Aaaaand I was 100% WRONG About China

[Eric the Green]

(10-31-2022, 01:45 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-28-2022, 12:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Fusion is a long-term project, one about which I am skeptical. The 2080s is of course way too late for what we need now. We need conversion to zero carbon way sooner, I would say 2040 is a good target and that 2030 is a necessary target for many energy needs. Also needed is more development, government funding and R&D on machines that capture carbon from the air; they are also coming along faster than planned. By 2030 we should be stable at below 1.5 C and by 2040 we should be reducing carbon in the atmosphere and fully 0-carbon, perhaps even for airplanes and rockets although I am not sure about those. China and India will need to speed up their plans to end coal use, and of course the USA should vote Democratic and Brazil should vote out Bolsonaro so we both can lead the way and help others and not be the main obstacle.

I would like to believe this, but I don't. Zero-carbon energy has to be reliable and cheap enough to fight-off the skeptics. So far, cheap seems to be doing well, but reliable, not so much. If we go for reliable using intermittant sources (ie wind and solar) energy storage or massive managed redistribution will be a must. Neither is likely because storage will require massive mining of not very earth friendly minerals, and redistribution will require political cooperation from everyone, when only some will actually benefit. That's no reason to avoid doing what can be done. It simply won't be enough.

It would have even been enough by now had we built it, but Republican resistance stopped this. The skeptics should not be enabled. We either vote for salvation or disaster; it's on the ballot. Batteries are already sufficient and getting better. Cobalt is being phased out. Utility scale batteries will switch from lithium to salt. Concentrated solar power was improved and should be used, and molten salt batteries work well with it. Grid management already works where it is used. Renewables provide more flexible management than nuclear. CA averted shutdowns during the heatwave. Texas did not avoid shutdowns during its freeze. The difference is clear. More improvement is necessary, but we already have the means to supply all our needs through renewables. Nuclear is a good back-up for now. Hydro may be unreliable because of increasing drought, except in northern areas. It is best to keep up to date with developments. My global warming blog is a good place to start.
http://philosopherswheel.com/globalwarming.html
It contains mostly articles from some good sources on all aspects of the crisis.

Quote:

Eric Wrote:"it seems we should keep the plants we have for a certain time, and maybe build more in places where it is safe and the need is great, which probably includes China" does not mean that it is the best thing currently, or that it should be expanded everywhere. "Safer alternatives" includes renewables, if that's what you meant Jason, including more R&D for them, and even now they are the best option because they are cheaper and expanding fast and the most green, safe and clean alternative. Renewables and alternative fuels can provide the 0-carbon economy, but use of nuclear is a good supplement right now. It is not based on renewable energy and generates waste and risk, so it may not be a good option in the long-run. More R&D in that field including fusion will be needed in order to decide for how long it can be deployed.

Renewables have downsides too, but can and should be managed at a more discrete level. Still, there isn't enough there to get it all done. The scientists have known that fusion is the long term answer, but one that requires enormous up front cost. Luckily, the cost sharing model was set prior to the current beggar-thy-neighbor politics acme into being full force. I'm still hopeful.

Fusion is too far off to even be in the discussion.