You may as well say that we can't build any more houses, or make more clothes, because of the waste. If the rate becomes a problem, in some way, we will recycle the necessary parts. But unlike, say, coal ash, the waste is easy to handle, and easy to repurpose if we find the need to.
That's an absolutely extraordinary claim. How could a wind turbine ever be cheaper than a traditional generator and turbine, since it consists of a generator + rotor + massive tower in a remote location with a very low utilisation rate?
You know you cannot just assume a trend will continue infinitely, especially if the conclusion is so non-sensical.
We have been optimizing steam turbines for more than a century, but are just barely getting started on optimization for wind and solar. So far, the rate of improvement hasn't start to slow at all, so I'm fairly confident that due to greater simplicity, wind and solar will end up being less costly than steam turbines. Predicting the future is tricky business, but in the 90s it would have been foolish to think that semiconductors wouldn't get better for more than just a few years. And we are in a very similar place with wind and solar techs now as we were with semiconductors in the the 90s.
We run steam turbines as high pressure because that gives us efficiency, not because we have to.
"he rate of improvement hasn't start to slow at all, so i am confident"
You have no evidence, so you are confident?
Also airdinamics are well understood, there are no miraculous effficiencies coming to wind turbines
The learning rate will not stop overnight with wind turbines; there is more than enough research and industrial improvements that are in the works that we will start to see a slowing of the learning rate before it suddenly stops.
Also, airdynamics and not well understood as it relates to wind farms, and new research comes out all the time to improve efficiency of future designs.
For somebody who's claiming that the other person is not providing any evidence, you are operating without any links, only with certainty that I must be wrong about predictions that I admit are tricky to make.
Similarly, I don't think there's much reason to believe that fission nor fusion will be able to compete with renewables on cost. Even if fusion is a completely free source of heat, you still need to convert heat to electricity with a steam turbine and it won't be long before renewables are cheaper than a steam turbine and cooling infrastructure on a free heat source.
People have this strange faith in fission and fusion as being cheap, at some point in the future, but nobody can ever explain why it will be cheap. What is the mechanism that could drive this along?
Solar is the current cheap electricity that will drive carbon capture. There are even startups that have plans for using atmospheric carbon capture to generate synthetic fuels, that plan to be profitable with the current cost curves of solar and the rest of the industrial process.
The world is a very different place than 20 years ago when it comes to technology, and I think it's time to re-evaluate the potential promise of fusion as an energy source. I don't think it has much promise for terrestrial power, but as always, I would love to have my skepticism conquered.