Just for fun, let's assume Bussard fusion becomes a reality, and that in 4 years the first commercial fusion reactor goes on line. After peering intently into my Dollar Store crystal ball, here are some thoughts I have on how things might pan out:
1) Everything trends electrical. Since Bussard fusion generates electricity, electric energy is the simplest, most direct energy output. Sure, it might be economically feasible (compared to oil) to generate hydrogen and go the fuel cell route, but I think it's an unnecessary step, given the transportation and storage difficulties associated with hydrogen.
2) A happy coincidence of plug-in hybrids coming into the marketplace occurs. From what I can glean from various articles, many car companies are developing a plug-in hybrid that draws it's energy from a big plug in your garage, mostly during off-peak hours.
3) As a result of #'s 1 and 2, electric utilities are in the cat bird seat.
4) Because of enormous demand increases, our long-neglected electrical grid gets a much needed upgrade/overhaul. This increases the demand for the components that make up the grid. Like utilities, the companies that make/install those components will also do quite well.
5) 10-20 years from now, when the Bussard fusion economy is a reality, companies that specialize in the dismantling of existing nuclear facilities come into existence and make big $$. My guess is that this process will involve enormous gov't contracts, will be imbued with unbelievable fraud, and will end up on 60 Minutes.
Any thoughts?
Does anyone know who the big players are in "electrical grid component" manufacturing? I'm thinking about creating a home-grown mutual fund in advance.
Post-Polywell Investment Thoughts
Post-Polywell Investment Thoughts
Of all the gin joints in all the world...
No matter how you slice it, electric utilities are sitting pretty over the next couple decades. This Alliance-Bernstein research "black" paper should show why.
GE and Westinghouse are big.
DC output from Bussard Reactors will cause a change to DC transmission esp for long distances.
DC to AC converters will be the big thing in electrical systems. DC transmission and intertie is inherently more stable than AC.
DC output from Bussard Reactors will cause a change to DC transmission esp for long distances.
DC to AC converters will be the big thing in electrical systems. DC transmission and intertie is inherently more stable than AC.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
That's one thing I think we may see less of if the Polywell can be made workable. The size of the reactor will mean it can be situated near the load rather than thousands of miles away, as California currently (hypocritically) does with its coal generation. (LADWP has fractional ownership of a coal-fired power plant in Delta, Utah that ships power to LA. Under California law, coal can't be used for making electricity, but it's just dandy if that pollution should go on in another state...)MSimon wrote:DC output from Bussard Reactors will cause a change to DC transmission esp for long distances.
DC transmission.
This last Scientific American focused on solar power saying huge amounts of electrical generation could be performed in the Southwestern US. It indicated that long haul DC transmission would be best. I only skimmed the magazine; and put reading it on my "to do" list, but at first glance, Long haul DC may be the way to go regardless of how well the Polywell does.
Depends on how far away from scary Nuclear Reactors greenies want to be.scareduck wrote:That's one thing I think we may see less of if the Polywell can be made workable. The size of the reactor will mean it can be situated near the load rather than thousands of miles away, as California currently (hypocritically) does with its coal generation. (LADWP has fractional ownership of a coal-fired power plant in Delta, Utah that ships power to LA. Under California law, coal can't be used for making electricity, but it's just dandy if that pollution should go on in another state...)MSimon wrote:DC output from Bussard Reactors will cause a change to DC transmission esp for long distances.
People are not rational.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
They are to some extent. Markets are more efficient than planned economies. Given the choice between a non-GHG emitting source that has adequate fuel to last 200,000 years or fossil fuels, a lot of resistance will melt. "Dispatchability" will be the key, i.e. if you flip the light switch does the light come on? The sun goes down, the wind is becalmed, but there's a lot of boron in Inyo County.MSimon wrote:People are not rational.
Here's what will happen post-Polywell, assuming the order of magnitude savings we've been estimating:
People will fall all over themselves to get a piece of the first fat profit margins. Thousands and thousands of IEC fusion plants will be built, all over the world. These will bankrupt the existing utilities that don't pick up the new tech.
