Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EclecticKant t1_j06utau wrote

Reply to comment by gimmickypuppet in [OC] Cost of Carbon Zero - Historical Look At U.S. Funding of Fusion Energy by Metalytiq

It's probably not the kind of market where private companies thrives, the capital needed and the initial risks will probably be high enough that a few failures would bankrupt most companies. On top of that fusion generation is stable, reliable and predictable, unlike fossil fuel power plants there is not much speculation, so the profit margins will be pretty slim (especially since electric grid are often somewhat nationalized, or at least the government has a strong influence). Lastly ITER is a collaboration between countries, the agreement is that when ITER will archive its goal the results will be shared between the participants, no company will be able to archive a monopoly.

30

neurodiverseotter t1_j0720qp wrote

I'm pretty sure if we don't change our system drastically until it's viable, it's gonna be the same as with nuclear: Public funding for research, lots of government projects, private corporations then build power plants which are largely government funded, the energy gets heavily subsidized in the market and then people are told it's the cheapest form of energy and everyone talks about how the private sector is so much more efficient because the government would not have been able to turn a profit.

18

gimmickypuppet t1_j081bqa wrote

Better said than I said it. I just went for the snarky comment

3

Lemonio t1_j07a0rt wrote

Could companies still have local monopolies the way America has for most utilities?

5

40for60 t1_j0d0k6z wrote

They will have to and it will make sense, do we really need to competing fusion plants in the same city? What's the benefit of this? Energy production is super Cap X intensive and unlike software you can't recover you costs fast.

1