But now renewables are cheaper than that. So the competition has gotten better since then, and continues to improve rapidly, and it's not clear fusion can ever get cheap enough to compete with them.
Another argument is that fusion reactors will require robots to maintain them (even the aneutronic ones will become too radioactive for hands on maintenance). But if you require robots that can do that, why not just develop and sell those robots, which would be generally useful?
Lots of people still in fission and fusion are assuming trouble with renewables related to intermittency, land use, grid integration, EROI, raw materials, etc. might arise as we approach deep decarb. If that doesn't happen, wonderful! If it does, then it may be nice to have some low-carbon atomic power stations on hand or in work to diversify the risk.
It's basically the nuclear Pascal's wager.
With a big risk like climate change, there's room for investors who choose to take an interest in nuclear.
Fossil fuels still power the vast majority of the world. It's not yet clear that we're out of that woods.
For instance, Japan just announced that they're building 33 new coal plants to replace their atomic power stations. How on earth does one reconcile this with the game-over-renewables-are-already-cheaper-than-everything popular narrative?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/climate/japan-coal-fukush...
That's whistling past the graveyard, I think. Land use is demonstrably not a problem. Grid integration has long history of naysayers drawing a line in the sand and renewables blowing past it. EROI is just fine and getting better. Raw materials are also not a problem (lies that solar uses rare earths notwithstanding).
Intermittency remains an issue, but it looks easier to solve than making fission (or, to an even greater extent, fusion) practical. Combinations of storage, transmission and dispatch technologies are likely to get us to 100% renewable at a cost fission will have trouble matching, especially if industrial users of thermal energy (which is highly storable) can be brought on board.
It's also extremely popular to say that 100% renewables are a done deal because it's such a great story and feeling.
Most serious deep-decarb clean-energy publications I've seen suggest energy costs go up by $30-50/MWh at deep decarb levels. At those levels, current nuclear already competes. People looking at LCOE today (where the rock-bottom wind/solar numbers depend completely on the hugely-fossil grid for backup and intermittency but hide the carbon emissions with impunity) tend to completely miss this point, their bias that wind/solar are cheaper already being confirmed.
Yet there goes Japan with the 33 coal plants!
And yes, we're going to need extra longer-term storage, but less than you'd think (IIRC up to 10% for a large grid).
Nobody knows the cost of that storage. You can calculate an upper bound by using today's prices, but once these things actually come in demand, new ideas are going to spring up and the prices are probably going to fall, just like it did for PV and wind turbines.
It seems to me that investing in nuclear tech today is a really risky proposition.
Obviously this conclusion is far less popular.
Fortunately investing in various clean energy tech is not a zero sum game because of various investor's predilection to invest in one sector or the other but often not both.
Knowing very little about the topic, I recently saw an article talking about how the first wave of wind turbine blades was starting to be decommissioned, and running into difficulties with what to do with them. While they're no longer useful on the tower, since they're designed to withstand incredible forces, it's difficult to destroy, recycle, or otherwise dispose of them, and indicated they're ending up in storage.
Do you happen to know more about this particular phenomenon and what the end game is for that? Granted, this is likely less of a concern than the waste that coal creates, or the long term storage of spent nuclear fuel. I'm just curious about it.
We all agreed that the people will likely not worry about this nearly as much as they worry about burying vastly less but vastly more hazardous spent nuclear fuel (even though spent nuclear fuel in actual fact has a sound safe geological story).
That said, do you know what's the highest uptake (in percentage power capacity) of renewables not including hydroelectric nor biofuels in your country?
Here in Poland it is laughably low. Germany is not doing much better either. So "we theoretically could" does not mean we will.
Try playing with this online modeling tool:
With the plausible numbers there, new nuclear is optimized out of the mix.
This will be more expensive than fossil fuels with free CO2 release, but presumably CO2 taxes get ramped up to the point that's no longer true.
What's puzzling to me is why the opposite seems to be happening: some parts of the world shut down completely carbon neutral stuff and build things that are going to emit gigatons of CO2 for decades to come.
If we are to reach point of no return (or worse, have already reached it), the focus should be on building such an abundance of energy generation capacity that it would not only replace all carbon-emitting energy generation, but also help power atmospheric carbon capture at a scale that we'd need to avert the climate disaster.
This assumes that behind the business and political worlds we actually personally participate in, there is some ultra-rational global they with long time preferences and everyone's collective best interests at heart. Why would "they" allow all this new coal construction?
There is no "they". There is only "us". When you see your local congressman or MP or mayor speak and think, "what a dunce", as you well might, you need to remember that there is no hidden "adult in the room" who really runs things. This is it. Nobody will come and protect us from our collective decisions.
I'd say there are multiple adults in the room, and they sometimes fight, sometimes form alliances. They often do not care what you think is rational, your tribe's word for "good", because they are not of your tribe. Some have long time preferences but "collective best interests" to them means "civilization still stands somewhere on the planet".
My comment is based on extensive professional and social interactions with other people in leadership roles. It is very frequently the case that such people, including government ministers simply don't have as much independent power of action as you think.
The original parent comment said that if things were really so bad, then something would be done with the implication that since not much is being done, things cannot be so bad. Since we are not mass-building PWRs and running five parallel crash fusion programmes, it must follow that someone has examined the evidence and decided that the problem of climate change is not so bad and therefore we are not doing those things.
The problem with this view is the assumption that there is a someone or a group of someones who sit back, review IPCC reports and then have the ability to collectively compel the political leaders of the world to act rationally. If there was such a group then their lack of action would indicate that they had made a rational decision not to act.
My point is that there are no such people. The powerless enjoy the fantasy of conspiracy because it means that all it would take to solve our problems is some kind of board room coup of the Majestic 12 standing committee.
The reality is that everyone in the system has to act within their roles in the system. Executives at oil companies will say that they wouldn't mind a carbon tax, as long as it was equally applied to all companies. That's logical as they would continue to have a level playing field with the other oil producers and it will take years for us to get off oil as a species anyway. Oh but they don't have the power to pass an oil tax, that's for government.
Politicians in smaller countries will say, they would love to pass such a tax but unfortunately it needs to be global or it will just erode their competitive advantage without reducing emissions. Only if large trading blocs like the EU and US united on enforcing such a system could it be done.
American politicians might say that they personally would love to but they'd need a majority in the Senate, the House, and the right person in the White House.
None of these people are being disingenuous, they all have an accurate view of the limits of their own power within the system. My point is that there is no "outside the system" which can update the system to work better for large collective action problems or force a solution. It's cogs in the machine all the way up. Even the power of Donald Trump, as leader of by far the world's most powerful nation has substantial limits to his freedom of action.
The rational conclusion I make from all this: the rumors of our impending demise have been greatly exaggerated, if all people with means and influence do to avert it is read bullshit from a teleprompter every now and then.
1) People do act irrationally, even well informed people.
2) I don't actually agree that "they can order the government to do as they please". Saudi Arabia killed one of Bezos' employees and hacked into his phone. What has he been able to compel the US government (headed by someone who hates him) to do about it? Barack Obama did attempt to change US policy on climate change and was not able to because no single person has the ability to move US policy that way.
From reading the report it's debatable Bezos' phone was hacked at all. The report seems to be more to provide plausible deniability to whatever Sanchez's relative that leaked Jeff's dick pics to the press.
I don't see what SA has to do with any of this.
The problem is that people aren't necessarily great at investing for the long term, especially if they think they'll be dead by the time the benefits arise.
> What's puzzling to me is why the opposite seems to be happening: some parts of the world shut down completely carbon neutral stuff and build things that are going to emit gigatons of CO2 for decades to come.
Because of flawed optics on nuclear, mostly.
Fusion seems like a bit of a black box to throw money into which isn't appreciated. Throw too little and you don't get there. Throw enough and you don't know when you'll get there.
Fission solves a lot of problems but nobody likes it in their back yeard and some countries have gotten a scare of it (japan, germany,etc) It also takes a very long time to build a new planet and there's many people saying gov should invest more in solar/wind/etc instead whilst we're in a time where a lot of nuclear plants are reaching their planned life time or have had it extended for a long time. Hell I think only the UK is planning a new one which is sad to see.
I think it's rather condescending to literally claim you know people's beliefs, even when they vehemently voice otherwise.
Or, maybe, individual actions and collective actions are different things.
https://www.fusionenergybase.com/organizations/
And an article about why this is the case from the same person:
https://www.fusionenergybase.com/article/the-number-of-fusio...
I am thinking about something like creating an own ion source first, keep building and selling these and using the money to tackle the next problem. Then tackle the next problem. And so on.
Two examples of different hard engineering problems being approached in different ways:
Compare Blue Origin's and SpaceX' approach to developing reusable rockets. Blue Origin is financed by Mr. Bezos. If Bezos stopped that (certainly not intentionally but a bus factor of 1 is bad anyways), Blue Origin would be left with no sustainable business from what we can tell. I am convinced that in the worst case a defense contractor would happily buy in but for the company as a whole it might be over. SpaceX was developing reusable rockets by creating rockets (hard but not as hard as going directly to reusable rockets) first and selling services (that's even better than selling products) to customers to finance the development. They were even using already paid for rocket launches for their experimental landing attempts. That's a lot cheaper than having to pay multiple for a rocket just to see it blow up on landing (or reentry or sometime in between).
The same could be said about Tesla, Waymo and self-driving. Waymo has to reach full self-driving (FSD) to start making money. If they fail, they company is dead or also needs to be sold. If Tesla fails to reach FSD? That would suck, they would have to pay back the customers who bought the FSD package early, maybe deal with a class-action lawsuit because of this and but they could carry on selling cars nevertheless.
In reality, we had initial seed funding for about a year. We had a number of goals we had established, including vacuum chamber, getting the ion source running, first beam, first neutrons. We fell way behind in the first six months because I made the stupid decision to try to build a duoplasmatron ion source to save money. This cost us about 4 months to make a shitty ion source that was full of leaks and barely usable. Luckily the experienced electrical engineer came up with an RF ion source bought used that did the job well enough. We actually ended up meeting all of our 1st year goals in just over a year if I recall correctly.
By that time the money was running out, so DFJ basically extended the funding by issuing us convertible debt in 3 month increments. Every three months we would have a set of goals mutually agreed upon by the board, which was two of us and Tim Draper. This was pretty stressful for us, as we were living paycheck to paycheck and we had no idea if we didn't meet a goal if Draper would pull the plug. Tim was never anything but supportive but we understood the point of milestones. That is also when things got technically difficult, as everything we had done before was using existing techniques but when we went off-the-map things slowed down a lot.
That went on for about 3 years. Basically the same dynamic as software guys tend to see in the classic death-march sprint. I blame leadership (myself).
Eventually we ran up against some hard limits that wouldn't work with our design. We faced a choice between making an expensive bet on a supersized ion source (an inelegant brute force solution, which I know now would not have worked) or a new risky design (which also would not have worked). Tim was in favor of the brute force design, because he saw that as money being the barrier. I had my doubts about the brute force design, and I didn't want to waste the money on something that would only fix one of the 3 major problems we faced. I tried building the long-shot design. Then a piece of plastic got into the main turbopump and it ate itself. The 2000 market crash happened. Everything fell apart.