Economic turmoil

If polywell fusion is developed, in what ways will the world change for better or worse? Discuss.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MrE
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Morro Bay, California

Postby MrE » Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:10 pm

It has always been my understanding that a functional IEC device could be plugged into existing electrical utility plants and run when prices for energy are high and when they are low. A means to give a utility "an edge" when it comes to profit. I worked as an intern(in IT) for Duke Energy for a little while and learned how a utility sells power to the grid. It is very interesting all the decisions made and the cyclic nature of prices on the energy market. Also, the power plant reminded me of the colony from Aliens and some levels from half life. You had offices and cubicles, then in the plant the lights were not as bright and there are steel-grid catwalks and such several stories up. You could spit down the center area and watch it hit the ground level. Not that I did that, officially.

So, basically, I see an IEC device as lucrative to utilities because it will help them make more money. Prices don't go down because they can. They go down because it is what buyers are willing to pay.(and what sellers are willing to settle for)

As a side note, the weekly teleconferencing meetings they had was very funny to listen to: almost all the Duke Executives had southern Carolina accents. Good 'ol boys, all of 'em. :)
e

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:15 pm

Any model or view based on the premise that CO2 levels follow temperature has a huge burden of proof to overcome that always is ignored, and probably impossible to show.


OK. Here is a possibility:

1. The oceans hold as dissolved CO2 50X the CO2 in the atmosphere
2. If you heat the oceans they hold less CO2.
3. Thus CO2 following heating is not a stretch at all.

What else do you want to know?

Obviously I have not presented proof. But I have presented a valid possible mechanism.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

jmc
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Ireland

Postby jmc » Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:08 pm

JD wrote:Okay, we warm the planet, by some mechanism, by say three degrees, so what? Better overall climate, fewer instances of sever weather. Now say we drop the average temp a degree or two then what? Prepare to donate to your preferred charity to help alleviate the widespread suffering that will occur. Bluntly, in the coming decades, we might come to wish we could actually cause noticeable warming of the planet's atmosphere.


Moving the goal posts slightly aren't we? Now your saying temperatures could rise by so what?

If temperatures rose by three degrees in 100,000 or even 10,000 years that would be fine, it might even be a good thing. If they rise by three degrees in 100 years the story is very different. Any form of rapid change is bad cities are built in certain areas on the presumption they'll stay above water, reservoirs are built in area where there is rainfall. Farmers choose which crops to grow on the assumption of what the temperature, rainfall, etc. is going to be. Places that suffer from hurricanes develop architecture to withstand them places that don't get devasteded.

Both ecologies and economies are capable of adapting... slowly. But built into cities and ecosystems alike is a high degree of anticipation, in architectural practice, road networks along with feeding and migration patterns. In a world where things are less predictable, disaster ensues.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:44 pm

Global temperatures dropped a whopping .3 to .4 deg C (.5 to .7F) last year.

How is the adaptation going?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

energyfan
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:49 pm

Postby energyfan » Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:37 pm

MSimon wrote:Numbers:

About 100,000 100MW BFRs would be able to supply the US load.

Which is one plant per 3,000 people + industry

DC would only be for long distance transmission. AC would still be preferred for local distribution.



MSimon thanks a lot for the info, these will be very helpful.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Positive feedback after a man made increase of C02

Postby Helius » Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:41 am

MSimon wrote:
Any model or view based on the premise that CO2 levels follow temperature has a huge burden of proof to overcome that always is ignored, and probably impossible to show.


OK. Here is a possibility:

1. The oceans hold as dissolved CO2 50X the CO2 in the atmosphere
2. If you heat the oceans they hold less CO2.
3. Thus CO2 following heating is not a stretch at all.

What else do you want to know?

Obviously I have not presented proof. But I have presented a valid possible mechanism.


Agreed. Positive feedback is not a stretch at all. I was pointing out the effect of the single variable, the effect of increasing C02 in the Atmosphere. The single variable has an effect on the thermal budget of the planet. (Calories in) = (Calories out); an increase of C02 will cause (Calories in) > (Calories out) until some higher temperature is reached wherby the balance will be reestablished, regardless of where the C02 comes from. I think your scenario exemplifies even greater danger of Man made C02 if increases in global temperature would have such a positive feedback effect.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:04 am

Helius,

If the total feedback was positive climate would operate like a bang-bang servo.

It doesn't. So there must be overcompensating negative feedbacks.

Some scientists think that compensation mechanism is water vapor/clouds.

Ever since there has been a continent at the South Pole we haven't seen runaway heating. We have seen runaway cooling. Right now we are in an interglacial period. Those periods normally last 10,000 years and end with a rapid drop of temperature into an ice age. Volcanic activity has been unusually low lately.

Our biggest worry should be an ice age. Growing crops under ice does not have a long history. Growing crops in hot weather does.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:33 pm

MSimon wrote:Numbers:

About 100,000 100MW BFRs would be able to supply the US load.

Which is one plant per 3,000 people + industry

DC would only be for long distance transmission. AC would still be preferred for local distribution.


Hrm.

I get 100MW plant x 90% uptime x 30 days x 24 hours = 64,800 MWh per month. Am I doing this wrong?

This claims we produce about 350M Mwh per month. Dividing 350M Mwh by 65K Mwh I get 5,401 BFRs.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricit ... a_sum.html

Using this I find peak demand of 790,000 MW.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricit ... a_sum.html

Divide by 100MW, and I get 7,900 BFRs. Why are we orders of magnitude apart?

Does the 100MW BFR not produce 100MW of power? Maybe that's the raw power you're referring to, not the output. If they actually produce 10MW, then we're pretty close.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:40 pm

I could have easily dropped a decimal point.

10 TW / 100 MW was what I used = 1E13/1E8 = 1E5

The 10 TW came from memory. Maybe my memory is faulty.

At least I got the math right :-)
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:45 pm

I bet you were thinking of worldwide power use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_ener ... onsumption

In 2004, the average total worldwide power consumption of the human race was 15 TW.

So 100,000 BFRs is about right for the whole world.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:51 pm

The United States is the largest energy consumer in terms of total use, using 100 quadrillion BTU (105 exajoules, or 29000 TWh) in 2005, equivalent to an (average) consumption rate of 3.3 TW.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_use ... ted_States

So, maybe 33,000 by this estimate, though now that I look at it this includes things like gasoline used in automobiles, not just electricity production.

Looks like the number is probably something like 5,000 to 10,000 BFRs for current electric production.

And of course, if BFRs are as cheap as we're hoping, with the demand for energy increasing as price goes down we might see energy use double or triple in a very short time.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:02 pm

Dave,

Thanks for keeping me honest. I believe it was world wide usage I was thinking of.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.


Return to “Implications”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests