Aeronaut - 26 June 2009 04:39 PM

I’m forcing myself to be patient. I’m forcing myself to be patient. I’m forcing myself to be patient.

What can, and should be accelerated, imo, is the authoritative confirmation process and the preparations to integrate FF so we don’t end up with a Ferrari with an empty fuel tank. Sure looks good, but how fast does it go?

The “”?  I repeat: if there is a functioning prototype, producing power, that trumps all “authoritative confirmation processes”.  Science requires only one thing: replicability.  The protype and design fulfill that requirement, in spades.  As for the theory, Eric has been carefully building that all along, and, as he says, there is really no new physics, just exploitation of some previously under-explored but known phenomena.  (Specifically, the quantum gap in the X-ray cooling regime.)  So I believe you are all afroth solving a problem that doesn’t exist. 

As for the preparations to integrate FF, consider your utility CEO and his coal plant.  He MIGHT be persuaded to hold off on making a final commitment on it until FF break-even is exceeded, or to two-step the process so that a smaller facility was started first, on the possibility that FF would make further capacity unnecessary (and, in fact, would moth-ball even existing plant, in the end.)  But I suspect you will find that while they might appreciate the heads-up, no one will dare suspend or delay anything until a rather high level of certainty is reached.  Probably about 4 or 5 years from now. 

In any case, none of that has anything to do with how soon FF gets implemented; there will be demand and opportunity and need in excess from the moment it is available.  You aren’t, in other words, doing anything to help FF along, just perhaps helping save some utilities and some politicians from overcommitting to soon-to-be-dead technologies.

I agree that the proven technology will settle all doubts about can it be done. That will leave us in the regulatory regime, where a fission track record has most, if not all of the cards. The NRC’s homepage has an ominous phrase referring to decades of Congressional Guidance, for instance. Therefore, we are voices in the wilderness without very powerful allies in government. At least here in North America.

Aeronaut - 26 June 2009 05:33 PM

I agree that the proven technology will settle all doubts about can it be done. That will leave us in the regulatory regime, where a fission track record has most, if not all of the cards. The NRC’s homepage has an ominous phrase referring to decades of Congressional Guidance, for instance. Therefore, we are voices in the wilderness without very powerful allies in government. At least here in North America.

Hah.  How long would “North America” (though I doubt Canada’s response would be the same.  That’s a whole different kettle of fish, of course, since it has a huge vested oil interest) hold back if, say, the EU or BRIC nations began implementing it?  The competitive disadvantage of refusing to use an ultra-cheap ultra-clean energy source would be so glaring and massive that it would be economic suicide.  And California is starving for power and desperate to cut costs. 

Despite your and Rematog’s conviction that regulators will have a decisive say, my conviction remains that economics will brush aside any serious foot-draggers. 

Speaking of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) nations, they might suddenly break into the BIC and R nations, as Russia’s oil income stream makes it odd-man-out in this case.

I can only hope you’re right, Brian.

Brian H; “Speaking of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) nations, they might suddenly break into the BIC and R nations, as Russia’s oil income stream makes it odd-man-out in this case.”

Russian gas rather than oil but the principle is right. It is not in Russia’s short/medium term interests for this to work. The FF team should look out for the Russian Mafia. Accidents happen

Which is an argument both in favor of and against having lots of publicity and collaborators. 
In favor: the more widely dispersed the knowledge (including patented and technical) is, the harder it would be to squelch it by squashing the FF team.
Against: notoriety attracts opposition and subversion and ...

Who’s going to be left holding the bag when cheap, clean, plentiful energy revalues the prices of metals, glass, plastics, and various securities, such as stocks and bonds? Without a clearcut advantage to invest in the new, we’re going to be stuck with the current despite the rhetoric. (call ITER for more details…).

IOW, it may take 20 to 40 years to educate a more sophisticated class of investor, while providing a transitional gradient in that time frame.

Aeronaut - 18 July 2009 10:25 AM

Who’s going to be left holding the bag when cheap, clean, plentiful energy revalues the prices of metals, glass, plastics, and various securities, such as stocks and bonds? Without a clearcut advantage to invest in the new, we’re going to be stuck with the current despite the rhetoric. (call ITER for more details…).

IOW, it may take 20 to 40 years to educate a more sophisticated class of investor, while providing a transitional gradient in that time frame.

It will be much faster and more chaotic than that, thanks to the operation of “competitive advantage”.  Any fabricator or jurisdiction that gets a head start on producing with cheap energy will be able to sweep other suppliers etc. off the board, unless they pile on and emulate the technology.  Messy, but it gets the job done.  And I can see no way of avoiding it other than burying the tech at an early stage.  Even that might not be enough, if “its time has come”.

This has rogue nation written all over it. Everybody else is going to want to protect what’s left of their imaginary wealth. At least until the next Bernie Madeoff makes his run.

Aeronaut - 19 July 2009 04:43 AM

This has rogue nation written all over it. Everybody else is going to want to protect what’s left of their imaginary wealth. At least until the next Bernie Madeoff makes his run.

There will be more winners than losers, when you consider all the companies and individuals who will be able to do much more with less.