5 ms·

If we had "an inexhaustible, carbon-free source of energy that you can deploy anywhere and at any time" we'd wreck the planet faster than we already are... I g

If we had "an inexhaustible, carbon-free source of energy that you can deploy anywhere and at any time" we'd wreck the planet faster than we already are... I guess at least a few could escape though.

maccam94 5y ago
I'm curious whether we could cool the planet by pulling CO2 out of the air with scrubbers powered by fusion reactors, or if their heat output would cancel it out. Removing the CO2 would have the benefit of being an exponential thermal decrease (the planet gets less hot from the sun each day), and heat output from fusion plants should scale linearly with the rate at which the CO2 scrubbers run, so it's possible the scaling properties would work out...
- sprafa 5y ago
  Unfortunately I predict that when we “stop” global warming will likely be when we stop changing the climate (at least in that way). This is because a lot of rich countries seem to me to be well placed to benefit partially from global climate change at the moment, at least within the 1-2C range. Changing the climate past that point is likely to be controversial, since the countries who now benefit from the situation will likely not want to give those newfound advantages away. I would think of it a lot as the end result of a war - the borders are defined by where the armies stopped ie the division of Europe and Asia after ww2. After climate change I expect whoever has benefitted from it to defend their position and reject any further alterations!
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Since power from a fusion plant would cost 100x+ what solar and wind cost, no. But every cent diverted to fusion from solar brings climate disaster closer.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    Do you have a reason to believe capital deployed to fusion would have been deployed to solar? And if so, why do you think it would make a difference, given the market feedback loop going on with solar driving down costs? Edit: also, your comments seem to be incredibly negative on fusion, would you mind disclosing if you have any solar or wind connected conflicts of interest?
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      I have no money invested in solar, wind, or storage enterprises. To my shame. My beef with fusion is about long-term hucksterism and wholly-legal corruption. STS, SLS, F-35, Big Dig, 2nd Ave, Cal bullet train, fission, fusion. Dollars are fungible. Would fusion dollars otherwise go to renewables build-out? They might be more likely to go to battery, solar panel, superconducting power transmission, or carbon reclamation research. All of those would be welcome alternatives. Even FRC fusion would be a better use of funding.

If we had "an inexhaustible, carbon-free source of energy that you can deploy anywhere and at any time" we'd wreck the planet faster than we already are... I guess at least a few could escape though.

maccam94 5y ago

I'm curious whether we could cool the planet by pulling CO2 out of the air with scrubbers powered by fusion reactors, or if their heat output would cancel it out. Removing the CO2 would have the benefit of being an exponential thermal decrease (the planet gets less hot from the sun each day), and heat output from fusion plants should scale linearly with the rate at which the CO2 scrubbers run, so it's possible the scaling properties would work out...

sprafa 5y ago
Unfortunately I predict that when we “stop” global warming will likely be when we stop changing the climate (at least in that way). This is because a lot of rich countries seem to me to be well placed to benefit partially from global climate change at the moment, at least within the 1-2C range. Changing the climate past that point is likely to be controversial, since the countries who now benefit from the situation will likely not want to give those newfound advantages away. I would think of it a lot as the end result of a war - the borders are defined by where the armies stopped ie the division of Europe and Asia after ww2. After climate change I expect whoever has benefitted from it to defend their position and reject any further alterations!
ncmncm 5y ago
Since power from a fusion plant would cost 100x+ what solar and wind cost, no. But every cent diverted to fusion from solar brings climate disaster closer.
- gfodor 5y ago
  Do you have a reason to believe capital deployed to fusion would have been deployed to solar? And if so, why do you think it would make a difference, given the market feedback loop going on with solar driving down costs? Edit: also, your comments seem to be incredibly negative on fusion, would you mind disclosing if you have any solar or wind connected conflicts of interest?
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    I have no money invested in solar, wind, or storage enterprises. To my shame. My beef with fusion is about long-term hucksterism and wholly-legal corruption. STS, SLS, F-35, Big Dig, 2nd Ave, Cal bullet train, fission, fusion. Dollars are fungible. Would fusion dollars otherwise go to renewables build-out? They might be more likely to go to battery, solar panel, superconducting power transmission, or carbon reclamation research. All of those would be welcome alternatives. Even FRC fusion would be a better use of funding.