True, but we've built tokamaks and we're building ITER, which so far has an estimated price of between $45 billion and $65 billion.
Now of course that's a research reactor full of experiments and instrumentation that wouldn't be part of a normal power plant, but given current experience that I think we can expect we won't suddenly knock down the cost to $100M. It's going to be somewhere in the billions. And we have expectations of that DEMO is going to make 750MWe.
We can then plug those estimates into the calculator and basically figure out how cheap and how powerful a fusion reactor has to be for it to make economical sense.
Part of that cost is from ITER being so huge, which is because they use obsolete superconductors. CFS is doing the same thing in a reactor a tenth as big, using newer superconductors that support stronger magnetic fields.
The size and also the complicated governance have made ITER very slow to build, which also increases expense. The JET tokamak is about the size of the reactor CFS is building, and JET was built in a year for the reactor itself, plus three years before that for the building they put it in.
Their coal generation decreased last year. They're building on the order of 70GW of new coal while they decomission or underutilized more than 70GW of pre-existing coal. Meanwhile they installed 450GW of new renewables energy.
Not relevant to the question of which energy source makes sense to build in the year 2026. But sure China has many coal plants left over from 2003 when renewables was more expensive, nobody would dispute that this is a fact, however irrelevant.
Batteries are not appropriate for dealing with Dunkelflauten. There's very little energy flowing through there, so what you want to do is trade lower round trip efficiency for lower capex. The high capex of batteries is best amortized over many charge/discharge cycles, for example for daily storage.
I mean, who cares? Fire up the gas plants in the one week a year you have weather anomalies. We’d still be 90+% carbon free which would be incredible. The last gap can be solved at a later point as technology evolves
And replacing the natural gas burned in those turbines with hydrogen won't be very expensive, since they will be used so infrequently. Storing energy as hydrogen is much cheaper than storing it in batteries, as measured by cost of storage of capacity.
My friend, renewables only have a capacity factor of .1 (10%). That means those "gas plants" (really coal, and the worst quality coal on the planet too) are running 90% of the time. There is a reason why France's grid makes 7x the power for the same CO2 emissions as Germany.
Wind turbines across a whole region you'd be looking at 30% maybe 35% or even 40% if they're off-shore. Off-shore the winds aren't slowed by all the random structures humans build but also the turbines are much taller and as your elevation increases the reliability of the wind increases.
PV it varies by how far you are from the equator, 10% is realistic for a Northern country like the UK or Germany whereas in Africa you might see 25% or even 30%
I see an increasing number of chinese cars where I live in Europe. Though almost none of them are fully electric ones (BEVs here have different licence plates), they're plug-in hybrids at best.
And economists agree that schemes similar to ETS is the most economically efficient way to achieve carbon targets.
So, if you want to say: "I don't think governments should have agreed to the Paris agreement" then you should just say that, rather than attack various highly efficient ways of achieving those goals.
I don't support it because it doesn't work (at least for me, I guess there's some middleman in the grand scheme of things who is profiting off of this). E.g. Texas has a high share of renewables too without carbon taxes and with much cheaper electricity.
Air to water heat pumps (which usually are used in Germany) should be quite cheap nowadays. Maybe they tried overcharging you or a significant rework was required?
reply