Soon after this starts, the price of energy will bgein to crater.
And there's the catch: 90%+ of the IEC fusion plant makers will also go bankrupt or lose nearly all market value, as the competition over price becomes more and more intense. Most companies will never get past a Powerpoint presentation and a prayer, and few of those that do will last five years as independent entities. Better, cheaper designs will obsolete earlier ones so fast your heads will spin.
Eventually, a few very rich companies will be left standing, and they will inherit all the infrastructure at dirt-cheap prices. The big winner will be consumers, who will see energy prices do what long-distance telephone prices did in the most recent tech revolution.
This is precisely what happened in the first electrical revolution, and also the dot-com boom in the late 1990s. I happen to live right next to Cuneo Museum, a mansion built by one of the electric tycoons who went bankrupt in the Enron scandal of his time (he was actually jailed when his company collapsed). I traded Corvis, a telco eq maker that IPO'd a billion in cash, and only ever sold a single switch (ironically, they eventually used their IPO cash to buy their only customer).
As with all destructive revolutions, to get rich you will have to get very lucky and pick one of the companies that makes it -- or cash out before the bubble bursts.
Government regulation may slow some of this, but as with the Internet no one will want to kill the golden goose.
People will fall all over themselves to get a piece of the first fat profit margins. Thousands and thousands of IEC fusion plants will be built, all over the world. These will bankrupt the existing utilities that don't pick up the new tech.
Soon after this starts, the price of energy will bgein to crater.
And there's the catch: 90%+ of the IEC fusion plant makers will also go bankrupt or lose nearly all market value, as the competition over price becomes more and more intense. Most companies will never get past a Powerpoint presentation and a prayer, and few of those that do will last five years as independent entities. Better, cheaper designs will obsolete earlier ones so fast your heads will spin.
Eventually, a few very rich companies will be left standing, and they will inherit all the infrastructure at dirt-cheap prices. The big winner will be consumers, who will see energy prices do what long-distance telephone prices did in the most recent tech revolution.
This is precisely what happened in the first electrical revolution, and also the dot-com boom in the late 1990s. I happen to live right next to Cuneo Museum, a mansion built by one of the electric tycoons who went bankrupt in the Enron scandal of his time (he was actually jailed when his company collapsed). I traded Corvis, a telco eq maker that IPO'd a billion in cash, and only ever sold a single switch (ironically, they eventually used their IPO cash to buy their only customer).
As with all destructive revolutions, to get rich you will have to get very lucky and pick one of the companies that makes it -- or cash out before the bubble bursts.
Government regulation may slow some of this, but as with the Internet no one will want to kill the golden goose.
This has been the assumption hitherto, mainly on the strength of the ridiculously low price of the cost of fuel (whether D-D or p-11B cycles are under consideration). But think: these aren't the only thing going into the cost of making a Polywell device. The highest cost might end up being the superconductors (MgB). Maybe the magnets themselves will require some exotic and expensive or worse very rare material to manufacture (indium, say). Maybe they will need real gold plating to get the reflectivity where we need it. My point is, what happens if the reactor becomes insanely expensive to build, maybe not ITER-expensive, but appreciably more than the $150-200M previously mooted?TallDave wrote:Soon after this starts, the price of energy will bgein to crater.
This is why we have patents. Unfortunately, the old EMC2 patents are set to expire soon. Fortunately, there's another set on the way (Sep. 2006 filing).As with all destructive revolutions, to get rich you will have to get very lucky and pick one of the companies that makes it -- or cash out before the bubble bursts.
Fossil fuel production is tapering off now, or will soon. Over the longer term, the only dispatchable options will be hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion.Government regulation may slow some of this, but as with the Internet no one will want to kill the golden goose.
materials limitations.
It seems Wind and Solar have the chance of far exceeding Hydroelectric which is nearly at maximum as it is, at about 4% of total.scareduck wrote:Fossil fuel production is tapering off now, or will soon. Over the longer term, the only dispatchable options will be hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion.
