undefined | Better HN

0 pointsstjohnswarts4y ago0 comments

Probably counting in the cost of unlimited global warming and all the damage it will do if we don't stop it, which we won't if current efforts are par for the course.

0 comments

pfdietz4y ago

That would make sense if he's comparing only against fossil fuels. But what was written was:

> I like to think of solar, batteries, fission, and wind as compelling ways to go mostly carbon free and lower energy costs about 2x over the next 20 years or so.

> Fusion is what reduces energy cost potentially another 10x, which really changes the game for lots of things. Exciting stuff. Kudos to this team.

If the 10x is from avoiding fossil fuels, why does fusion get that credit, but the other non-fossil sources don't?

Nevermark4y ago

> which we won't if current efforts are par for the course.

Because while renewable energy production is increasing rapidly, it is nowhere where we need it to cancel fossil fuels.

Nothing will be soon enough. That would have been now or ten years ago.

But anything that gets us there sooner will reduce the damage we have done, and fingers crossed, allow us to start undoing it.

olau4y ago

If you have a cheap means to an end or an expensive one, and you have limited funding because of politics, you will want to pour all your money into scaling the cheap means - then you'll get there much, much faster.

I live close to a wind turbine factory. They could easily have scaled production multiple times over the past five years. The only reason they didn't is funding, in fact during that period they at some point cut production when subsidies were cut.

I think it's getting to a point now where subsidies are not needed. But still, if you're talking about speeding up the process, you can just provide a little extra funding and get big results.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse