• evujumenuk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    IIUC the end goal, for any fusion reactor, is to heat up water and drive a steam turbine.

    Imagine you could drive a steam turbine at zero cost. What happens if just keeping that turbine running costs more in upkeep than e.g. solar panels do overall?

    Is there really much of an economic case for infinite energy on demand (and that is if fusion can be made to work in not just the base load case) if we have infinite energy at home already?

    • acargitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 hour ago

      The economic case for infinite power is that it is infinite power, Karen.

      Not everything needs to be a fucking profitable business, god damn ferengi idiots.

    • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Even if not a single residential property gets hooked up to a fusion generator, there will still be an economic case for fusion, especially as you move away from the equator. Industrial applications require an enormous amount of energy, and with solar power having a hard limit on the amount of energy you can get from a square meter, you’d have to have square miles of panels and batteries to keep one plant going.