Boys, let's not argue! Cost vs efficiency are both important, it's your application that determines which is more so. If you're planning to launch the things into space, the purchase cost is not going to be terribly important to you but if you're planning on selling solar accent lights through Wal-mart then you want the cheapest cells that you can get your hands on.
I'm still not a fan of Nuclear power, however, I do understand it's current appeal. Yes, at the site of the plant, virtually no carbon is emitted. But this doesn't take into account mining and processing activities.
Safety
I fully understand that, like most accidents in the world, the majority of nuclear accidents were caused by human error. Unfortunately, humans aren't going to be cut out of the picture anytime soon. While extremely unlikely, the cost of failure at a nuclear facility is simply too high, and with every new reactor that is in operation the risk, however small, grows.
Waste
As much as government and industry wish to whitewash this issue, it remains unresolved. The fact remains that the world has a growing stockpile of material which requires careful storage and monitoring for hundreds of thousands of years. Most of the material is currently at temporary facilities and will have to be handled and moved at minimum to a permanent facility. I find that in most discussions of Nuclear power, almost nobody wants to talk about the ongoing cost of maintaining and storing the byproducts and anybody who expects industry to pick up that tab indefinitely is out of their mind. None of this cost is calculated into the cost of price of electricity generated. No, it will be dumped on government in the form of cleanups and public debt. Anyone who doubts this simply has to look at amount of cleanup the government is currently responsible for from industry long since moved on. Who's paying to build the current long term site? Which brings us to the concept of a permanent facility. I know/. is populated by lots of engineers who love nothing better than to undertake new technological challenges, however, a million years is too long of a timescale. This puts you in the realm of unforeseen earthquakes and meteor strikes and a host of 1 in 1 000 000 year events. Frankly, I find it unconscionable that we are willing dump such a tremendous problem in the laps of our children, especially when there is no guarantee that they will be in any position to actually fix any problems that might occur. Then there is that whole can of worms known as reprocessing, with the associated geopolitical implications.
unanswered questions
Finally, there remains one great unanswered question: Why do we need more nuclear power? I know why industry wants it. I know why government wants it. But why do we need it? I can see some limited small scale usage for medicine and perhaps deep space probes, but for our everyday needs Solar and wind ARE sufficient to take care of our energy needs, and when you consider that they are just at the beginning stages of their development they will only get better. Imagine how much better they would be if renewables actually had the same level of investment that the nuclear industry has been (and still is gifted with)? When you throw in geothermal, hydro, biomass, and some limited conventional generation it becomes very difficult to justify the risks and burdens of large scale nuclear deployment.
Any geoengineering solution that doesn't actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere is a waste of money because it fails to confront the totality of the problem. Though it garners the majority of the media attention, the biggest problem with increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is not climate change, rather that it leads directly to an increase in the acidity of the worlds oceans.
Reading through many of the comments on this site, it has become apparent that many of you are dead-set opposed to this idea. I find that a little bit surprising with all that this idea has going for it. I must confess that my first reaction was: this is a brilliant idea! Are there potential issues here? Of course, but it has so much going for it that it would be foolish to ignore it.
Lets look at some of the problems:
Durability
Can glass stand up to punishment? We're not talking about house glass here. Anyone who has been to a hockey game knows how much abuse glass can withstand. Truth be told asphalt requires a ton of maintenance or it quickly deteriorates. Snowplows? Of course they will do some damage, but the question is: how much? They're already very hard on asphalt roads. Dirty? Well, we may find that street sweeper technology is effective. Having said that, if we do decide to implement this idea, I suspect that we would end up with a hybrid system. It would be foolhardy to suggest that one solution should fit all. I suspect that concrete or something will take the majority of the punishing loads with these panels along the shoulders or in parking lots or sidewalks. This idea may be more suited in certain climates and not others. At least to start.
Cost
Yes, this is more expensive than asphalt. But what are you getting for your money? If the inventor is to be believed, this surface would last 3X as long and would also incorporate the energy infrastructure of the nation. When people throw out trillion dollar numbers in regards to redoing the entire country, that's a bit of a scare tactic. Much of that money will have to be spent anyway repairing what we already have. If you eliminate some of the ideas such as the ultracapacitors and LED lighting, the costs could be brought down further.
Future Possibilities
To me, the most exciting aspect of the solar road is what sort of possibilities it opens up. 1. The electric car is coming. Imagine cars that charge while they drive, or at least when you park at a mall!
