• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Fusion isn’t as bad as fission or fossil fuel.

    To date, terrestrial fusion has been a net-negative energy system. That’s strictly worse than fission or fossil.

    Every energy source as its drawbacks. I.e. Solar panels and wind have the recycling of compound materials issue - it’s all glued together. And the environmental impact of source materials production, i.e. neodymium. Mining, refining,…

    Do you think we’re getting terrestrial fusion without mining or materials compositing? What do you think fusion reactors and their attendant facilities are made out of?

    We’re getting into reactionary FUD about wind turbines when we start waxing poetic about the environmental impact of big fan blades and dynamos (which are just as critical for coal and gas plants, btw). At some point, you’re still just converting mechanical energy to electrical energy, no matter what system you’re proposing. All of that will require industrial metals and conductors.

    • ominous ocelot@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Fusion isn’t as bad as fission or fossil fuel. To date, terrestrial fusion has been a net-negative energy system. That’s strictly worse than fission or fossil.

      My mistake. I did not specify in what regard. I had the waste in mind. Fusion waste is radioactive for a few decades. Fuel wise, there is an abundance of Deuterium, like a gram of it in every bucket of ocean water give or take. Tritium? That’s the harder part.

      You are right. It doesn’t work yet. And it will be too late to solve the current energy crisis. If they get it working at all. But I see no harm in trying.

      Your remaining statements: I did not intend to say that solar and wind power are bad, but they are not flawless (again: sustainability and sourcing).