Re:Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy
by pmiller2 on Friday September 27, 2019 @08:54PM
(#21097629)
I can say that: fusion is objectively better than fossil fuels because it’s a sustainable source of energy that doesn’t destroy future generations’ prospects for a decent life. If you were to calculate the real costs of fossil fuels, including the effects on climate, I’m sure fusion comes out ahead. We don’t consider those costs typically, so we’re effectively externalizing them onto future generations.
Re:Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy
by mypalmike on Friday September 27, 2019 @09:51PM
(#21097854)
It's hard to say a hypothetical energy source (commercially-viable fusion) is objectively better than one that actually exists.
Re:Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy
by pmiller2 on Friday September 27, 2019 @10:04PM
(#21097902)
A hypothetical, completely clean energy source is objectively better than one that emits greenhouse gasses, on its face.
I think it's telling that the most optimistic scenario they can come up with is "someday it might be competitive with fossil fuels if you consider the cost of fuel only".
The thing is, if fission is uncompetitive in the long run because of capital costs, can you, with a straight face, claim that fusion will be better, even in 50 years?
Edit: Of course, making fossil fuel more expensive would change the calculus. But my point is, since that is a prerequisite to addressing climate change anyway, we shouldn't be talking about fusion as a particular alternative.