zapkitty - 06 August 2011 08:17 AM

JimmyT - 06 August 2011 03:53 AM

The only reason all nations have supported this agreement is because it is a practical impossibility at this point.  Nations one and all will quickly abandon this treaty under one pretense or another if it becomes viable.

... but if the paradigm shift that enables this is the advent of aneutronic fusion then the reason for colonizing in the first place, the resources, becomes a non-issue in turn.

Quite possible to some extent.  Depends on the ore quality available, and how much fusion helps in other ore extraction or reuse.

something like a vacuum arc centrifuge could quickly separate desired elements (even to isotopic purity), from whatever junk you throw in. it just needs a lot of cheap energy. so this increases feasibility of recycling to 100%.

vansig - 07 August 2011 04:08 PM

something like a vacuum arc centrifuge could quickly separate desired elements (even to isotopic purity), from whatever junk you throw in. it just needs a lot of cheap energy. so this increases feasibility of recycling to 100%.

Yes, it changes lots of other things, too.  Even mine slag and very low-grade deposits could be separated into pure elements.  And so on.

With cheap energy, resource shortages pretty much vanish.  Even after electrification of 3rd-world regions where it’s currently impossible, and the consequent boom in wealth and demand for goods. 

FF is transformative almost beyond conceiving.  Priorities and opportunities will shift and develop steeply and rapidly.

Breakable - 05 August 2011 12:01 PM

I find your lack of imagination disturbing. Believe me we will be able to colonize EVERYTHING once we have fusion power.

But why would cheap power make Antarctica more attractive than less remote locales?  With cheap power we can, for example, make the US Southwest bloom with desalinated water, and build there far more cheaply than digging in ice, and with none of the drawbacks (such as having to live completely underground, with no ready access to commercial transportation to the rest of the world).

Cheap power makes a lot of things possible, but that doesn’t make all of them attractive.

Brian H - 08 August 2011 03:25 AM

FF is transformative almost beyond conceiving.

Just how much cheaper are you expecting FF to be compared to conventional power generation?  More than an order of magnitude?  I’ve never seen a good breakdown of the anticipated costs of an FF plant compared to the costs of, say, a conventional coal plant, so I’m unsure of claims of huge cost reductions.

Tulse - 08 August 2011 03:42 PM

Cheap power makes a lot of things possible, but that doesn’t make all of them attractive.

Same holds true for colonies on moon and Mars.

Henning - 09 August 2011 12:53 PM

Tulse - 08 August 2011 03:42 PM

Cheap power makes a lot of things possible, but that doesn’t make all of them attractive.

Same holds true for colonies on moon and Mars.

Granted, but to paraphrase Kennedy, we don’t colonize there because it is easy, but because it is hard.  There are other goals in extra-terrestrial colonization besides just creating additional living space.

Tulse - 08 August 2011 03:45 PM

Brian H - 08 August 2011 03:25 AM

FF is transformative almost beyond conceiving.

Just how much cheaper are you expecting FF to be compared to conventional power generation?  More than an order of magnitude?  I’ve never seen a good breakdown of the anticipated costs of an FF plant compared to the costs of, say, a conventional coal plant, so I’m unsure of claims of huge cost reductions.

I saw an estimate from Eric awhile back, that a 10 MW reactor would be about $250,000 installed. that would be 2.5 cents per watt, beating solar (presently $1/watt) by a factor of forty.

but, now that you mention it, an updated estimate of costs, including installation and maintenance should be done. please feel free to fill in your own estimates…

parts list
—————
physical plant: each small building may house 1 or more reactors. the library i’m sitting in right now could easily fit ten.
reactor core: vacuum chamber, anode, cathodes
capacitors: 100 .. 250 uF at 50 .. 75 kV
switches:
transformer: converting exit beam at >90% efficiency
onion: spherical, ~1m radius, < 10cm thick, converting x-rays at > perhaps 22% efficiency
cooling system: primary=helium and maybe secondary=steam; if steam is involved, there is the possibility to run turbines
heat exchangers: something must be done with waste heat. co-generation was discussed in these forums
radiation shield: 1 m water jacket, plus boron, plus lead
misc parts: monitoring equipment, attachments to the power grid, security
max size: 5 metre diameter each, should include enough space to walk between them

attendee: 4 persons (in shifts) for 24x7 monitoring and control
monthly maintenance: inspect/adjust parts that wear (eg: cathodes, anode)
regulatory compliance: unknown

so, ongoing expenses will depend on operational life of the various parts. each part has a mean-time before failure, and may cause service interruption during maintenance/replacement. costing should be in terms of whole life-cycle cost, (a.k.a. cradle to cradle, assuming full recycling of materials). as with other power generation facilities, there is the possibility of building spare units, to bring them online rapidly in the event of a failure, since “if a generator costs $1 M and takes a year to build, how many spares do you need?”

How do those numbers compare to, say, coal generation?