Cooling Load requried

[Aeronaut]

yeah, I’d forgotten about all the red tape.

[Rematog]

Red Tape – Danger Barricade – Do Not Cross
Yellow Tape – Caution – Check for hazards
Black Tape – Electrical Tape – Keeps the smoke in the wires…
Grey Tape – Duck Tape – Holds it all together……

[Aeronaut]

I’ll have to bring red tape next time I do an epoxy floor, lol. Also, we’ll need an export license and some FAA certifications to get the flight weight and space versions off the ground legally. Hope I’m not forgetting anything.

[Brian H]

Rematog wrote: Aeronaut,

The reason I started the post was to point out, with the cooling system as an example, that a FF power module would need significant “external” or site costs, even (or especially) in a distributed application. There seemed, to me, to be a tendency on the board to assume that you would be able to buy a 5 MW Module for the claimed $500k and that would be the full cost of the installation. My point was that the full cost would be greatly more when you included land, foundations, roads, security, controls, power in/out, cooling, freight, etc.

You are right, that a FF unit could provide usable heat. In fact I’ve posted that one use of FF would be a specially designed FF “Boiler” with no X-ray to electric power conversion. The X-ray’s could be captured by a heat sink that would convert the X-ray’s energy into higher temperature heat, for uses such as process steam for use in an industrial plant. If I understand the energy balance, the ion beam would provide almost breakeven power. Note that I not talking about FF in a commerical/residential heating role, but in that of providing heat in an industrial setting that would not be near population centers. I steadfastly maintain that distrubuted applications will be further down the road (20+ years to my mind) then is commonly thought by this board.

I’m pretty sure that external forces will require a significant change to the scenarios you’re used to, Rematog. The regulatory regimes you describe are essentially closed systems, local or even national boxes within which the writ of the government holds complete sway. But given (as I fervently hope) Eric follows through with his plan to make licenses universally purchasable, the competitive cost and production advantages that FF provides to any foreign jurisdiction and/or producers not constrained by American red tape will be so frightening that it makes the rumored importation of Chinese cars by GM, etc., look like dime-store stuff.

As for distributed systems, I suggest that there’s a guaranteed first-adopter test market that will be all over distributed FF like white on rice: Alaska, northern Canada, and other isolated areas that now pay through the nose (and eyes, mouth, ears, and every other orifice) for electricity (25¢ – 75¢/kwh). Their examples will be salutary.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote:
…
To my untrained eye, 2 energy conversions in particular caught my eye- burning coal to heat air to heat steam tubes to heat water into steam is the first one. Any pre-heating is going to reduce your fuel consumption
…

Reminds me of a very innovative invention and proposal that hasn’t gained much traction, despite its obvious benefits. It recovers heat from waste water, and redirects it into the inflow to domestic or industrial water heaters. It is entirely passive, and would have a huge impact on energy usage: Drainergy.

[Henning]

Hi guys,

Shift your market focus away from Northern America, even if you’re eager to have your own FF reactors in your backyards. By my opinion, besides of universities (first adaptors for research) and heavy industries, the initial bulk of installed FF units will be located in China and other fast pace developing countries where regulations are less and demand is increasing enormously.

The US and especially the European countries will have a slower adaption rate because of their regulations, which is not a too bad thing anyway.

So, don’t worry to much. 😉

[Aeronaut]

Guess what’s going to drive North American popular interest? China-phobia, lol. Guess what would happen if Iran or North Korea announced plans to build FF- especially if they used the N word.

Every mass movement has what is known as a “tipping point”- the critical mass where all of a sudden every organization on the planet will either have one or more FF’s or is talking about them. I’d like to light the fuse on this happening well before the end of 2010.

[Rematog]

Brian,

You’re right that the need to stay competitive will require the US and Europe to adopt FF when it is commercially available. And that will put pressure on the regulatory agencies and reduce (not eliminate) the requirements they place on siteing FF modules.