2. By incorporating the energy infrastructure into the roads, you eliminate the need for overhead power lines and the associated battles that accompany the building of new lines. Power lines are crucial for other renewables such as wind.
3. If done right, you start to build the mythical 'smart grid'
Certainly there are an abundance of problems that may occur, but, I haven't read anything on this site that is not solvable. Everything required to make this project work is already a proven technology. The only question-mark is if they can be combined and if governments and business will embrace this idea.
If your girlfriend can't compete with a MMO, she's not trying. Whether she should be trying to make it work is another subject and varies based on situation. Usually, though, the MMORPG is a symptom, not the disease itself.
The Girlfriend doesn't compete WITH the MMO, the Girlfriend joins and tags along IN the MMO. Once inside the game, she will alienate him from his merry band of adventurers by complaining that he doesn't spend enough alone time with her in the game. Eventually he will throw himself into his schoolwork just to get away from her for a few hours.
You make some good points! Here's another take: What the proponents of engineering our way out of this mess fail to realize is that the changing climate is not the only problem caused by the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The real elephant in the room is what all that CO2 is doing to the oceans... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification The really crazy part is that in North America this aspect is hardly even mentioned!
Any solution that does not involve controlling carbon must take our oceans into account, at least if we like to breath O2.
Has to be April Fool's Day for anyone to think an odd numbered Trek won't suck. OMG Poniez!
Duh, that's why they need to start the sequel right away. They need to get this forthcoming abomination out of the way so that they can cash in on the even numbered awesomeness!
Call the city and complain. If they tell you to get lost, get out your stopwatch and gather proof and take it to the media.
...If you're in that intersection and it goes yellow, and you see that it's a camera monitored intersection, you'd better either be 1/2 or more the way through the intersection or you'll get the ticket period, even though a human would not have considered it a violation at that point in most cases.
Red light cameras only issue you a ticket if you ENTER the intersection when the light is red. They take two pictures. The first showing you about to enter with the light being red and the second shows that you have actually entered the intersection.
The problem is that the cop gives the alleged offender a criminal citation, and they have due process. The defendant can go to court and have a judge look at the situation, face their accuser, etc. Nobody's camera laws work like that.
Ummmm, if you think you didn't run that red light you can go before a judge and argue that the photo's of you running the red light don't exist. If you wish to face your accuser, that would be the prosecutor. I'm sure that if there is some kind of crazy extenuating circumstance, like you were fleeing from the shotgun toting father who just caught you banging his daughter, the judge and the rest of the courtroom will get a good laugh and they might even give you a reduced fine.
I know this goes against the general/. attitude, but I used to be against red light cameras on principle. That was before I moved to my current city and saw how people behaved. I don't think they're appropriate everywhere, but I do think that my city could certainly use them. It just depends on the location and people's behavior.
Also, I have a hard time understanding how privacy comes into play. When you are driving, you are doing it in a public place; why should there be any expectation of privacy?
Agreed. Leaving aside the accusations of cheating and underhandedness of the cities, my experience has been that most people who don't like the cameras don't like them because they know that they're the ones who speed or run red lights! They do it because in their minds the rules don't really apply to them. They will seize on any stupid talking point and argue till they're blue in the face because they know that they engage in bad driving behaviour and are now going to be caught.
I'm like you: it's a shame to have to babysit adults.
...They are red light cameras, taking pictures when the yellow light time was shorted below state and or federal times.
A couple of crooks in Italy get busted and suddenly everyones doing it... If you think the yellow has been tampered with, Call your traffic dpt or take it upon yourself to get out your stopwatch and gather proof and call the newspaper!
...if an overwhelming majority of people don't want red light cameras, I'd argue that the government doesn't have a right to use public money to install and operate them, regardless of any supposed benefits....
It's a fair argument, though, I'd hesitate to make it in front of the mothers who've had their children killed by fools running red lights.
In this case though, the cameras create more problems then they solve, which is why they shouldn't have been installed in the first place.
Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their OPINION.
Lenghtening yellow light times has been proven to decrease ALL accident types...
Again, you only get ticketed if you ENTER the intersection on a red. The proof is in MULTIPLE photos.
The only unfair part of the photo process is that the camera can't tell who is behind the wheel of the car. But that can be useful too. When that envelope shows up in the mail you get to ask how your 16yo kid, who borrowed your car to see a movie, got a ticket on the other side of the city!
Where I come from, Canada, the red light cameras only snap if you ENTER on red. They prove it by taking more than one picture. The first showing you outside the intersection and the light is red. The second, after you have entered the intersection. The pictures also show a large chunk of the intersection. If there is an extraordinary occurrence, it's in the picture and you can show it to the judge.
