• ominous ocelot@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    It doesn’t.

    Fusion isn’t as bad as fission or fossil fuel. If they can get it to work. The reactor needs to run continuously (for days) and the energy output needs to be positive. Then it would have a huge impact.

    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,…

    Some are worse than others. But none is or will be impact free in terms of sustainability or environmental destruction.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 day 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.

      • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Fusion reactors are in prototype experimental stage, of course they use more energy than the output for 102 seconds. Obviously, that’s not the goal.

        Write a letter to ITER and tell all those PhDs they are stupid.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Write a letter to ITER and tell all those PhDs they are stupid.

          Nobody at ITER is promising to commercialize this technology at scale any time soon.

      • ominous ocelot@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day 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).