Laugh all you want, but fusion is the endgame. Once we have that, we’ll never need another source of energy.
Fusion power - 1,000,000,000,000,000 suns can’t be wrong.
Let’s cut to the chase then, what you’re advocating is solar power. We agree.
Wind power is an inefficient wreck. Because of its variability, it has to be supplemented by lots of coal or other power. Anyone who thinks wind is a big part of the answer to future energy needs is ignorant or a fool, or both, as in the case of the OP.
Also, my understanding (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong) is that a big reason nuke plants aren’t going online is that it from blueprint to cooling tower, it takes ~9 years (give or take a year or two) to go through the numerous regulatory hoops, and finish construction on the project. It’s difficult to get the necessary capital for a large construction project of that length, especially when a smaller and less expensive gas or coal plant can be brought online in far less time.
OP is a jackass.
'nuff said.
Aha! But how many people in the U.S. have died in coal-related accidents compared to nuclear accidents? Oh, wait…
.
The science behind fusion is real and known. We know what it is and what it does. Based upon the progress historically in other cases where we understood the physics (or chemistry or biology) and developed practical implementations, it is extremely likely to be attainable within a generation or two. There’s no way to know, but it seems very likely that it could have already been discovered by now if it weren’t for fear mongers and idiots trying to stop all progress in the field.
Fusion is real, not fantasy, and based upon the massive amount of energy involved it’s one of the most important goals science needs to be pursuing. The energy crisis and global warming make it even more imperative.
Comparing fusion to FTL is like saying we could never develop technology to send messages around the world because angels do not exist and aren’t going to act as our messengers. You might as well paint a big scarlet “I” on your head if you show up on this board and make ridiculous arguments like that.
Try this: The Staggering Cost of New Nuclear Power.
This is not true. I’ve debunked this several times on here.
Annual Energy Review, page 225, see the Sankey diagram, divide T&D losses into net generation. 7.4% is not a considerable amount, and the realities of replacing enough lines in the US to make a difference in this is on the level of making fusion power possible.
Given what the OP wants, his username is incomplete. It ought to be The Second Stone Age.
Solar energy takes up huge amounts of space, produces a limited amount of power, and can be stopped by a cloud. It’s nice if you’re building a space station, but for the real world? No thanks. I like my power sources when they aren’t seperated from me by millions of miles of space.
No, equating more nuclear with fusion is a ridiculous statement, and doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
If we’re talking about nuclear and fusion, we’re talking about things that will do no good for decades, cost ridiculously more than proponents will ever admit, and in the case of fusion, the most wild-eyed optimistic prediction is 50 years out, and much more likely 100 years.
Let’s not forget nuclear was originally billed and promised as free and unlimited. Fusion was promised to be free and unlimited and should have been online by the year 2000.
Well, I’d still consider it… 7.4% is something.
But I’ll concede that I’m heavily influenced by the sheer gee-whizzery of the idea, as presented in Popular Science and such.
NIMBYs of all types help keep nuclear plants from being built. I love them, built them in your neighborhood not mine. A lot of people talk about them, but fight like hell when it is near them. How much trouble are we having over finding a place for nuclear waste?
The main and overriding concern with coal is the GHG emissions impact, which is both huge and undeniable, and is what will kill coal off. Particulates are a red herring.
And coal has its anti-coal protesters too, who are indeed getting coal plant plans scrapped. Of the last 50+ conceptual designs I’ve been a consultant on, exactly 2 have gone to construction, neither of them in the US. I still have to go and give testimony at the meetings and have to face the anti-coal protesters and have to read and debunk their fact-starved and outright lying position statements they deliver to PUCs.* And I don’t mind the fact that they’re against the coal plants, but I do mind their disconnect with reality. One exchange at a recent meeting went like this:
Protester: “Besides, coal is actually more expensive than wind or even solar.”
Commissioner: “I really don’t believe those facts are correct.”
Protester: “They are. The coal industry is deliberately driving the cost of wind and solar up by secret back door deals with Dick Cheney.” (note this is 2010…who’s in office now?)
Once you hear that, there’s no point in even paying attention.
- (Oh wait, I forgot, some mental midget on here once said because he couldn’t find a protest I said I was at in Gooooooooooooooogle, he accused me of lying and said “no one” on the SDMB should ever listen to me on energy matters, since my decades of professional experience couldn’t trump basement-dwelling shitheels who get their facts from some teenager’s blog, and no I’m not talking about you Der Trihs; you’ve never done that, I’m just venting).
For your own sakes, I hope this isn’t true.
By one standpoint it might sound like that, but there is a practical matter - the first one is that 7.4% is essentially busbar to meter losses, and many of the plans for superconducting cables are focused on the main HT 125+ kV lines, which ironically, due to their high voltage, are not losing the majority of the power. What I mean is, you’re sort of facing a diminishing returns factor which comes into play very quickly. Now I’m not a T&D expert so do not take what I say here as gospel, but IIRC (again, anecdote, not fact) replacing the entire mainline grid only gets us back about 1-2% of the total, which on a US scale is a lot of power, but compared to the cost and effort is a large amount for little gain. A lot of power is lost in the residential neighborhoods - that “final mile”, a lot is lost in multiple transformers (even if some are 99.5% efficient), etc.
While getting back 1-2% of the power generated is a lot of GWh, we also have to consider are there much lower hanging fruits on the tree. And that was my point.
Nothing but an old piece of paper:
This may be a hijack, but what benefits (if any) do you see in pursuing the development of Smart Grid?
No serious person is proposing the entire world get its energy from solar anytime in the near future. If we’re going to play that game, then to do the same thing with nuke we’re going to have to start bringing one new nuke plant online everyday, starting right now. Realistic?