The fusion power thread

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Although we should invest more in fusion research we already have fission, so building fission reactors should be our first priority.

Yes, but then switch to fusion when it becomes available. More safe that way

[Novus America]

Although we should invest more in fusion research we already have fission, so building fission reactors should be our first priority.

Yes, but then switch to fusion when it becomes available. More safe that way

Well sure. First we convert all our large baseload fossil plants to fission. Then we can convert those to fusion if and when it becomes viable.

But we need to build plants NOW (well we should have done this decades ago, Nixon had a plan to do this by 1980!) so we cannot rely on fusion yet.

But fission is still the safest way to make power:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... -fear.aspx

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Yes, but then switch to fusion when it becomes available. More safe that way

Well sure. First we convert all our large baseload fossil plants to fission. Then we can convert those to fusion if and when it becomes viable.

But we need to build plants NOW (well we should have done this decades ago, Nixon had a plan to do this by 1980!) so we cannot rely on fusion yet.

But fission is still the safest way to make power:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... -fear.aspx

Absolutely agree.

Fission would be safer and better for the environment. We need to buld more Fission plants now.

[Novus America]

Well sure. First we convert all our large baseload fossil plants to fission. Then we can convert those to fusion if and when it becomes viable.

But we need to build plants NOW (well we should have done this decades ago, Nixon had a plan to do this by 1980!) so we cannot rely on fusion yet.

But fission is still the safest way to make power:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... -fear.aspx

Absolutely agree.

Fission would be safer and better for the environment. We need to buld more Fission plants now.

Yes, we absolutely need to. Once that has been done, (and again it should have been done 40 years ago) fusion then can become our main focus.

[UniversalCommons]

No the first priority is to stop fighting with people like Bill Gates who want to build cleaner reactors. The story of Terrapower says a lot about what kind of reactors people want to build.
https://crosscut.com/2019/08/rebirth-nu ... s-approves

[Salandriagado]

Yes, but then switch to fusion when it becomes available. More safe that way

Well sure. First we convert all our large baseload fossil plants to fission. Then we can convert those to fusion if and when it becomes viable.

But we need to build plants NOW (well we should have done this decades ago, Nixon had a plan to do this by 1980!) so we cannot rely on fusion yet.

But fission is still the safest way to make power:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... -fear.aspx

Incredibly minor pedantry here, but last I checked, solar-thermal was slightly lower than nuclear.

[Novus America]

Well sure. First we convert all our large baseload fossil plants to fission. Then we can convert those to fusion if and when it becomes viable.

But we need to build plants NOW (well we should have done this decades ago, Nixon had a plan to do this by 1980!) so we cannot rely on fusion yet.

But fission is still the safest way to make power:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... -fear.aspx

Incredibly minor pedantry here, but last I checked, solar-thermal was slightly lower than nuclear.

Possibly it was not on the lists I saw.
Still nuclear is very safe, especially if done correctly.

[Salandriagado]

Incredibly minor pedantry here, but last I checked, solar-thermal was slightly lower than nuclear.

Possibly it was not on the lists I saw.
Still nuclear is very safe, especially if done correctly.

Yeah, most of them miss it off. It's the reason that all of those lists have solar down as "Solar (rooftop)", because they're absurdly safe: it's essentially just a bunch of mirrors at ground-level and a tower with a boiler in it, and we've gotten very good at building towers with boilers in them in safely over the years, given how many of us live in them. They also look really cool:

[Dooom35796821595]

No the first priority is to stop fighting with people like Bill Gates who want to build cleaner reactors. The story of Terrapower says a lot about what kind of reactors people want to build.
https://crosscut.com/2019/08/rebirth-nu ... s-approves

We already have perfectly good fourth gen fission reactors, Bill gates and his vanity thorium reactors are still decades away and he doesn’t put nearly enough of his wealth into it to talk down to others.

[Novus America]

Possibly it was not on the lists I saw.
Still nuclear is very safe, especially if done correctly.

Yeah, most of them miss it off. It's the reason that all of those lists have solar down as "Solar (rooftop)", because they're absurdly safe: it's essentially just a bunch of mirrors at ground-level and a tower with a boiler in it, and we've gotten very good at building towers with boilers in them in safely over the years, given how many of us live in them. They also look really cool:

They also can only be used in certain areas and destroy a lot more land than a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power plants use up the least amount of land and resources compared to the power generated.

[Grenartia]

That's a toxic way of looking at it, and is a prime example of the hindsight fallacy at work.

Of course, back then, we didn't know that it is not possible. But some people keep insisting; meanwhile, we've sustained actual fusion for minutes.

That's better.