Frankly, I think it's a great idea to have cities generate money from automated tickets. Cities need funding and what better place to get it than from aggressive drivers? I've driven around photo radar and redlight cameras all my life and, you know what: TICKET FREE! If you can't obey the rules, you shouldn't be driving!
Of course, if municipalities want to ban the devices then more power to them. I wouldn't agree with it where I live, but that's what the political process if for.
And the fact it's gone this long without being noticed is even MORE frightening.
It certainly is sobering. Although, when one thinks about it, folks who THINK they know what they're doing are often way more dangerous than than the guy who doesn't have a clue (especially when you got a bunch of them on your hands!) and this is not just true with computers: Imagine all the people who thought they knew what they were doing when they took out that 40y, pay-what-you-want, no-downpayment-necessary mortgage on that 7 bed 7 bath mansion! ...Or the broker that thought he knew what he was doing when he convinced that guy the mortgage was a good idea. ...Or the bank that knew what it was doing when it authorized that loan. ...Or the insurance corporation that knew what it was doing when it insured that mortgage... ...Or the ratings company that felt these mortgages bundled together comprised a sound financial asset. ...Or, well, this could go on for a while and you get the idea!
Ya, I voted strategically for Colbert. I wouldn't have bothered if he was competing against 'Serenity', however, there is no way in hell I want Xenu on the ISS.
The power is cheap and will scale: Many European countries get the majority of their power from it
Many countries have had no choice but to attempt the nuclear route and would rather go another way. Many countries still face massive cost overruns building Nuclear plants. Additionally, where's the accounting for the expense of keeping the growing piles of waste potentially for a million years? Where's the accounting of the CO2 and other environmental damage from the mining and enrichment phase?
We have plenty of nuclear fuel: There won't ever be a nuclear fuel crisis because before we've used the enrichable uranium ore, and then reprocessed and reused all of the nuclear waste in our breeder reactors, the sun will be dead.
If you say so.
It's safe: If the only reason for not going for it is an accident 30 years ago when the technology was in its infancy that's great
the threat of Human error/stupidity/wilful sabotage is alway there. FYI, there are accidents of varying degrees of severity all the time. Besides, the longer we go without a Chernobyl type event the more lulled everybody becomes. Already Alberta is floating the idea of 12 never-built-before reactors to supply the energy to extract Oil from the Tar sands without the sarcophagus because these new plants theoretically can't melt down and darn it if building all those pesky safety features takes time and money.
It's available now: We cannot wait for the perfect power supply. We need to change over now. We've got the fuel, the tech, the experience.
All we need is for the public to get their heads out of their asses and learn to accept compromise.
Wind, Solar, Solar Thermal, Geothermal ect. are also ready to go now. Nuclear still carries great risks whether you want to admit it or not.
You cant, and thats the problem with generation systems where you don't control the minute to minute generating capacity yourself. Wind and solar also cannot handle the increase in peak production required during certain events.
Well about 15 years ago there was this one crazy dude from my riding. Somehow he grabbed a whole box of cast ballots, ran outside screaming about aliens or his underwear or some such nonsense and proceeded to throw the works into the river. Still, someone fished them out and they got counted!
I know that this isn't really applicable to your post, I just thought it was kind of funny.
Freeloading? Don't get too crazy now. As Microsoft and Google know, even if they don't make money from you using their service, there IS value to having all the users use your product/service!
Which clearly means it is never, ever going to work and we should just give up, right?
Of course not, fusion still displays all the promise it did forty years ago. However, we should keep in mind that its problems are obviously not as solvable as previously claimed. We should be mindful of not devoting too many resources that may be better invested elsewhere. Like the promise of the Hydrogen Economy, Fusion is still a 'magic bullet' for our current ills. Unfortunately our problems are growing more urgent as the days float, by so how much longer can we afford to wait when we have a whole series of proven renewables that would benefit massively from even a fraction of the fusion/fission commitment.
Really the biggest danger is that we uphold the status quo by default. We take our eyes off the prize and allow the promise of a shiny, sexy, futuristic technology to delay us taking real action today!
Slashdot Mirror
Boys, let's not argue! Cost vs efficiency are both important, it's your application that determines which is more so. If you're planning to launch the things into space, the purchase cost is not going to be terribly important to you but if you're planning on selling solar accent lights through Wal-mart then you want the cheapest cells that you can get your hands on.
