{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/15/2018 3:59:28 PM
7
Better battery technology and nuclear fusion are the answers.
The problem with solar/wind really is storage, ie, better batteries => more efficient solar/wind energy
Also, environment-centric design is something that is very sneakily near the top of the list of how we improve the planet. The plans for vertical tree cities in China are an example of this.
English
-
Imagine how much pollen that building would give off in the spring
-
I thought the first energy producing fusion reactors were decades away at least? If they can get it working it would be a game changer, but it’s not really a short or medium term solution. The world needs to reduce carbon emissions now. Not in fifty years time.
-
Fusion is a permanent solution for humanity. With that mentality, we’ll never get there. Also, 50 years is a big number. I’d put money on the 2030’s. I’d put more money on it if more money was being spent on fusion research.
-
I agree it’s a permanent solution and more money should be invested in it. But when you’re talking about the need to reduce emissions and warming within the next 10-20 years fusion is too far off to be helpful. Who’s to say advanced in solar over the coming decades won’t eliminate the need for fusion anyway. It’s not just what’s the most efficient, it’s also what’s the most cost effective. Nuclear fusion reactors would be immensely expensive to build and maintain. Solar is already on its way to becoming cheaper than coal. If the efficiency of solar or wind technology improves enough over the coming decades it could eliminate the need for fusion energy and price it out of the market (in the medium term anyway). I agree with you though that Fusion energy should be a long term goal of humanity. But it’s not a very realistic solution to the current climate change problem.
-
Editado por The Cellar Door: 1/16/2018 1:19:57 AM[quote] But it’s not a very realistic solution to the current climate change problem.[/quote] Neither is Solar or Wind. Without better battery technology, neither option is even comparable in economic effectiveness and competitiveness to fossil fuel technologies. The only “renewable” source of energy which is actually competitive with fossil fuels is nuclear fission, and that’s [i]with[/i] investment overhead and management costs considered. Also, they don’t produce enough energy marginally such that an infrastructure overhaul could be powered by themselves. You’re still using massive amounts of fossil fuels to build energy farms and connect them to the grid. And on that note we also must recognize that [b]immediate approaches[/b] to climate change must involve explicitly taking carbon out of the atmosphere. And fusion will never prove to be unnecessary. The amount of energy it produces is simply indisputable. Free energy.
-
Well I agree with all of that. Solar and wind are currently inefficient and ineffective. But the technology is already established and currently in use generating energy. All it would require would be efficiency increases to currently existing technology. Nuclear Fusion is still a pipe dream. Something that realistically won’t produce a single gigawatt of power for decades. Nuclear fission is also an option we should be using. But it’s not politically popular (especially after Fukushima) and there’s the issue of waste as well. But maybe nuclear fission is the only realistic option we’ve got.
-
Editado por Commander Tempu: 1/15/2018 4:07:49 PMOne of these days cold fusion could be possible but for now we should look to geothermal wind and solar. I do agree as storage is better we can do so much more for wind and solar. But we need to make it more affordable. I do like that tree skyscraper idea. Heck it would be funny if they turn it into a giant farm.
