←back to thread

243 points greesil | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.201s | source
Show context
apples_oranges ◴[] No.44636362[source]
Looking at the picture, I wonder if complexity of these devices will significantly be reduced once it finally works. I assume a lot of the bells and whistles are needed to find the way, but once it's found..
replies(5): >>44636480 #>>44637039 #>>44637055 #>>44637482 #>>44637537 #
empath75 ◴[] No.44637055[source]
The real problem with fusion power is that even if they figure it out, it still won't be cost competitive with solar and wind.

Economically all the cost of building a "boil some water and turn some turbines" plant is _already_ in the "boiling some water and turning some turbines" part of the generation, and even if the heat part of it was _free_, the rest of it would be too expensive to bother building a plant for it, compared to just building solar and wind generation and some better batteries.

replies(4): >>44637428 #>>44639322 #>>44640083 #>>44641737 #
1. vilhelm_s ◴[] No.44640083[source]
Batteries are nowhere near that cheap.

Currently the cheapest non-intermittent energy source is gas; solar costs about half as much, and nuclear costs 50% more than gas [0]. Battery storage is currently competitive with gas for storing around 4 hours of electricity [1].

If we would want to replace the baseload with solar + batteries we would need to store 12 hours instead, during the dark half of the day, so it would cost 3x as much, 200% more than gas.

Maybe we can hope for battery prices to drop, but extrapolating from a Wright's law curve, for them to become cheaper by a factor of 3 we need to produce 32 times as many of them [1, again], it won't happen in the near future.

[0] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/... [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnaEgW9JgiochnES2/2024-was-t...