*Yes the carbon free element of it will be beneficial, but it’ll come way too late to prevent catastrophic climate change.
Hey, hands off my doom monger title, I worked hard for that.
It’s always going to require resources to make and distribute.
Of course, but they're a fixed, mostly upfront cost which will be negligible compared to the wider economic benefits. What's the point of making end users 'pay' for something which costs next to nothing (relative to the whole economy) to produce? The only reason would be to make money out of it. It's a bit like charging people for the air they breathe.
My sister's best friend works on that project.
I sat next to her at my sister's wedding last year, the groom's family are very 'business' oriented and the father of the groom was fishing around for people who could 'further' his family:
"And what Doo youuu doo?"
"My daughter works at Cheltenham school for girls don't youuu know"
"I go shooooting with prince Charles from time to time"
He didn't really know what to say when gorgeous waif of a girl tried to explain how she was trying to create a star in a lab.
Anyway, I’m not sure fusion is ambitious enough. Why create tiny stars when we can just use the massive one we’ve got?
The concept of consequence free (as in zero pollution etc) limitless energy directly challenges the finite basis of our economy. Capitalism is based on scarcity.
The error lies in the combination of these statements, in that economics is about scarcity, it is the study of how to allocate scarce resources. Capitalism is one method of making these allocations, by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
The concept of consequence free (as in zero pollution etc) limitless energy directly challenges the finite basis of our economy. Capitalism is based on scarcity.
Lots of other things will still be scarce. Until the entire process of extraction and manufacturing becomes automated. Then robots will mine raw materials and manufacture things including more robots. Then, all humans will have to do is design robots to do things like grow, pack and distribute food, and we will all be free from drudgery. Or design a robot designing robot.
It's not that far away, IMO.
Your error lies in the combination of these statements
Whatever. Doesn't change the fact that the benefits of fusion will probably be squandered at the altar of economic and political ideology and the greed of those who stand to profit from it.
Anyway, I’m not sure fusion is ambitious enough. Why create tiny stars when we can just use the massive one we’ve got?
Will they bury the cable or will we have a line of pylons?
Of course, but they’re a fixed, mostly upfront cost which will be negligible compared to the wider economic benefits.
Why are you so sure that the cost is negligible? Assuming the ticklish problem of producing more energy that it consumes is solved, I suspect that the capital required to build the necessary infrastructure is going to be very significant. If you're going to advance the idea of nuclear fusion being free, then doesn't the same apply to solar and wind?
I've got one of those Dyson Spheres, it just falls over if you try to pull it round a corner and the filter clogs up in about an hour.
dazh
Full MemberOf course, but they’re a fixed, mostly upfront cost which will be negligible compared to the wider economic benefits. What’s the point of making end users ‘pay’ for something which costs next to nothing (relative to the whole economy) to produce? The only reason would be to make money out of it. It’s a bit like charging people for the air they breathe.
Tritium is around €30000 per gram. Decidedly not cheap.
Also, the plasma exhaust from the reaction destroys the tungsten/molybdenum diverters which are very expensive.
midlifecrashes
Full Member
I’ve got one of those Dyson Spheres, it just falls over if you try to pull it round a corner and the filter clogs up in about an hour.
You're using it all wrong - you're supposed to be inside it. Honestly - some people.
Why are you so sure that the cost is negligible?
I didn't say it wouldn't cost a lot. Clearly it will, but compared to the overrall long term benefit to the global economy and the wider environmental benefits the cost is insignificant. Putting a price on fusion energy doesn't make sense, because the price of something is a measure of it's scarcity. It's basic supply and demand. If the supply always outstrips demand then it should be free. Fusion isn't just a better way of generating electricity, it has the potential to completely change the way we live and organise society.
Of course, going back to my original point, none of the above will happen because like oil we'll transfer the production to private interests who will then use their monopoly to make themselves extremely rich and powerful. Instead of being a massive benefit to humanity, it could end up being the opposite.
Don't worry as long as it's in private hands you won't be getting it at cost or anywhere close to it.
Fusion. Interesting science experiment. NBG for domestic energy. Solar + storage would seem better for electricity production.
Putting a price on fusion energy doesn’t make sense, because the price of something is a measure of it’s scarcity
Nuclear fusion isn't scarce, but fusion-derived electricity will be, because making and distributing it is difficult and resource-hungry. In the same way that wind isn't scarce but wind-generated electricity very definitely is.
China have made progress that might be why the uk is pushing a bit more. It’s all good news as long as the tech is made global.
I doubt anyone would let petty nationalism get in the way of a good thing.
Interesting reading..
TL/DR: Don't hold your breath. Your grandkids might have a small chance of seeing fusion work. We can forget it. 😄
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2017.0444
If i created a mini sun fusion reactor in my shed i wouldn't power appliances with it, I'd be too busy creating diamonds, gold, platinum and other rare earth metals.
I think it was an inside science podcast I listened to and they were saying that they were developing new metal alloys that couldn't be irradiated to reduce the radioactive waste.
We also have something like 300 million tons(or me, I can't remember) of nuclear waste and disposing of it was likely to cost between £20bn and £90bn ( I may have miss remembered the figures, I was driving at the time)
Can we air condition the whole of the Cairngorms to be a constant -10’C with a base snow depth of 1m all winter long? Mega Ski season!!
The BBC News 2021 review weather section covered that.
They had someone from the ski slopes without a hint of irony complaining about how global warming was meaning they were having to run their snow-making machines.
These arent the water spray ones they have in cold countries that spray a mist in the cold air and let it freeze, it's just a huge (several shipping-container sized) ammonia chiller units producing about 10 tonnes of frozen water an hour.
Well, they promised us all cars that can fly.
Now, we’re one step closer;)
Free energy AND tritium:
As to paying for what will be effectively free to produce.
I read this
Power production from renewable sources again provided record levels of generation in the U.K. last year, with 43% of the nation's electricity met by sources including wind, solar, and biogas, up from 37% in 2019
Anyone noticed a 43% drop in their average bill ?. 😆 so no. No matter how free it is, we'll still be paying through the nose for it.
That's the point isn't it. 9nce the investment is paid back and the cost of transmission and distribution is covered and they're left with a choice of minimal cost energy for all, or massive profits for a few, no one is in any doubt which way it will go.
don’t forget the contrails. You’ll need to fly higher – they’re practically eliminated at 60kft even in direct burn hydrogen.
Contrails spread to form Cirrus, which in turn spread to form greater cloud cover, thus reflecting back a certain amount of solar energy, cooling things down a bit. Under certain circumstances, though.
After 9/11, when there was a global shut-down of civil aviation, the skies cleared significantly, and global temperatures rose.
In LA, they’re covering the big concrete canals that carry heavy rainfall away from the nearby hills with solar panels, stopping most evaporation when the canals are full, and creating extensive linear solar farms.
