There's nothing 'unlimited' about fusion and there's a good chance I'll be dead in 50-100 years... distant dream.
Imagine the future.
- Thread starter Nix
- Start date
There's nothing 'unlimited' about fusion and there's a good chance I'll be dead in 50-100 years... distant dream.
Millions of years at 100x the current world energy use is pretty unlimited to me
But of course that isn't how things work is it. No one is suggesting it won't still cost ~Billion / GW capacity. Solar energy today has the potential to supply us for millions of years at 100x current world energy use, I expect the same could be said for deep geothermal or even tidal...
We all know the world/universe is awash with energy - the issue, as always, is how to harness it and what the energy return on energy investment is. There's nothing I've read that suggests fusion changes those rules.
Fusion costs, just like Fission, are expected to be mainly in the building phase, the actual generating phase has expected relatively low costs. We have enough deuterium and lithium for millions, if not billions, of years.
With the availability of lots, and lots, of energy the costs to build something will go down, as you can now easily create the materials needed (everything needs energy after all).
This same argument can be applied to Fission right now, all it needs is for someone to put in the initial investment into building the reactors (an investment for which no payback is expected), and then as we have more and more cheap energy, the investment into each successive reactor is less and less. The whole thing will snowball forward.
The difference is that while Fission produces waste, Fusion does not.
At the end of the day, fusion is like having your own sun
Star trek doesn't work.
There is no money, so everyone would apply to be a starship captain/movie star no one would elect to become a garbage man, sewage treatment officer etc when there was no need to work.