Although we should invest more in fusion research we already have fission, so building fission reactors should be our first priority.

Yes, but then switch to fusion when it becomes available. More safe that way

Well, the safety is about the same for either one. The real boon with fusion is its greater energy density.

Well sure. First we convert all our large baseload fossil plants to fission. Then we can convert those to fusion if and when it becomes viable.

But we need to build plants NOW (well we should have done this decades ago, Nixon had a plan to do this by 1980!) so we cannot rely on fusion yet.

But fission is still the safest way to make power:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... -fear.aspx

Incredibly minor pedantry here, but last I checked, solar-thermal was slightly lower than nuclear.

You mean the extra large bird fryers?

[Galloism]

Possibly it was not on the lists I saw.
Still nuclear is very safe, especially if done correctly.

Yeah, most of them miss it off. It's the reason that all of those lists have solar down as "Solar (rooftop)", because they're absurdly safe: it's essentially just a bunch of mirrors at ground-level and a tower with a boiler in it, and we've gotten very good at building towers with boilers in them in safely over the years, given how many of us live in them. They also look really cool:

I also learned that they set birds on fire mid flight.

[Alvecia]

Yeah, most of them miss it off. It's the reason that all of those lists have solar down as "Solar (rooftop)", because they're absurdly safe: it's essentially just a bunch of mirrors at ground-level and a tower with a boiler in it, and we've gotten very good at building towers with boilers in them in safely over the years, given how many of us live in them. They also look really cool:

I also learned that they set birds on fire mid flight.

Produces energy and it cooks your food for you? Is there anything they can't do?

[Dooom35796821595]

I also learned that they set birds on fire mid flight.

Produces energy and it cooks your food for you? Is there anything they can't do?

Manipulate matter on an atomic level.

[UniversalCommons]

Recently it became cheaper to build a Tesla solar roof than it is to put on a regular roof. This is increasingly true with new construction. It becomes possible amortize wind and solar over a 20 year period, providing cheaper power in the long run. This is also true for new commercial construction. Building in energy efficiency solar and wind turbines saves money over the long term. If you are in a place where there is lots of sun and wind, it makes sense to build solar and wind into new construction.
https://electrek.co/2017/05/10/tesla-so ... -warranty/

Solar power follows something called Swanson's law in its increasing capacity to produce energy.
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/04/17/ ... fficiency/

[Novus America]

Recently it became cheaper to build a Tesla solar roof than it is to put on a regular roof. This is increasingly true with new construction. It becomes possible amortize wind and solar over a 20 year period, providing cheaper power in the long run. This is also true for new commercial construction. Building in energy efficiency solar and wind turbines saves money over the long term. If you are in a place where there is lots of sun and wind, it makes sense to build solar and wind into new construction.
https://electrek.co/2017/05/10/tesla-so ... -warranty/

Solar power follows something called Swanson's law in its increasing capacity to produce energy.
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/04/17/ ... fficiency/

Solar has a place but it is unreliable, users up a ton of resources making the panels.
And only suited for certain climates, and not adequate for big cities.

http://environmentalprogress.org/why-cl ... in-crisis/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... power/amp/

Nuclear is a better investment.

[Slavakino]

Well sure. First we convert all our large baseload fossil plants to fission. Then we can convert those to fusion if and when it becomes viable.

But we need to build plants NOW (well we should have done this decades ago, Nixon had a plan to do this by 1980!) so we cannot rely on fusion yet.

But fission is still the safest way to make power:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... -fear.aspx

Absolutely agree.

Fission would be safer and better for the environment. We need to buld more Fission plants now.

More Fission plants as well as further experimentation to further expand our knowledge on Fission. Afterwards, once we cracked Fusion we can begin replacing them. But let's not give it to places like Iraq or Iran for security reasons.

[Slavakino]

Recently it became cheaper to build a Tesla solar roof than it is to put on a regular roof. This is increasingly true with new construction. It becomes possible amortize wind and solar over a 20 year period, providing cheaper power in the long run. This is also true for new commercial construction. Building in energy efficiency solar and wind turbines saves money over the long term. If you are in a place where there is lots of sun and wind, it makes sense to build solar and wind into new construction.
https://electrek.co/2017/05/10/tesla-so ... -warranty/

Solar power follows something called Swanson's law in its increasing capacity to produce energy.
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/04/17/ ... fficiency/

Solar power plants hurt the environment more due to extensive mining as well as not a safe way to dispose of them once their lifespan is over.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

70 years of research and nearly a trillion dollars already spent by us taxpayers alone have turned up nothing... just keep that in mind.

Wendlstine 7-X tho

A non power producing prototype that isn't in operation is not a proof of concept.