• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What If?

Jay59

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
22,331
Reaction score
5,224
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Suppose fusion is developed but takes time to ramp up due to manufacturing difficulties--scale-up problems, new manufacturing techniques needed, resistance from environmentalists, nuclearphobes, the established energy suppliers, etc. However, time also improves processes, making it feasible to power aircraft carriers and anything larger. Suppose the conversion takes 50 years as follows by decades

  1. 10% of grid power in the first decade, concentrated in the NE and West Coast
  2. 20% additional grid power primarily in remaining population centers
  3. 20% additional grid power primarily on the interior lower population density states
  4. Remainder of grid power due to collapse of alternative fuel source power generation
  5. Growth of boutique uses--manufacturing and research centers, private communities, capital ships, rail trains, space manufacturing, starship propulsion, etc.
Petroleum would continue to supply vehicle fuel throughout. In addition, plastics, solvents, pharmaceuticals, etc. will continue to demand some supply.

Other than the obvious political resistance, what issues would you envision?

This is not pure speculation. I know an author researching a future history storyline.
 
If it were to become a reality, I would expect adoption in fits and starts. It’s clear that any early reactors will be exceptionally large and expensive so you’d see them deployed in places where an existing large centralized generator (read: fission or coal) is being retired due to age. Therefore the pace and location of the first reactors would be opportunistic.
 
I think planning without a hypothetical fusion reactor is more important.
We already have a viable path to energy sustainability, but it just does not sit well
with the people who see AGW as a control mechanism.
The way it would work is that we would ramp up fission power, and start a full build out of solar.
The massive surplus spikes in Spring and Fall, would be stored as hydrocarbon fuels for transport and to cover non sunny periods.
As we build out the solar more and more surplus would be available during the other seasons.
The existing natural gas grid can be used to move massive amounts of energy to areas in higher demand.
In addition to grid scale operations, remote sites could use the same power to liquid technology to create fuel for farm
applications, accumulating the low density solar energy in the fuels needed for farming.
All the fuels would be carbon neutral as the needed carbon would be harvested from atmospheric CO2.
 
Back
Top Bottom