• AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Fusion would provide orders of magnitude more power than solar. There’s a limit on how much we can practically get from solar, fusion would allow us to exceed that.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      There’s a limit on how much we can practically get from solar,

      Most residential buildings can self sustain from solar. Dense cities not, but there is dual use grazing and agriculture land, and small portions of desert that could power the world. Solar is enough for type 1 civilization. Nuclear plant energy density is overstated due to their + uranium mine exclusion zones, which could produce more solar power than the uranium content available in those mines.

    • zurohki@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah, but there’s no prizes for producing way more power than we use. We’re not running out of space to put solar panels or batteries.

      • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 day ago

        ‘Too much power’ has never been an issue, and will likely not be an issue ever with solar. There are multitudes of technologies, especially in industry, that are currently impractical because they would consume too much energy.

        • zurohki@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          We can already massively increase generation to meet the needs of those industries whenever we want. They’re impractical due to the cost of meeting their energy requirements, not because it’s impossible.

          Unless fusion power plants are going to be free to build or last forever, they have the same practical limit as every other type of generation - they have to be paid for. It isn’t clear that fusion would be a huge step forward in cost per megawatt-hour.

          • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            The main attraction of fusion is near limitless clean energy generation. The corollary of near limitless is that per unit price will be extremely low. The tech is inherently scalable to larger reactors, and that means if you’re going to be building a reactor anyway, it’s easy to combine it with nearby industrial development plans to take advantage of it.

            • zurohki@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              16 hours ago

              Bigger, more powerful fusion gear isn’t going to also be more expensive?

              Lots of generation technologies scale, and costs fall as they do. That’s not something unique to fusion power.

      • Farvana@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        In three decades, having a power source that can be placed away from the elements is going to be a very good thing.