The case you mentioned, remote areas, high cost is due to two factors. First, most of these type of small power systems are using a diesel engine as prime mover. So fuel and engine maintenance costs, per Kw, are high. Second, the economy of scale factor. A small power company, like a “mom and pop” store, would have a large labor cost compared to it’s sales, resulting in higher prices.

FF would, for larger remote areas, would be possible. For the smaller ones, the cost of the FF generator ($1 million or so installed) would be large compared to the cost of say a 500 hp diesel gen-set. And the service needs would be difficult to supply to a remote area. So, I’d guess these small remote places wouldn’t be in the first round of adapters. But small cities would be. Another example would be islands. In both cases, you still have to keep an electrical distribution system working as well.

I’ve always agreed that FF, if it becomes commercial, would be quickly adapted. The difference is that I’ve maintained two things:

1). The rapid deployment of FF is not contingent on it being used in a highly distributed manner (individual buildings, shopping mall, neighborhoods, etc). This is counter indicated by both the economic and regulatory real world. I’ve posted my reasons for this before, but to summarize briefly:

Economics: The capital cost would be less, per module, to install many on the same site. Existing power plants would offer additional savings by re-using some of the existing faculties (site, cooling, buildings etc). The maintenance costs, per module would be greatly less on a large site, as no travel time and costs (trucks, fuel etc) would be involved. I’m assuming all pay their people the same wages.

Regulatory: The modules, being a nuclear reactor which generates X-rays, will require licenses, and in my judgment, for the first 10-20 years, this license would require security and on-site supervision. Also, the NIMBY factor will prevent them from being placed in urban (or suburban) locations.

2) The definition of quickly is not 2-3 years, but 10-20 years. Yes, first generation (pun intended) FF modules will begin rolling out of factories 6-9 months after licenses are granted. Production rates will increase rapidly and be at high levels in 2-3 years.

But, lets look at how many will be needed. In the US alone, based on DOE figures for 2007, Coal, Oil, Gas and Nuclear (fission) plants totaling 956,250 MW were installed, out of a total installed capacity of 1,087,791 MW (hydro, wind, solar, biomass being the other types). If capacity growth of just 2% on average is calculated then the additional generation for 20 years from say, 2010 to 2029 is 527,330 MW (remember to start in 2007, then look at 2010 to 2029). By dividing by 5 MW per module, this yields a total demand for FF modules, for electric power alone, of 296,716 modules. This means production, installation and commissioning of 15,000 modules per year. If you project 4% growth (remember, power is getting cheaper, so demand goes up), and replace all power generation with FF, then this goes up to 515,595 modules, or over 25,000 per year.

On second though, 10 years after full scale production for complete replacement of existing generation might be achievable. That would still only require a total investment of around $50 billion per year (at $1M / module), a doable number.

So Eric, when can I buy a license?

[Brian H]

Rematog wrote:
…

On second though[t], 10 years after full scale production for complete replacement of existing generation might be achievable. That would still only require a total investment of around $50 billion per year (at $1M / module), a doable number.

So Eric, when can I buy a license?

All interesting points! But you realize what you just said? 10 yrs for a transformation of that magnitude is light-speed! It is, e.g., faster than ONE 1GW fission plant could get approved and built!

P.S. For very isolated areas with smallish demand, your $1m number falls, I think. Land costs are negligible, and remote servicing by internet link etc. is quite feasible (there are well-advanced programs to bring universal hi-speed wireless access across Canada’s Northwest Territories, etc., e.g., already). And remember that if 5 GW is too fat for you (though remember Parkinson’s Law, or its relatives; demand will expand to meet capacity! Cheap electric heating beats hell out of keeping a wood stove fed for 9 months a year!) you don’t have to run the FF full-bore; cut the Hertz and you can “tune” a generator to lower levels.
And the capital costs don’t amount to much compared to some of the alternatives being seriously contemplated. Example:
(Alaska) —

State officials began talking about damming the Susitna River in the 1970s as the North Slope oil money first started to flow into the state treasury. The state considered a version that involved dams at Devils Canyon north of Talkeetna and at Watana Creek to the east.

