• Oliver@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    A lot of incredible science would be involved. And much much more money and a lot of time.

    If we (humanity) could achieve that, that would be really cool.

    But: how much solar-, wind- and battery-farms could we built with the same money and in much less time?

    Fusion is great, but it will probably not be the solution of the energy demand we currently have. Nevertheless it’s something we should pursue furthermore. But we shouldn’t bet everything on it.

    • interolivary@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      But: how much solar-, wind- and battery-farms could we built with the same money and in much less time?

      Why would it have to be either / or? Fusion research funding is frankly ridiculously low as it is, so it’s not like it’s eating into funds that could be used for building renewable power stations.

        • interolivary@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah it’s mind-boggling how underfunded fusion research is, considering the potential payoff. Fission is great in many ways, but it requires finding and handling spicy rocks & their by-products that will make your DNA fall into pieces if you’re not careful, which is not so great.

          Fusion would be clean and damn near free energy (in the sense that the fuel isn’t rare or expensive), and unlike renewables you’d get output practically 24/7 and at massively better W/m2 (eg wind generator parks take up a lot of space). We need both renewables and a reliable and non-polluting steady state generation method, and regular nukes have a lot of downsides (even the modular designs.)