I'm still not a fan of Nuclear power, however, I do understand it's current appeal. Yes, at the site of the plant, virtually no carbon is emitted. But this doesn't take into account mining and processing activities.
/. is populated by lots of engineers who love nothing better than to undertake new technological challenges, however, a million years is too long of a timescale. This puts you in the realm of unforeseen earthquakes and meteor strikes and a host of 1 in 1 000 000 year events. Frankly, I find it unconscionable that we are willing dump such a tremendous problem in the laps of our children, especially when there is no guarantee that they will be in any position to actually fix any problems that might occur. Then there is that whole can of worms known as reprocessing, with the associated geopolitical implications.
Safety
I fully understand that, like most accidents in the world, the majority of nuclear accidents were caused by human error. Unfortunately, humans aren't going to be cut out of the picture anytime soon. While extremely unlikely, the cost of failure at a nuclear facility is simply too high, and with every new reactor that is in operation the risk, however small, grows.
Waste
As much as government and industry wish to whitewash this issue, it remains unresolved. The fact remains that the world has a growing stockpile of material which requires careful storage and monitoring for hundreds of thousands of years. Most of the material is currently at temporary facilities and will have to be handled and moved at minimum to a permanent facility. I find that in most discussions of Nuclear power, almost nobody wants to talk about the ongoing cost of maintaining and storing the byproducts and anybody who expects industry to pick up that tab indefinitely is out of their mind. None of this cost is calculated into the cost of price of electricity generated. No, it will be dumped on government in the form of cleanups and public debt. Anyone who doubts this simply has to look at amount of cleanup the government is currently responsible for from industry long since moved on. Who's paying to build the current long term site? Which brings us to the concept of a permanent facility. I know
unanswered questions
Finally, there remains one great unanswered question: Why do we need more nuclear power? I know why industry wants it. I know why government wants it. But why do we need it? I can see some limited small scale usage for medicine and perhaps deep space probes, but for our everyday needs Solar and wind ARE sufficient to take care of our energy needs, and when you consider that they are just at the beginning stages of their development they will only get better. Imagine how much better they would be if renewables actually had the same level of investment that the nuclear industry has been (and still is gifted with)? When you throw in geothermal, hydro, biomass, and some limited conventional generation it becomes very difficult to justify the risks and burdens of large scale nuclear deployment.
Any geoengineering solution that doesn't actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere is a waste of money because it fails to confront the totality of the problem. Though it garners the majority of the media attention, the biggest problem with increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is not climate change, rather that it leads directly to an increase in the acidity of the worlds oceans.
Reading through many of the comments on this site, it has become apparent that many of you are dead-set opposed to this idea. I find that a little bit surprising with all that this idea has going for it. I must confess that my first reaction was: this is a brilliant idea! Are there potential issues here? Of course, but it has so much going for it that it would be foolish to ignore it.
Lets look at some of the problems:
Durability
Can glass stand up to punishment? We're not talking about house glass here. Anyone who has been to a hockey game knows how much abuse glass can withstand. Truth be told asphalt requires a ton of maintenance or it quickly deteriorates. Snowplows? Of course they will do some damage, but the question is: how much? They're already very hard on asphalt roads. Dirty? Well, we may find that street sweeper technology is effective. Having said that, if we do decide to implement this idea, I suspect that we would end up with a hybrid system. It would be foolhardy to suggest that one solution should fit all. I suspect that concrete or something will take the majority of the punishing loads with these panels along the shoulders or in parking lots or sidewalks. This idea may be more suited in certain climates and not others. At least to start.
Cost
Yes, this is more expensive than asphalt. But what are you getting for your money? If the inventor is to be believed, this surface would last 3X as long and would also incorporate the energy infrastructure of the nation. When people throw out trillion dollar numbers in regards to redoing the entire country, that's a bit of a scare tactic. Much of that money will have to be spent anyway repairing what we already have. If you eliminate some of the ideas such as the ultracapacitors and LED lighting, the costs could be brought down further.
Future Possibilities To me, the most exciting aspect of the solar road is what sort of possibilities it opens up.
1. The electric car is coming. Imagine cars that charge while they drive, or at least when you park at a mall!
2. By incorporating the energy infrastructure into the roads, you eliminate the need for overhead power lines and the associated battles that accompany the building of new lines. Power lines are crucial for other renewables such as wind.
