• echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    You probably want a comparison to something other than fusion, which is and seemingly will forever be 20 years away.

    It can make sense also, for example, in parts of the world that aren’t a good fit for solar power. I’d argue for more nuclear before space solar, but it’s not like there’s zero sense in it.

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Despite being perpetually “20 years away”, I still think we’ll crack it before we run out of room on the planet for more solar panels.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It can make sense also, for example, in parts of the world that aren’t a good fit for solar power. I’d argue for more nuclear before space solar, but it’s not like there’s zero sense in it.

        wild how people literally can’t read more than one sentence before replying.

        • Windex007@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          I thought based on your first sentence which implied fusion was a pipe dream, that the second paragraph suggesting “more nuclear” would be referring to fission. “More” implies some already exists, and as you’ve already noted, there is no fusion in use.

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            before we run out of room on the planet for more solar panels

            I’m responding to this, there’s potential uses outside of “we ran out of room on earth”

            It can make sense also, for example, in parts of the world that aren’t a good fit for solar power.