sicetaitsimple wrote:bardal wrote:But, sicetaitsimple, nuclear fusion and renewable energies are not in competition ...
......................
I made it very clear
1 I did not talk about Iter
2. My questioning arose on the horizon of the XNIXXème century on the assumption that the merger would become industrial for the production of energy.
Your answer might suggest that I do not understand much about comparing cabbages and carrots, but it is next to the plate.
Do not get angry, sicetaitsimple, me either I do not speak of ITER, except to point out that the media systematically divert its objectives and its purpose. ITER is not a power plant and will never produce a single kWh.
As for knowing if in 100 years nuclear power - even if it will be fusion - will be competitive compared to renewable energies, I must admit that I have no idea. And I do not see who would be able to answer this question: no beginning of a theoretical diagram of a thermo-nuclear power plant is under study (the researchers say they cannot envisage anything before the end of the century) and the wind turbines will have known at least five generations of turbines; do we have any idea of the state of the rare earths and metals resources necessary for their construction at this stage of history, of the state of humanity, of its needs ... All this completely escapes our economic analyzes, already not very reliable to predict the very near future.
On the other hand, it seems to me impossible, and moreover not at all desirable, to stop all scientific research on the structure of the atom; and I am delighted that so many countries have seen fit to invest in expensive tools to continue this research ...
NB Costly (20 billion €), it is moreover an exaggerated way of speaking: it is less than two years of public subsidies for renewable energies in France, shared between all the participating countries, and spread over 15 or 20 years . It's not expensive at all, to reproduce the sun.
