Re:Nuclear fusion: it's time for a reality check
by tim333 on Wednesday January 29, 2025 @12:18PM
(#42867959)
The WW2 and SA synthetic fuels were not very green. They were made by processing coal.
Re:Nuclear fusion: it's time for a reality check
by kragen on Wednesday January 29, 2025 @02:09PM
(#42869624)
Or methane, but that isn't really that important.
Re:Nuclear fusion: it's time for a reality check
by kragen on Wednesday January 29, 2025 @09:27AM
(#42865249)
Right! Long-distance aviation seems like an obvious application, though companies like Joby might take over the short-distance market with battery-powered airplanes.
Presumably most of the cost of synfuel has been in the energy inputs, right? And solar will drive the cost of intermittent energy down by at least an order of magnitude and possibly two.
As Handmer's post says:
> (...) up until this point no-one has considered scaling these up as a fundamental source of hydrocarbons, because doing so would be cost prohibitive. Why? The machinery is not particularly complex, but the energy demands are astronomical.
Re:Nuclear fusion: it's time for a reality check
by jodrellblank on Wednesday January 29, 2025 @10:35AM
(#42866157)
The article is all about the cost.
The problem has always been cost. It typically costs 5x more than conventional oil. Still oil is a much denser store of energy than batteries and so for many applications it might be worth using it despite the much higher costs.