• zurohki@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yeah, but there’s no prizes for producing way more power than we use. We’re not running out of space to put solar panels or batteries.

    • Farvana@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      In three decades, having a power source that can be placed away from the elements is going to be a very good thing.

    • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      ‘Too much power’ has never been an issue, and will likely not be an issue ever with solar. There are multitudes of technologies, especially in industry, that are currently impractical because they would consume too much energy.

      • zurohki@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        We can already massively increase generation to meet the needs of those industries whenever we want. They’re impractical due to the cost of meeting their energy requirements, not because it’s impossible.

        Unless fusion power plants are going to be free to build or last forever, they have the same practical limit as every other type of generation - they have to be paid for. It isn’t clear that fusion would be a huge step forward in cost per megawatt-hour.

        • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 hours ago

          The main attraction of fusion is near limitless clean energy generation. The corollary of near limitless is that per unit price will be extremely low. The tech is inherently scalable to larger reactors, and that means if you’re going to be building a reactor anyway, it’s easy to combine it with nearby industrial development plans to take advantage of it.