Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

yourgoodbitch t1_j03pt3d wrote

i know there are major caveats to this experiment, but man this brings a tear to my eye. the thought that we aren't totally doomed to climate change and might be able to survive as a species with clean energy. let's hope for more funding, resources, and bright young minds to go into fusion tech. hopefully it's not too late.

30

RobDickinson t1_j03ws3v wrote

We have the tools to solve climate change already , we dont need fusion

52

Havelok t1_j04bbcy wrote

What fusion may allow us to do is have enough energy (4-5x as much as we use as a civilization currently) to quickly reverse climate change via geoengineering megaprojects. That, and start harvesting the resources of the solar system. Post energy scarcity is something we should all be rooting for.

26

Azurtanium-22 t1_j05ba5b wrote

Yes we do. Any green energy sources currently available are very far off from being able to completely replace fossil fuels, and the load on the power grid is only going to get a lot higher as electric cars become more common.

Things like solar and wind just do not have the output capacity to replace fossil fuel plants entirely, and they require huge expensive battery banks that are not green friendly to manufacture. Hydro provides green energy but is incredibly destructive to the environment downstream, and it requires specific locales.

And our energy needs are only going to continue to grow as the world becomes more electric, nations modernize and advance technologically, and the population grows. Fossil fuels are the most energy dense power source on the planet besides nuclear, and even they are struggling to meet energy demands, aside from the environmental consequences.

Nuclear power, specifically fusion, is how our civilization will need to meet current and future energy demands as we wean off fossil fuels. We will obviously need interim sources as fusion power is still a ways off from becoming a viable energy source, but saying we “don’t need fusion” is an incredibly ignorant thing to say. We absolutely do need it if we want to get rid of fossil fuels for good.

9

m-in t1_j0764mk wrote

Solar and wind absolutely has the power density needed to completely replace fossil fuels for stationary (residential, commercial) and storage battery use (EVs and such).

Once you have a lot of solar and wind energy available, it’s no big deal to use thermal storage systems. Yeah they waste about 50% of energy but they also are much more durable and energy dense than any battery storage system using research-stage tech, never mind what you can actually buy.

1

RobDickinson t1_j05del8 wrote

No, we're 40+ years away from a working fusion power plant.

−3

mcchanical t1_j0a09jf wrote

So do we give up and have it be infinite years away, then? 40 years is nothing. Half a life.

2

RobDickinson t1_j0a0ndg wrote

No there are many other projects working towards actual fusion power plants like ITER etc.

But we absolutely cant wait for those before tackling co2 etc.

−1

mcchanical t1_j0a2uo9 wrote

What? When did I say there weren't? Yes there are many fusion projects. They may produce power in 20 years, maybe 50, either way it needs to be pursued.

And who said anything about waiting? You are aware that humanity as a species can tackle multiple problems at the same time, yes? Fusion scientists don't work on Co2, they studied fusion, not greenhouse gases. Other people who got degrees relevant to climate change are working on that seperately.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say...that fusion physicists should go back to college and get different degrees?

1