| ▲ | V__ 3 days ago |
| Because this limitless clean energy source is too expensive, even though it had 60+ years time. I hope the day fusion energy finally has its big breakthrough isn't too far away, but conventional nuclear won't solve our problems. |
|
| ▲ | xienze 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Because this limitless clean energy source is too expensive I’m laughing in $0.11/kWh nuclear energy while Germany’s “cheaper” green energy is uh... quite a bit more expensive. |
| |
| ▲ | V__ 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Retail or production price, where are you based? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | mulmen 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Wind and solar are literally fusion power with extra steps. Running our own fusion reactors would be great but waste is not limited to fission designs. All nuclear generation has radioactive waste, it’s unavoidable. Grid scale storage with renewables can absolutely meet our needs. |
| |
| ▲ | mpweiher 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > extra steps. Those extra steps are crucial, as they massively dilute the output and make it weather/daylight and seasonally dependent. Intermittent renewables produce at least an order of magnitude more waste than nuclear reactors, be they fusion or fission. | | |
| ▲ | g-b-r 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Those extra steps are crucial, as they massively dilute the output and make it weather/daylight and seasonally dependent and leave the waste on a far away star | |
| ▲ | mulmen 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | How are you defining waste here? Nuclear reactors can’t adjust production rapidly and require peaker plants. I don’t have to squint to see how this is also solved by grid scale storage. |
| |
| ▲ | pfdietz 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Wind and solar are literally fusion power with extra steps. This observation seems entirely useless and pointless. What implication are you saying we should draw from this? |
|
