[kadoban]

It doesn't seem like it's quick enough. We're, at minimum, decades away from it even being built out commonly, and to _really_ save ourselves we should have already replaced a substantial portion of the world's energy generation decades ago.

[NateEag]

Sure, it may be too little, too late.

You don't know that until the failure is complete, though, and "it may fail" is a terrible reason to not try the best shots we have.

[kadoban]

I mean, it _will_ fail at stopping global warming, there's no "may" about it. It will probably have other positive effects though.

I'm very onboard for any potential fusion power generation, I just don't think it has any hope of saving us from global warming.

[nielsbot]

Can we use it to put the CO2 back in the ground?

I guess there are some irreversible effects once warming reaches a certain threshold however.

[avidphantasm]

Yes, this is part of what would need to happen: using a super abundance of essentially carbon-free energy to do geo-engineering on a massive scale (including artificial carbon sequestration).

[sandos]

It might in the future turn out to be more efficient with a "few" reactors than, say, lots of batteries and wind turbines and solar panels, from a resource perspective. But I think not even that will come true, if we optimize stuff enough, which we will have a long time to do before fusion is here.