Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

t1_j07v9mt wrote

Oy. $35 billion. imagine that had been invested in solar research.

Now imagine it in the context of the Keystone pipeline leak in Kansas this week. In the context of the sabotage on the NordStream gas pipeline. In the context of the power grid issues in Texas in a successive winter and summer. In the context of the grid sabotage in N.Carolina last week, and of suspected sabotage attempts elsewhere in this nation over the past couple weeks. In the context of Russia destroying Ukraine’s power infrastructure.

Fusion remains decades out from a practical perspective, and is not local. You’re not gonna have a fusion reactor on your roof.

On the other hand, you could be collecting and storing the energy created by the fusion reactor called the Sun.

−4

t1_j08cq5u wrote

I would be incredibly surprised if solar research has received less than $35 billion over the last 70 years. Maybe fusion wouldn’t be decades from being practical if it had been given more funding than a handful of aircraft carriers or three quarters of a social media company.

4

t1_j09hp64 wrote

Dude, there's been probably almost a trillion dollars spent on solar at this point.... Costs have barely been reduced in the last decade, when most of the money has been spent. Not to mention hardly applicable to half the world's climate.

If all of Europe had stuck with nuclear power they'd be energy independent right now. The $585 billion Germany spent on solar and wind infrastructure coulda been spent updating their nuclear plants, and Putin would have next to no chips to play with. You have your priorities mixed up.

1

t1_j09xiu5 wrote

NREL budget 2020: approximately $500 million, up from $372 million three years earlier.

So no, the federal investment in renewables research has been negligible compared to virtually every other energy technology. Almost all the research has been privately funded.

1

t1_j0a39ke wrote

Well, yeah, that's by design. What incentive does the government have to spend money on renewables? They can just make policies that incentivize everybody else to do it.

"Big Energy" is down with renewables because they are unreliable enough that the whole grid needs to be backed by oil and gas to 100% capacity. The high principle investment and parts/ repair turnover along with the plentiful eco-contracts to go around make for reliable revenue streams. Energy industry gets to have their cake and eat it too.

You know what doesn't make alot of revenue? Nuclear power. Because it's like 100-1000x more efficient than oil, gas or renewables. My point is if government didn't fund nuclear research nobody would, it's too cheap. Lots of people are willing to fund renewables because it makes them money.

0