Am I missing something that you left those out?
I agree with the perspective that fuel for the Polywell will never be a limiting factor, but rare and required materials would be far more likely to limit the growth of any energy production technique not otherwise limited by another factor. Materials availability might also limit solar development in a similar manner.
Re: materials limitations.
The word "dispatchable". The sun sets. The wind stops blowing.Helius wrote:It seems Wind and Solar have the chance of far exceeding Hydroelectric which is nearly at maximum as it is, at about 4% of total.
Am I missing something that you left those out?
The price of any device built with a commodity tends in the long run to be the price of the commodity plus a fixed %.This has been the assumption hitherto, mainly on the strength of the ridiculously low price of the cost of fuel (whether D-D or p-11B cycles are under consideration). But think: these aren't the only thing going into the cost of making a Polywell device. The highest cost might end up being the superconductors (MgB).
Autos are a case in point. You can determine their cost by figuring the weight of the various materials, multiplying that by the bulk cost and then multiplying that by a %.
Since the cost of a commodity is based on energy costs once you start lowering the cost of energy it becomes regenerative.
We saw this when oil powered machines stared to take over from horses in farming. Henry Ford and the oil companies caused the great depression. Of course we had hard money then. With fiat money, if it is controlled right, we can avoid some of that. If they can maintain the average price level. Which is a trick itself.
Maybe the magnets themselves will require some exotic and expensive or worse very rare material to manufacture (indium, say). Maybe they will need real gold plating to get the reflectivity where we need it.
Semiconductors use gold but the amounts are so minuscule that their price is still declining.
In any case if the price of energy goes down enough we will extract gold from sea water.
A set of MRI magnets (which is a high proportion of the machine cost) should run under 1 million.
What we are making is an MRI machine in a vacuum with 20 MW power supplies and 100 MW power converters. The price of power semiconductors is still declining.
You want to know the ultimate cost? Take the cost of 20 MW of traction motor power supplies - double it (to account for up conversion to HV). Then figure the cost of 100 MW of 60Hz transformers (down conversion from 2 MV). Then add in the cost of vacuum vessel iron. Add another $2 million for vacuum pumps. And that is what the price will be in today's dollars. Pretty close any way.
The $150 million is for a R&D program. Individual reactors in the 100 MW range should cost around $20 million in quantity. Less as the price of energy declines.My point is, what happens if the reactor becomes insanely expensive to build, maybe not ITER-expensive, but appreciably more than the $150-200M previously mooted?
And just wait 'til we start mining the asteroid belt. Commodity prices will really go down.
Where will all this lead? Well ask our resident Science Fiction guy.
The early adopters will clean up. The rest will get screwed.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Not the fuel so much as the plant. The fuel is practically a non-issue; tokamaks have cheap fuel too, but it costs $15B to make a demo plant that doesn't even generate a watt of electricity. Also, if Polywell plants can burn p-B11 they may be able to eliminate the thermal cycle and use direct conversion to DC, which may cut the cost by 50%/kwh.This has been the assumption hitherto, mainly on the strength of the ridiculously low price of the cost of fuel (whether D-D or p-11B cycles are under consideration).
My point is, what happens if the reactor becomes insanely expensive to build, maybe not ITER-expensive, but appreciably more than the $150-200M previously mooted?
A very good and critical question. As the prices increase toward current energy rates, it becomes less of a gold rush. Fortunately, it appears we have something approaching an order of magnitude to play with. Of course, the more fundamental question is whether it will work at all.
Well, Bussard said he wanted to give the tech away, and patents may be of limited value anyway in the kind of massive rush this tech could engender. If Polywell works, small variations (and maybe larger) will be patented all over. And you can bet countries like China and Russia will not sit idly by.This is why we have patents. Unfortunately, the old EMC2 patents are set to expire soon. Fortunately, there's another set on the way (Sep. 2006 filing).
And remember, Microsoft has been rendering other people's intellectual property worthless with every OS release for going on 20 years, without much consequence.