3. If done right, you start to build the mythical 'smart grid' Certainly there are an abundance of problems that may occur, but, I haven't read anything on this site that is not solvable. Everything required to make this project work is already a proven technology. The only question-mark is if they can be combined and if governments and business will embrace this idea.
Perhaps, but according to the article, the panels will heat themselves thereby eliminating the need for snowplows.
Well, you might bring the planet to its knees, but who would know it?
If your girlfriend can't compete with a MMO, she's not trying. Whether she should be trying to make it work is another subject and varies based on situation. Usually, though, the MMORPG is a symptom, not the disease itself.
The Girlfriend doesn't compete WITH the MMO, the Girlfriend joins and tags along IN the MMO. Once inside the game, she will alienate him from his merry band of adventurers by complaining that he doesn't spend enough alone time with her in the game. Eventually he will throw himself into his schoolwork just to get away from her for a few hours.
Actually, the French [wikipedia.org] have been recycling [wikipedia.org] their spent nuclear fuel for years.
... and what do they do with the nuclear plants themselves when they reach the end of their lifespans?
You make some good points! Here's another take: What the proponents of engineering our way out of this mess fail to realize is that the changing climate is not the only problem caused by the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The real elephant in the room is what all that CO2 is doing to the oceans... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification The really crazy part is that in North America this aspect is hardly even mentioned!
Any solution that does not involve controlling carbon must take our oceans into account, at least if we like to breath O2.
Has to be April Fool's Day for anyone to think an odd numbered Trek won't suck. OMG Poniez!
Duh, that's why they need to start the sequel right away. They need to get this forthcoming abomination out of the way so that they can cash in on the even numbered awesomeness!
In most cases, the timings HAVE been dinked with.
Call the city and complain. If they tell you to get lost, get out your stopwatch and gather proof and take it to the media.
...If you're in that intersection and it goes yellow, and you see that it's a camera monitored intersection, you'd better either be 1/2 or more the way through the intersection or you'll get the ticket period, even though a human would not have considered it a violation at that point in most cases.
Red light cameras only issue you a ticket if you ENTER the intersection when the light is red. They take two pictures. The first showing you about to enter with the light being red and the second shows that you have actually entered the intersection.
The problem is that the cop gives the alleged offender a criminal citation, and they have due process. The defendant can go to court and have a judge look at the situation, face their accuser, etc. Nobody's camera laws work like that.
Ummmm, if you think you didn't run that red light you can go before a judge and argue that the photo's of you running the red light don't exist. If you wish to face your accuser, that would be the prosecutor. I'm sure that if there is some kind of crazy extenuating circumstance, like you were fleeing from the shotgun toting father who just caught you banging his daughter, the judge and the rest of the courtroom will get a good laugh and they might even give you a reduced fine.
I know this goes against the general /. attitude, but I used to be against red light cameras on principle. That was before I moved to my current city and saw how people behaved. I don't think they're appropriate everywhere, but I do think that my city could certainly use them. It just depends on the location and people's behavior.
Also, I have a hard time understanding how privacy comes into play. When you are driving, you are doing it in a public place; why should there be any expectation of privacy?
Agreed. Leaving aside the accusations of cheating and underhandedness of the cities, my experience has been that most people who don't like the cameras don't like them because they know that they're the ones who speed or run red lights! They do it because in their minds the rules don't really apply to them. They will seize on any stupid talking point and argue till they're blue in the face because they know that they engage in bad driving behaviour and are now going to be caught.
I'm like you: it's a shame to have to babysit adults.
...They are red light cameras, taking pictures when the yellow light time was shorted below state and or federal times.
A couple of crooks in Italy get busted and suddenly everyones doing it... If you think the yellow has been tampered with, Call your traffic dpt or take it upon yourself to get out your stopwatch and gather proof and call the newspaper!
...if an overwhelming majority of people don't want red light cameras, I'd argue that the government doesn't have a right to use public money to install and operate them, regardless of any supposed benefits....
It's a fair argument, though, I'd hesitate to make it in front of the mothers who've had their children killed by fools running red lights.
In this case though, the cameras create more problems then they solve, which is why they shouldn't have been installed in the first place.
Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their OPINION.
Lenghtening yellow light times has been proven to decrease ALL accident types...
%100 correct!
Again, you only get ticketed if you ENTER the intersection on a red. The proof is in MULTIPLE photos.
The only unfair part of the photo process is that the camera can't tell who is behind the wheel of the car. But that can be useful too. When that envelope shows up in the mail you get to ask how your 16yo kid, who borrowed your car to see a movie, got a ticket on the other side of the city!
