The Energy Thread

[Jeff Lebowski]

The professor guy near the end of this 60 Minutes report said that Joe Biden's goal of achieving commercial nuclear fusion within ten years is pure BS... we most likely won't see commercial fusion power until like 2050. And to get those 3 megajoules out it actually took like 300 megajoules in (not 2 megajoules). They still need to work on that efficiency problem.


Commercial fusion power is possible but it is going to take a heck of a lot more engineering. We can't live on solar and wind power until then.

Wow, talk about a gigantic buzzkill.

[Bo Diddley]

Wow, talk about a gigantic buzzkill.

[All-American]

It will probably be a political fight over spending money on it early on. I'm guessing that when you factor in all the costs, fusion will be more expensive at first.

Yeah, that is the whole issue. Figuring out fusion is not as cheap as putting a lump of coal on the fire. That's why we haven't done it yet.

[Green Monstah]

Yeah, that is the whole issue. Figuring out fusion is not as cheap as putting a lump of coal on the fire. That's why we haven't done it yet.

This makes sense. Solar was around for 50 years before it could be profitably scaled.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This makes sense. Solar was around for 50 years before it could be profitably scaled.

Uh...

[All-American]

Uh...

I'm pretty sure he means using solar power to generate electricity. We all get that the sun has been around for more than 50 years.

[BigFatMeanie]

I'm pretty sure he means using solar power to generate electricity. We all get that the sun has been around for more than 50 years.

Uh.., I think you may be misinterpreting The Dudes, "uh..."

[All-American]

Uh.., I think you may be misinterpreting The Dudes, "uh..."

I know, but that's even less funny than my already not-particularly-funny joke.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Uh.., I think you may be misinterpreting The Dudes, "uh..."

Somebody gets me!

Every time I have looked into solar panels, "cost effective" is not the conclusion I came to.

[BigFatMeanie]

Somebody gets me!

Every time I have looked into solar panels, "cost effective" is not the conclusion I came to.

At least not cost effective without significant government subsidies and if it requires government subsidies then profitable is not typically the word of choice.

[Green Monstah]

Somebody gets me!

Every time I have looked into solar panels, "cost effective" is not the conclusion I came to.

It’s definitely a large capital investment, but commercial solar is now cheaper than coal generation (with an important cabeat re: the cost of intermitency of solar)

You’re probably too old to payout your rooftop
panels at this point, unless cost of power increases significantly in your golden years or you buy and install them yourself.

I think solar could survive no subsidies at this point.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It’s definitely a large capital investment, but commercial solar is now cheaper than coal generation (with an important cabeat re: the cost of intermitency of solar)

That’s a pretty big caveat.

[Green Monstah]

That’s a pretty big caveat.

For sure. But there are fossil-fuel- based solutions that are also cheaper than coal. Which is all to say, solar is on the right track.

[All-American]

https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...gy-2023-03-09/

Commonwealth Fusion Systems, based In Massachusetts, is building a reactor aimed to produce net energy by 2025, and a large-scale reactor putting power on the grid in the early 2030s.

[Pelado]

https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...gy-2023-03-09/

Commonwealth Fusion Systems, based In Massachusetts, is building a reactor aimed to produce net energy by 2025, and a large-scale reactor putting power on the grid in the early 2030s.

That's quick.