Economic turmoil

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

JD
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Fairbanks Alaska

Economic turmoil

Post by JD »

It this effort of Dr. Bussard works out (or one of the other three or four I've heard of) what sort of economic turmoil do you expect.

Short run, a positive test result hitting the news will cause some "interesting" stock fluctuations and (joy) some great angst in certain sections of the world. Mid term I think things will settle down a bit since any transition would take time.

Long term? Overall changes in career fields and total employment?

Just curious what some of you may think of this.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Let us start with some assumptions:

Plant costs for a given output will decline by 80%.

Fuel costs will be to a close approximation zero i.e. less than 10% of the cost of operational personnel.

Maintenance will be very small due to no thermal plant except for waste heat from cooling.

Plant lifetime will be in the 20 to 40 year range. Given the initial rate of design improvement expected an initial plant life of 10 years might be acceptable.

==

1. Oil will be the dominant transportation fuel for at least 20 more years and possibly for as long as 40 years. However. Low cost energy makes oil recovery from tar sands a much better bet. The Canadians want to build a fission nuke near their tar sands operation for just such a purpose.

2. The "all electric home" will become dominant.

3. Long distance HV DC transmission at 1 to 2 MV will be a big winner. This will come from the roll out in production volumes of HV DC to AC converters for Polywell generating stations.

4. Natural gas prices will decline. Coal prices will decline. Oil prices will stop rising esp. if low cost distillation makes alcohol a viable fuel.

5. Third world nations without significant investment in thermal plant will get a competitive boost due to the lack of sunk capital.

6. Railroads will be significantly hurt due to the decline in coal transport.

7. Alternative energy will take a very significant hit.

8. The US Navy will start building 50 to 100 knt. small low draft vessels.

9. Monster flying boats will be used for intercontinental travel. The sleeping berth will return for first class and business class passengers.

I'll have more later.

JD
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Fairbanks Alaska

Post by JD »

Hmm hadn't thought about the people transport side of it. Something to ponder.

Rail may not tank badly. There would be some offset due to an economic surge. Also, since copper as an example, would increase in demand there would be some compensation there for bulk transport. With plentiful and fairly inexpensive power perhaps we might emplace a decent, high speed, rail network for passenger service. I would appreciate that. I get no joy from air travel since I jumped out of to many of them (always had a picture in my mind of jagged dead tree branch sticking upwards and waiting for me....).

JohnP
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:29 am
Location: Chicago

Post by JohnP »

Long distance HV DC transmission at 1 to 2 MV will be a big winner. This will come from the roll out in production volumes of HV DC to AC converters for Polywell generating stations.


Why long distance transmission? Polywells should be safe enough to build close to consumption areas, no?
Because it adds resilience to the system.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

Britain's Empire was fueled by coal, and the same for the USA and gas, the transition period seemed to be centered around 1917, 1896-1936.

I see a similar transition from oil to fusion. Liquid fuels will be mostly phased out by 2050, Solar, wind, fusion capacity will grow as world oil production declines. By 2035 Solar & Wind will provide 25%+ of world electrical capacity, just getting started, fusion will provide 5-10%, but by 2050 fusion will be providing the lions share of capacity: Solar 25%, Wind 25%, Fusion 50%.

MSimon, yes the electric house will make a big comeback. Electric trains & cars will be the standard. Monster Flying boats, LOL, How about 500mph subways connecting continents. Trains make best use of a measure of energy, followed by cars & trucks, then planes.

Good news" McMansions will go the way of the handpump vacume for your rugs.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

JD
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Fairbanks Alaska

Post by JD »

MSimon

Your mention of large flying boats for inter-continental travel still intrigues. Okay if it takes 18 hours to reach Europe who cares if during that period you aren't packed shoulder to shoulder. Perhaps we'll once again enjoy travel.

This got me thinking further about vision. Our vision has been narrowed over the last couple of decades. Perhaps now we'll have a return of grandiose engineering. With energy expenditure not such a pressing issue we will return to the outlook of the the 50's and early 60's. I miss that vision. Designing for function versus designing to squeeze the last .05 percent efficiency from the power source. It would involve more human labor but that would compensate a great deal for job reductions in the fuel industries.

With energy costs being minuscule (hopefully) we can return to comfort versus economy. There's quite a few minimalists out there (surprisingly of course they're the more extreme enviros) who think human actions are crimes against nature. Heck there's even a group in Canada that espouses human self extinction so we won't hurt poor mother earth. I would take some small pleasure watching them ruin their dentistry via tooth gnashing.

Getting back on subject. I foresee some turmoil in the construction fields. With the return of all electric home a lot of work will dissapear for areas involving natural gas. Not a total meltdown though. Pending someone finally developing a good power storage system for personal vehicles the natural gas might go into synthetic liquid fuel production.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

With energy costs being minuscule (hopefully) we can return to comfort versus economy. There's quite a few minimalists out there (surprisingly of course they're the more extreme enviros) who think human actions are crimes against nature. Heck there's even a group in Canada that espouses human self extinction so we won't hurt poor mother earth. I would take some small pleasure watching them ruin their dentistry via tooth gnashing.
Me too!

