Can someone explain to me the 2nd order effects if we made energy 10x cheaper? Do we ever have to worry about waste heat? I'm not an EE or physicist (maybe in retirement).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605...
Lets agree on a factor of 20 between burning fossils and using fission as an energy source for a further guesstimate.
Solar and wind are better than that, since they have primary energy requirements for production, but no warmth is generated: the albedo of solar panels is as good as grass, the warmth generated by a wind turbines would be generated by the wind slowing down on a tree, house or mountain as well.
As which is cheapest, that could vary between those three technologies. None are regulated as fast as gas turbines, but fission power output is perhaps faster to scale than fusion or even coal.
Having energy at one tenth the cost (solar/wind is supposedly already half to on fifth to cost of fusion) we could feasibly consume ten times the energy by replacing fossils, traveling more, consuming more and giving 80 % of mankind the final lift to 90s-level western accommodations.
So perhaps no net change at all in the ecological balance of heating our space ship if we really switch to fission and keep the our mind set on growth by more technology.
Battery advancements and supply logistics become the only holdup to clean transportation (right now, there isn't sufficient renewable generation or storage to completely replace fossil electricity).
Atmospheric CO2 scrubbing becomes more economical, so waste heat is not an issue I suspect.
Completely moving off of fossil fuels makes petroleum extraction much more expensive, as the primary products are not used as much, so anything currently relying on petroleum (plastics, makeup, asphalt, etc etc) becomes more expensive until renewable synthetic production becomes mainstream.
Maybe due to my past education/experience, I still feel uncomfortable about more waste (if energy is cheap, why not like in Quatar build stadiums with AC ? keep AC stores doors open in summer, and in winter when the heat is on, etc.)
I have a sense that increasing energy waste will come to 2nd order cost on other resources (water, minerals, etc.). Thoughts ?
Some obvious things: carbon capture and storage, synthesis of plastics from air-captured carbon, large-scale desalination.
We'll know at least some other new applications in 2070 - 2090. One possibility is direct synthesis of carbohydrates and amino acids from the air.
It's about being abundant.
And 1 fusion reactor will generate nowhere near the power of the largest fission reactors we already have, in any design considered realistic today.
Not to mention, the extraordinarily expensive fusion reactor you build will become too brittle to hold itself up in the span of 10 years at best, because of the neutron bombardment - turning your massive investment mostly into highly radioactive waste that you'll need expensive robots to disassemble and replace.
Solar and wind cost are still falling sharply, so you may well find power substantially cheaper in the future. There won't be any fusion plants at all, because no one will put up money to build any.
Unstated premise: you can't use a fission plant.