thats because so many of them (and therefore so much land) are needed to produce enough energy
exactly
that soviet era disaster of a design is something only bernie sanders could love
oh we can make fusion happen, but it takes more energy than it produces. and the tech is enormous and complicated
not viable
as they say, fusion power is only 30 years away, and always will be
I absolutely agree but as I said there is no sustained desire to do so now by pretty much any government or private industry especially when they cant be supported by government.
It is a freaking miracle that even here in the US that solar and wind have made any headway. Even to this day there is pushback against those two and those are simple by comparison.
Just look. There is a thread here even now to this day about solar panels and helicopters on this very thought. Read that and youāll see that there exists a certain part of our population that for whatever reason doesnt believe in pursuing such technology and mostly because they dont like what their reletivly small contribution in terms of tax dollars goes to that. Small minded and short sightded would be the best way to describe that.
Iād say itās a good thing that our current nuclear tech was developed in secrecy because if it had faced the same group of people rallying against government involvement in development of solar and wind, it may not have happened as fast as it did. And we could have easily lost WWII or worse.
They barely use any land. They use the empty space above farmland.
That was my takeaway from the problem of utilizing fusion as a source of energy.
You arent wrong in certain aspect there. Will there always be a net negative input? I dont believe so. That could be changed with humungous capital input. Could it be the way into future energy production? Absolutely. Are we willing to invest in that as a society? Nope, never have been and arent currently willing to, and I doubt that will change anytime soon.
Probably be too late by the time we do anyway.
1 Like
ok the opposite of what you said is the case
they sprawl across a lot of land
nuke, for same smount of power, requires much less. not even including the load sources for wind
Nice meme.
iāll be amazed if not. too much energy is needed to push atoms together until they fuse.
Your definition of a lot of land must be different than both mine, and the farmers who think this is a lucrative use of space for a side hustle that can be easily worked around.
Thanks midwestindy for your comments. I understand your motivation re pointing me to another topic that shows what you are saying. Fortunately I have no desire to bang my head constantly against a brick wall. That would be preferable to reading flatearthersā commentary, so I wonāt bother chasing up that other commentary.
3 windmills dont provide sufficient power on any grid. yes a couple/few windmills dont take much space but they are not providing significant power
in your cherry picking of pics you missed this one:
1 Like
As would I. Its incredibly complicated, and even with having no basis in nuclear tech I get that.
Thatās why I said it isnt going to happen in my lifetime and if Iām lucky Iāll get another 30 years.
Hereās some land thatās not on top of a mountain. Wind farms easily complement other land uses where the land actually has other uses.
But they kill birds!
1 Like
You forgot they ācause cancerā and kill flying kangaroos (not the Qantas variety fortunately).
which gives them such a low energy density
plus they need constant maintenance. cabling, access roadsā¦
and theyre not cheap
which oddly is never an issue. but try to build a real power plant where some stupid endangered bird or fish lives
A topic that I can wholeheartedly agree with you. It happens.
