable.
[deleted] t1_j099glg wrote
[removed]
ahxes t1_j09fiet wrote
You might have used perpetual motion to avoid the interjection but its not a fair comparison. The math says perpetual motion will always remain energy neutral. On the flip side, the math says fusion yields an energy positive.
Im just pointing out the difference between spending money on something we know can’t work vs something that we know can work given enough time and resources.
SecurelyObscure t1_j09gtnq wrote
I wasn't comparing the feasibility of fusion vs perpetual motion. I was using the wasted time and effort put into researching something to demonstrate why it's not a reasonable to compare r&d costs to the amount of money spent on obtaining a known energy source.
Billions are spent on all sorts of energy research. Solar, hydro, chemical, biological. The overwhelming majority will go nowhere. Some end up being outright scams, like perpetual motion devices. Picking one that might eventually work and saying "God we're dumb for not doing this instead of using oil" is like saying people are dumb for having bought stocks other than Amazon in the 90s.
Or are you going to tell me how actually stocks are a financial entity so it's not a fair comparison to energy.
ahxes t1_j0a7br8 wrote
I actually think thats a pretty apt comparison.
Given the hindsight, I think every person who bought stocks in the 90’s wishes they bought Amazon instead.
Just like the people on this post wish that more resources went into fusion research.
Hindsight is important. We need to be able to admit that things need to change and wish that we found the right path first. We also need to acknowledge the path in the first place. We needed fossil fuels to get where we are, but if more money went into green energy research earlier we would be years ahead of where we are now and maybe a lot of the problems we are facing today wouldn’t be as big to overcome.
IMO: R&D is not a waste of time or money when the pay out is a solution to the energy crisis.
pdinc t1_j0afjtx wrote
So am I, numbnut. No one gives a shit about credentials as a dick measuring contest on reddit. This was a perfectly polite conversation until you responded with this.
SecurelyObscure t1_j0b26mp wrote
Are you kidding? You think I'm bringing up my science degree as a dick measuring attempt?
>this is what happens when not enough people are science literate
This is what happens when not enough people are literate at all. Did they take the reading comprehension courses out of the engineering curriculums?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments