this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
670 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
58563 readers
4588 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If we had a fusion reactor developed today that showed net energy gain for the entire facility, it would be 10 years before it could be designed into a practical commercial reactor. So no, that's not going to save us at this point either way.
Allow me to present the most frustrating graph in the world:
Have we tried using the energy generated by spinning dead scientists?
and in 10 years time, it's gonna be 10 years away
Just use solar (and renewables in general, but not everybody has a river or wind), there's no need to create more energy from fusion when you can just harness the energy created and shoved to us by the sun
HVDC solves the "not everybody has a river/sun/wind". The longest one in the world is in Brazil, and goes for 1300 miles. Similar builds in the US would mean wind in Nebraska could power New York City, and solar in Arizona could power Chicago, and hydro anywhere can store power from anywhere.
Ah, but just wait a few years...
more of a flood then a river /s