Where I come from, Canada, the red light cameras only snap if you ENTER on red. They prove it by taking more than one picture. The first showing you outside the intersection and the light is red. The second, after you have entered the intersection. The pictures also show a large chunk of the intersection. If there is an extraordinary occurrence, it's in the picture and you can show it to the judge.
Frankly, I think it's a great idea to have cities generate money from automated tickets. Cities need funding and what better place to get it than from aggressive drivers? I've driven around photo radar and redlight cameras all my life and, you know what: TICKET FREE! If you can't obey the rules, you shouldn't be driving!
Of course, if municipalities want to ban the devices then more power to them. I wouldn't agree with it where I live, but that's what the political process if for.
How do you handle train tracks then?
You only get a ticket if you ENTER the intersection on a red.
And the fact it's gone this long without being noticed is even MORE frightening.
It certainly is sobering. Although, when one thinks about it, folks who THINK they know what they're doing are often way more dangerous than than the guy who doesn't have a clue (especially when you got a bunch of them on your hands!) and this is not just true with computers: Imagine all the people who thought they knew what they were doing when they took out that 40y, pay-what-you-want, no-downpayment-necessary mortgage on that 7 bed 7 bath mansion!
...Or the broker that thought he knew what he was doing when he convinced that guy the mortgage was a good idea.
...Or the bank that knew what it was doing when it authorized that loan.
...Or the insurance corporation that knew what it was doing when it insured that mortgage...
...Or the ratings company that felt these mortgages bundled together comprised a sound financial asset.
...Or, well, this could go on for a while and you get the idea!
Ya, I voted strategically for Colbert. I wouldn't have bothered if he was competing against 'Serenity', however, there is no way in hell I want Xenu on the ISS.
The power is cheap and will scale: Many European countries get the majority of their power from it
Many countries have had no choice but to attempt the nuclear route and would rather go another way. Many countries still face massive cost overruns building Nuclear plants. Additionally, where's the accounting for the expense of keeping the growing piles of waste potentially for a million years? Where's the accounting of the CO2 and other environmental damage from the mining and enrichment phase?
We have plenty of nuclear fuel: There won't ever be a nuclear fuel crisis because before we've used the enrichable uranium ore, and then reprocessed and reused all of the nuclear waste in our breeder reactors, the sun will be dead.
If you say so.
It's safe: If the only reason for not going for it is an accident 30 years ago when the technology was in its infancy that's great
the threat of Human error/stupidity/wilful sabotage is alway there. FYI, there are accidents of varying degrees of severity all the time. Besides, the longer we go without a Chernobyl type event the more lulled everybody becomes. Already Alberta is floating the idea of 12 never-built-before reactors to supply the energy to extract Oil from the Tar sands without the sarcophagus because these new plants theoretically can't melt down and darn it if building all those pesky safety features takes time and money.
It's available now: We cannot wait for the perfect power supply. We need to change over now. We've got the fuel, the tech, the experience. All we need is for the public to get their heads out of their asses and learn to accept compromise.
Wind, Solar, Solar Thermal, Geothermal ect. are also ready to go now. Nuclear still carries great risks whether you want to admit it or not.
You cant, and thats the problem with generation systems where you don't control the minute to minute generating capacity yourself. Wind and solar also cannot handle the increase in peak production required during certain events.
Geothermal. Solar Thermal.
Well about 15 years ago there was this one crazy dude from my riding. Somehow he grabbed a whole box of cast ballots, ran outside screaming about aliens or his underwear or some such nonsense and proceeded to throw the works into the river. Still, someone fished them out and they got counted!
I know that this isn't really applicable to your post, I just thought it was kind of funny.
Freeloading? Don't get too crazy now. As Microsoft and Google know, even if they don't make money from you using their service, there IS value to having all the users use your product/service!
Which clearly means it is never, ever going to work and we should just give up, right?
Of course not, fusion still displays all the promise it did forty years ago. However, we should keep in mind that its problems are obviously not as solvable as previously claimed. We should be mindful of not devoting too many resources that may be better invested elsewhere. Like the promise of the Hydrogen Economy, Fusion is still a 'magic bullet' for our current ills. Unfortunately our problems are growing more urgent as the days float, by so how much longer can we afford to wait when we have a whole series of proven renewables that would benefit massively from even a fraction of the fusion/fission commitment.
Really the biggest danger is that we uphold the status quo by default. We take our eyes off the prize and allow the promise of a shiny, sexy, futuristic technology to delay us taking real action today!