Was wäre, wenn Energie nichts kostet?
Letzte Woche habe ich an dieser Stelle über das Potenzial der Kernfusion diskutiert.
→ FT: Die Kernfusion wird kommen und ist die Lösung
Das Potenzial für CO2-freie und sehr kostengünstige Energie ist erheblich. Doch was würde das bringen? Der von mir schon vorgestellte Newsletter Doomberg (wie cool ist denn der Name!) geht das mal gedanklich durch. Hier der Link, wo man sich anmelden kann:
→ Doomberg
Doch kommen wir zu den Highlights:
- „Nuclear fusion differs from fission – the technology in place today, and what people generally mean when they say ‘nuclear energy’ – in that it does not produce significant amounts of radioactive byproducts nor does it present a risk, however remote, of a reactor meltdown. But it also doesn’t work, and not for lack of effort. No laboratory has credibly reported producing positive net energy from a fusion reaction, and the conditions needed to run these experiments are rather extreme.“ – bto: Wir haben aber gesehen, dass sich das ändern könnte. Zumindest gibt es erhebliche Bemühungen in diese Richtung.
- „While we are skeptical that nuclear fusion will be ready for commercial deployment anytime soon, we do love a good thought experiment. Aside from the obvious disruption of the existing energy industry, what would a true breakthrough in nuclear fusion mean for the world? What second order effects could we expect? What unexpected consequences should we prepare for? What social advancements should come as a result versus what is most likely to actually develop?“ – bto: Auch für mich das ein spannendes Gedankenexperiment und ich muss gestehen, dass ich von den Antworten bei Doomberg zum Teil überrascht war, sie aber dann sehr gut nachvollziehen konnte.
- “We begin with the safe assumption that the predominate way nuclear fusion energy would be transmitted to society at large would be via electricity. (…) We further assume that a nuclear fusion breakthrough would radically reduce the cost of generating electricity, perhaps even allowing it to approach zero.“ – bto: Ja, die Kosten wären extrem gering.
- „We would expect developed societies to experience a massive increase in electricity use. In other words, we do not envision a scenario in which society pockets the gains.“ – bto: Klar, warum sollte ich Energie sparen, wenn sie nichts kostet und der Umwelt nicht schadet?
- “If electricity generation were nearly free, there would be no meaningful benefit in transmitting it more efficiently. Existing aluminum- and copper-based transmission technologies do a fine job today and adding more of what you know is almost always cheaper than implementing a new technology. There goes the lead application for room-temperature superconductors.“ – bto: Alles, was die Effizienz steigert, wäre in diesem Szenario nicht mehr wirklich wertschaffend. Ich denke an die massiven Investitionen, um Gebäude komplett zu isolieren. Gesünderes Leben mit mehr Durchzug wäre in.
- „What about electric vehicles? Surely, EVs would experience a surge of demand? We don’t think so. Quite the contrary. We submit that the development of nearly free electricity would mark the beginning of the end of electric vehicles. Here is our logic. Nuclear fusion would make the production of green hydrogen nearly free, and nearly-free hydrogen in a pressurized tank makes for a far superior battery compared to lithium-ion technology. The key constraint to the development of the hydrogen economy has been the cost of producing it and the reliance on fossil fuels to do so. Nuclear fusion removes both barriers. A network of electrolyzers – systems that produce hydrogen from water using electricity – would have to be deployed, but once complete, hydrogen would cost almost nothing. The efficiency benefit enjoyed by Li-ion batteries becomes irrelevant in this context, and Li-ion will further suffocate under the weight of its need for green metals and their controversial mining practices.“ – bto: Hier habe ich zuerst gestaunt, aber es stimmt. Einfach tanken und weiterfahren und das für 1000 Kilometer und bei höheren Geschwindigkeiten ist unschlagbar besser.
- „We further submit that hydrogen combustion engines – not fuel cells – would become the dominant technology that enables much of the transportation sector to take advantage of limitless electricity from nuclear fusion. Few realize that hydrogen combustion cars would require only minor changes to the way gasoline-powered cars are manufactured today. They involve no expensive batteries or fuel cells, emit no CO2, and use far less copper than electric vehicles. Toyota, a heavily invested leader in the technology, has a perfectly credible concept car out today. Other manufacturers stand ready to produce as well.“ – bto: Nur wir setzen ausschließlich auf Elektro. Na egal, in Deutschland und Europa haben wir es ja nicht so mit Technologie als Lösung.
- „While you might disagree with some of the predictions in this piece, and we certainly left out many more we could have included, we close with one stone cold lock. No matter the benefit to humanity, no matter the impact on global warming, no matter how clean and safe the technology becomes, we are absolutely certain Greenpeace will steadfastly oppose all development of nuclear fusion.“ – bto: :-)
