how much solar + wind + batteries could you deploy today for $550 billion? If you add up all the investment plus the actual cost to build once you sort out all the problems with Fusion it will most likely take $4 to $7 Trillion before you could connect a Fusion plant to the grid. I think the money is much better spent deploying more solar + wind + batteries which are currently the least expensive to deploy today.
Right now it isn’t Renewables vs Nuclear. The real challenge is cutting fossil fuel dependence and finding solutions that scale.
Totally agree on pushing more solar and batteries fast, just like China is doing.
Nuclear and fusion simply cover different gaps. They give you steady power when solar and wind drop, support heavy industrial loads, work in remote areas, and handle big modular use cases across sectors like chemistry, automotive, pharma, and construction.
I think all the gaps can be filled with solar + wind + batteries (SWB) more economically than spending several trillion dollars trying to make fusion work. I think fusion could be very useful for powering space based research platforms and research outpost on the moon or on the ocean floor. I don't see a way for the fusion economics to make any sense unless that is your business model. Large power providers want to have centralized large power generation because that fits their business model. SWB will increasingly decentralize the power grid disrupting that business model. With more and more inverters not needing the grid to dictate the "master frequency" I think decentralized power will become the norm. I believe the transition to renewables will be driven entirely by the economics. The economics for fusion only makes sense if the cost of energy to the consumer is equal to or less than the cost of energy from SWB. Try this math problem; if you purchased $1 trillion worth of solar wind and Batteries today how many giga-watts of power can you build that provides 24 / 7 - 365 power? If you spent that same $1 trillion dollars today on Fusion how much power would you be able to guarantee? I think you will find if you do the math you get more power per dollar spent with SWB. If you're going to allocate Capital, you should allocate the Capital to give you the best return on your investment. I believe the best return on your capital today is SWB compared to any other current power generation technology. SWB can scale, just look at what is happening in Australia. The best example of decentralized power reaching scale quickly is Pakistan.
Yeah, it’s a good sign. Investors are finally waking up to how important steady, round-the-clock power is.
The real bottleneck now is fuel. If even a fraction of these fission projects move forward, uranium production and conversion capacity will need a big jump. The tech is coming together, but the supply chain has to scale with it.
how much solar + wind + batteries could you deploy today for $550 billion? If you add up all the investment plus the actual cost to build once you sort out all the problems with Fusion it will most likely take $4 to $7 Trillion before you could connect a Fusion plant to the grid. I think the money is much better spent deploying more solar + wind + batteries which are currently the least expensive to deploy today.
Right now it isn’t Renewables vs Nuclear. The real challenge is cutting fossil fuel dependence and finding solutions that scale.
Totally agree on pushing more solar and batteries fast, just like China is doing.
Nuclear and fusion simply cover different gaps. They give you steady power when solar and wind drop, support heavy industrial loads, work in remote areas, and handle big modular use cases across sectors like chemistry, automotive, pharma, and construction.
I think all the gaps can be filled with solar + wind + batteries (SWB) more economically than spending several trillion dollars trying to make fusion work. I think fusion could be very useful for powering space based research platforms and research outpost on the moon or on the ocean floor. I don't see a way for the fusion economics to make any sense unless that is your business model. Large power providers want to have centralized large power generation because that fits their business model. SWB will increasingly decentralize the power grid disrupting that business model. With more and more inverters not needing the grid to dictate the "master frequency" I think decentralized power will become the norm. I believe the transition to renewables will be driven entirely by the economics. The economics for fusion only makes sense if the cost of energy to the consumer is equal to or less than the cost of energy from SWB. Try this math problem; if you purchased $1 trillion worth of solar wind and Batteries today how many giga-watts of power can you build that provides 24 / 7 - 365 power? If you spent that same $1 trillion dollars today on Fusion how much power would you be able to guarantee? I think you will find if you do the math you get more power per dollar spent with SWB. If you're going to allocate Capital, you should allocate the Capital to give you the best return on your investment. I believe the best return on your capital today is SWB compared to any other current power generation technology. SWB can scale, just look at what is happening in Australia. The best example of decentralized power reaching scale quickly is Pakistan.
Yeah, it’s a good sign. Investors are finally waking up to how important steady, round-the-clock power is.
The real bottleneck now is fuel. If even a fraction of these fission projects move forward, uranium production and conversion capacity will need a big jump. The tech is coming together, but the supply chain has to scale with it.