this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
157 points (89.1% liked)
Technology
60067 readers
4751 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We need renewables now, not viable fusion two decades from now.
Why not both? ๐
Sure, I'm on board with that. But unfortunately all to often hype around fusion is a red herring by the fossil fuel industry :c
It's safer for their finances to have the public entertain a pipe dream, rather than a reality check.
Sorry, that's false. Is it potentially being co-opted as a distraction by those industries? Yes, in fact probably because of how scummy fossil fuel industries are.
That doesn't mean anyone is under the illusion that this is a replacement for renewables now. Grow up.
This is still, long term, research ave development which needs to be done.
I think the point itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone was trying to make is that we see news of countries abandoning renewables everywhere, recently, and that the fossil fuel industry is probably partly at play there. And then, they use such red herrings to stop the public from worrying. I can totally see this happening, to be honest.
Why not state it the way you did? Succinctly, I'd have said "we need the current renewables effort to continue, along with this great longer-term research". Bam, done.
Not "we need renewables now, not fusion in 30yrs" with the accompanying clown sounds.
may I ask why you're so hostile?
As for my point:
Fusion is still a long way from being scalable and commercially viable, and every year we continue burning coal drives us closer to extinction. So we need to work with what we have now, and fast. When we get viable fusion in the future, great, we'll have secured energy stability even more and maybe made it cheaper (that's a maybe). But at the moment, we need to invest into renewables more. Orders of magnitude more.
I'm just tired of click-baity articles like this. Fusion's been 10-20 years away for more than half a century now, and while I don't doubt that we're making progress towards it, it won't be ready in time to be the replacement for coal we are hoping for.
First point is not relevant, fusion has been chronically underfunded for far too long. The money being spent on fusion r&d is far less than the money going to renewables deployment, and you advocate cannabilizing even that???
I won't go down the list of how many technical contributions are coming out of fusion, just know that there are a lot, that help make both renewables and non-renewable more efficient. How do you switch tremendous amounts of current at extreme voltages, very quickly? The answer directly impacts overall efficiency of everything from EVs to micro & macro-grids. Usually it's a pick-two-of-the-three, but switch systems are being used to solve these exact issues, successfully.
As for why I'm hostile? Read the previous two paragraphs again, maybe something will jump out at you.
It's gonna be both. Only a simpleton would be worried others think that way.