In remarks tied to the UN week, Trump repeated the argument that Europe—and specifically Germany—turned back to traditional fuels after pursuing renewables, casting it as proof that rapid green transitions don’t work.
Then if we want fission in 2035, we’ll have to start now. If we want fusion by 2035, we’re probably out of luck because we haven’t even got the tech to the point where we can produce net electricity with it yet (net energy from the reaction yes, but that’s not good enough for a power plant), and once we get that we need to refine it enough to produce enough energy to be worth the cost, and then we have to actually build the power plants. If we want neither, then we’ll probably still be using fossil fuels for a significant percentage of power generation by then, because while solar is cheap and should probably be the bulk of our future energy mix, is isn’t good for some use cases
That’s why you don’t solely fixate on solar. All viable plans involve a mix of solar, wind, water, and grid upgrades. That last one is particularly important. If you have long distance transmission, then there’s always wind or solar available.
As a great example of the importance of grid upgrades ……
Massachusetts has some of the highest electricity rates in the country. Despite our climate we’re committed to renewables, electrification, reducing carbon emissions, etc, and despite those electricity rates. But we had a deal to buy craploads of cheap clean hydropower from Canada …. Everyone benefits …. But couldn’t get the grid upgrades to carry it. Being unable to get grid upgrades means we pay more for electricity, we pollute more, Canadians don’t get the profit
Then if we want fission in 2035, we’ll have to start now. If we want fusion by 2035, we’re probably out of luck because we haven’t even got the tech to the point where we can produce net electricity with it yet (net energy from the reaction yes, but that’s not good enough for a power plant), and once we get that we need to refine it enough to produce enough energy to be worth the cost, and then we have to actually build the power plants. If we want neither, then we’ll probably still be using fossil fuels for a significant percentage of power generation by then, because while solar is cheap and should probably be the bulk of our future energy mix, is isn’t good for some use cases
That’s why you don’t solely fixate on solar. All viable plans involve a mix of solar, wind, water, and grid upgrades. That last one is particularly important. If you have long distance transmission, then there’s always wind or solar available.
As a great example of the importance of grid upgrades ……
Massachusetts has some of the highest electricity rates in the country. Despite our climate we’re committed to renewables, electrification, reducing carbon emissions, etc, and despite those electricity rates. But we had a deal to buy craploads of cheap clean hydropower from Canada …. Everyone benefits …. But couldn’t get the grid upgrades to carry it. Being unable to get grid upgrades means we pay more for electricity, we pollute more, Canadians don’t get the profit