Not that I think fusion energy will save the day but I do feel if things went really south then the timeline for these fusion experiments could be pushed forward some. When I read about ITER and its current plan of producing its first plasma in 2034 and then a energy positive reaction in 2039 I wonder why it takes so long to complete each stage. There seems to be no sense of urgency to get it done.
Sometimes it takes a crisis to focus minds and resources. If really pinched then perhaps those timelines can be brought forward. Just think, vaccines normally take years if not a decade to reach mass use yet during Covid a vaccine was out within 12 months. When push comes to shove then things can progress faster than we think. Now I don't think fusion, even if the technology could be realised, would help. The argument I am trying to make is things can happen quicker if people are given the right incentives. At the moment there is no incentive to perfect fusion so it gets dragged out.
In a hypothetical world where we imagine fusion energy is mastered and is economical we would still face the same problem of growth. If anything I would say we would get a worse outcome than today as all the greater energy would do is allow us to deplete our resources even more completely than what is the case now.
There would be greater consumption of goods and services and this will lead to more pollution of the environment and all the issues of lowering water tables, soil erosion and destruction of natural habitats would be that much worse. We think American consumption is bad but imagine if the whole world was consuming at the same rate. For better or worse that is what fusion will deliver. Issue is the optimists don't look at the downsides, only the positives so all the associated destruction caused by fusion energy are not spoken or considered.
- Fusion Fallacies
Started by monsta666 Aug 04, 2024, 01:03 AM
Message path : / Society / Tech is always to the rescue / Fusion Fallacies #5
Selected path :