The project collapsed under its own weight in 1986 as oil prices and state revenue plummeted, leaving the estimated $5 billion for construction bonds out of the state’s reach.

The price would be far higher today. But the governor’s office and state legislators said this time around it could be a slimmed down version.

During the 1980s debate over Susitna, environmentalists said it would threaten fish and wildlife habitat. But they’ve been hugely enthusiastic about Palin’s renewable energy goal.

Deborah Williams of Alaska Conservation Solutions said she’d support a Susitna project if it were done right. That would have to include keeping the electricity in state for residential and small commercial customers, she said.

“It could be managed in a way that when you look at tradeoffs, you’d say, how does a smaller hydro project in Susitna compare with coal or other fossil fuel? And you could come to the conclusion that a Susitna hydropower project caused less environmental damage,” Williams said.

ACROSS THE INLET

Palin special assistant Balash said that, if Susitna didn’t work, it would be possible to meet the 50 percent renewable energy goal with a combination that included Mount Spurr geothermal and a potential hydropower project at Chakachamna Lake about 85 miles west of Anchorage. The estimated price tag on Chakachamna is about $1.75 billion.

The idea is for smaller projects in rural Alaska as well, but to get to 50 percent requires a big Railbelt effort. Balash said the idea is to gradually replace aging energy infrastructure along the Railbelt with renewable sources.

So extrapolating slightly, that kind of money would buy Alaska 20,000+ FF generators, or 100 GW capacity, which is undoubtedly far more than they are projecting for the projects described. The Susitna project includes 2 dams, totalling 1.8GW, and the Chakachamna project 1 at 330MW. So for the same money, they could duplicate the output for with a mere 402 FF generators, and have enough for 19,598 more to spread around the state!

BTW, here are some interesting graphs of current utility revenue allocations, ownership, and customer numbers and dollars across the US:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/prim2/figure1.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/prim2/figure4.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/prim2/figure5.html

[Lerner]

Realistically, I don’t think anyone will want to buy a license until we at least succeed in our experiment. At that point, someone might, on the assumption they could get a better deal than after the prototype is developed and everyone will want a license. This is a possible route to financing the more expensive engineering phase.

[Brian H]

Lerner wrote: Realistically, I don’t think anyone will want to buy a license until we at least succeed in our experiment. At that point, someone might, on the assumption they could get a better deal than after the prototype is developed and everyone will want a license. This is a possible route to financing the more expensive engineering phase.

Thank you! I have been trying to make that point: licensees won’t pay for a pig-in-a-poke; that’s what investors are for! :cheese: 😉

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

Realistically, I don’t think anyone will want to buy a license until we at least succeed in our experiment. At that point, someone might, on the assumption they could get a better deal than after the prototype is developed and everyone will want a license. This is a possible route to financing the more expensive engineering phase.

Thank you! I have been trying to make that point: licensees won’t pay for a pig-in-a-poke; that’s what investors are for! :cheese: 😉

As long as we look at FF strictly as an electrical generator, I agree. Viewed as an existing heat source that may or may not ever produce net energy, however, FF can convert industrial boiler design from combustible fuels to electrically heated, yielding energy in/out numbers that look impossible if you don’t know about the FF reactor. The immediately compelling reasons to license are to reduce fuel costs and improve steam quality. Eliminating combustible fuels in a boiler makes operating costs more stable, keeps the EPA from meddling, and shows the end-user is environmentally responsible.

Placing the FF down the centerline of a 3 meter diameter boiler is a very elegant shielding arrangement that leaves the rest of the length open for the gyrotron, which the patent calls for to couple the ion beam to the solenoid. The helium generated is another way to influence the net operating cost projections. The longer the boiler, the thinner the lead plug at the end of the barrel. 9 to 10 meters is a fairly common length.