JoeStrout
Site Admin
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:40 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Contact:

DMF as a transportation fuel

Post by JoeStrout »

MSimon wrote:1. Oil will be the dominant transportation fuel for at least 20 more years and possibly for as long as 40 years. However. Low cost energy makes oil recovery from tar sands a much better bet. The Canadians want to build a fission nuke near their tar sands operation for just such a purpose.
I'm not so sure about that — liquid fuels do have a lot of convenience, especially if battery/capacitor technology doesn't improve substantially, but by the time we're looking longingly at tar sands, we'd probably be better off burning something like DMF.
Joe Strout
Talk-Polywell.org site administrator

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Joe,

Nice link.

However, transitions take time and the process described is not even commercial, let alone the fuel tested in real engines and the parameters adjusted accordingly.

If we can use the process for fuel it will still require a 20 yr. roll out.

JD
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Fairbanks Alaska

Post by JD »

MSimon wrote:If we can use the process for fuel it will still require a 20 yr. roll out.

Sadly I agree with you. I don't doubt that the engineers and venture capitalists could gear up in under a decade but the special interest lobbyists from a very broad spectrum would be fighting like hell.

I'm hopeful for DMF but agree it needs testing. I remember MTBE and it's unpredicted effects. One effect was that at -60 F with alcohol water scavenger added to the fuel it causes gasoline to sometimes gel. A nasty surprise when you're 40 miles from the nearest human on a rarely traveled road (that night got very interesting when the temp dropped further and the wind got to 35 knots :)

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

DMF.... another grown fuel... sigh... anybody got a spare planet to grow the stuff on ............

JD, I am not sure why youre hopefull about DMF, unless its on a small scale, local production only. Like Bio-diesel. Sounds like DMF would be helpful in the tropics over the next 20 years, as a transition fuel, just like bio-diesel.

We can't be dumping crap into the atmosphere all the time, its bad. Liquid fuels means burning stuff and dumping crap into the air. Liquid fuels simply are not a long term solution.

Joe, current li-poly batts can provide 20-25 miles on a charge, most Americans drive just about that per day. Based on that, It seems to me that an electric car would suit many Americans. Right now. Seems the market is a bit slow in that regard.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Sure we can dump stuff into the atmosphere. Esp. CO2.

Plants love it and more will reduce plant water reqmts.

Not to worry. Solar scientists predict we are headed for a little ice age. Given that global temps have been stagnant for the last 8 or 9 years and that the Southern Hemisphere has been cooling I'd say we were on schedule.

I wouldn't take Al Gore or his pet scientist Hansen as gospel on any of this. There is big money to be made selling CO2 credits. Those guys are worse than oil companies. At least with oil companies you actually get oil.

BTW these climate hysterias have been going on for over 100 years. Warm hysteria. Cold hysteria. Warm Hysteria. Cold hysteria. Warm hysteria. You can look it up.

These folks take natural cycles and create panics.

What would you think if I told you to measure the temps at 6AM and then at 3PM and then extrapolate that out one hundred years. We'd be hot enough to do D-D fusion. That is exactly what "climate science" in its present state is all about.

Do you know the current estimate for the amount of oil left in the USA is? 6X the amount that has already been pumped. Sure the cost will go up. However, we are no where near running out.

The promise of Polywell for the immediate future is not about energy. It is about the cost of energy. Feed the hungry. Minister to the sick. A better life for all.

Let us be driven by hope, not fear. It is more scientific. However, being driven by fear is more human. It is why newspapers have very little good news. It doesn't sell.

BTW there is not enough Li for an all electric transportation system. We may have to mine the asteroid belt for that. To make such mining possible we are going to need light weight fusion.........

Electrics are not for long haul trucking in any case.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

We need to let the system evolve. Instead of forcing it.

Too much fertilizer kills the plants.

JD
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Fairbanks Alaska

Post by JD »

Roger

My reasoning is simple. If capacity, longevity and PRICE requirements are met concerning lithium ion (or whatever else may pop up) that's great news. Even with that being said there's a long transition period to be considered. As far as DMF, I'm hopeful because it's a far more efficient method of using biological mass. It would be a good fuel additive to help stretch supplies, or better yet greatly cut imports. No, biomass will not hack it as a sole source. Like solar, wind, geothermal etc. biomass will contribute to the transition period as we move to more advanced systems.

I'm no watermelon enviro that believes we can conserve our way out potential shortages. No we're not going to cover 18K square miles with windmills either (wouldn't that be interesting to keep maintenance going for and what happens when a high pressure front settles in for a week stay over the center of the nation?) and keep reliable power going to not only sustain but progress our civilization.

I for see shortages of easily procured petrochemicals in the years to come. Yes we could do coal liquification or harvest the oil shale structures but the price would put a serious crimp in the economy. If biomass is efficiently included it would help the transition. Make no mistake, we either transition to other sources in the coming decades or prepare to regress as a civilization. Regression means eventual extinction for our species. I detest that. Like an old Asimov story, I like to think some very distant descendant of mine will be the one to push the button labeled "Reverse Entropy."

If the more extreme fruitloops are right, the earth is a living entity then we're the culmination of it's efforts. It behooves us to respect our so called mother and prosper, progress and occupy all that empty real estate we see above us at night.

JD
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Fairbanks Alaska

Post by JD »

MSimon

Potential lithium shortage is not really a show stopper. Molten salt batteries are being research and there has been some preogress on room temperature versions. Also I'd be surprised that additional sources couldn't be located. I do like you're suggestion though of mining asteroids:)

Post Reply