this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
680 points (97.6% liked)

Science Memes

20826 readers
1067 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Renewables are cheaper than building new reactors. Fusion is always viable in 10 years.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Fusion has been 10 years away, with proper funding. It never got that funding. It struggled to maintain the break even funding to keep skilled people employed, and the lights on.

The difference is that over unity has been achieved, in a normally sustainable manner. The funding is such that it's 5-10 years at current funding. Most of that is building the actual test plants.

I fully agree that renewables are currently the best cost option. The catch is that they are not viable everywhere. They are also inherently low density, so can get expensive in certain areas.

Basically, we want a mix of options, to fit local requirements. Nuclear (and later fusion) should be part of the plan.

In practice, I'm of the take what we can get. We need to crash CO2 output, and we need to do it yesterday. Anything speeding that up is a win, as far as I'm concerned.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago

Fusion has been 10 years away, with proper funding. It never got that funding.

Fusion got billions in funding and it led barely anywhere. Meanwhile renewables are the cheapest mass market options.