Here’s a few links that only begin to explore industrial steam boilers in Google.

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progsregs/nox/docs/bessette.pdf is about 2 pages describing the vast differences between industrial and utility steam loads.

http://www.thomasnet.com/products/steam-boilers-6132807-1.html The online Thomas Registry. The full text of the 4th ad is quoted below. Looks like just what we’re looking for to expand awareness until breakeven is achieved. Now we’re down to a 7MBTU/hr heat surplus during peak steam demand. Wonder what Rematog’s supplier would charge for that exchanger?

Miura Boiler, Inc. – Rolling Meadows, IL
Manufacturer
http://www.miuraboiler.com/Steam-Boilers
Company Profile: Custom manufacturer of boilers including steam boilers suitable for industrial applications. High pressure steam gas/oil boilers specifications include models ranging from 100 hp to 300 hp, 150 maximum operating psig, heat output ranging from 2,343,000 btu/hr to 10,050,000 btu/hr, main steam outlet…
Steam Boilers Product Catalog with CAD:

The biggest factor complicating my design is not knowing the capacitor dimensions and terminal locations. I’m currently guessing 15 inch diameter by 5 feet length. Also, given the production engineering challenge of roughly 1,000 foils of differing sizes, it may be a while before FF generators come rolling off the assembly lines. A boiler can do desalinization this year unless I’m missing some key engineering detail.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote:

Realistically, I don’t think anyone will want to buy a license until we at least succeed in our experiment. At that point, someone might, on the assumption they could get a better deal than after the prototype is developed and everyone will want a license. This is a possible route to financing the more expensive engineering phase.

Thank you! I have been trying to make that point: licensees won’t pay for a pig-in-a-poke; that’s what investors are for! :cheese: 😉

As long as we look at FF strictly as an electrical generator, I agree. Viewed as an existing heat source that may or may not ever produce net energy, however, FF can convert industrial boiler design from combustible fuels to electrically heated, yielding energy in/out numbers that look impossible if you don’t know about the FF reactor.
…
Steam Boilers Product Catalog with CAD:

The biggest factor complicating my design is not knowing the capacitor dimensions and terminal locations. I’m currently guessing 15 inch diameter by 5 feet length. Also, given the production engineering challenge of roughly 1,000 foils of differing sizes, it may be a while before FF generators come rolling off the assembly lines. A boiler can do desalinization this year unless I’m missing some key engineering detail.

8-/
Selling FF as a heat source as a fall-back in case it never works as a generator is, I suppose, possible. BUT if it works, I guarantee you that all that boiler hardware etc. you have envisaged above will cost FAR more than a second FF generator to produce enough electricity to generate that same amount of heat. Remember, a boiler is the most primitive level of industrial power generation after you get past water wheels turning grist mills. It is operating well down the thermodynamic/entropy scale, with a very lossy conversion ratio back to electricity.

And WHY on Earth would you use electricity to boil water to make electricity?

As far as desalination, I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure there are systems far more energy efficient than simply boiling and distilling it. For example:
http://www.water-technology.net/projects/israel/specs.html

Maximum nominal electrical consumption <4kWh per m³ product water

There are more data sources from the same outfit about Multi-Stage Flash and Low-Temperature Multi-Effect Distillation processes.
http://www.ide-tech.com/News_item.asp?iid=6739&pid=1600&ppid=1489&z=1&p=1
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Multi-Stage+Flash

I suppose you could integrate FF generators into such desalination plants and use both the electric power and the waste heat, as they have need of both.

[JimmyT]

Rematog wrote: Brian,

FF would, for larger remote areas, would be possible. For the smaller ones, the cost of the FF generator ($1 million or so installed) would be large compared to the cost of say a 500 hp diesel gen-set. And the service needs would be difficult to supply to a remote area. So, I’d guess these small remote places wouldn’t be in the first round of adapters. But small cities would be. Another example would be islands. In both cases, you still have to keep an electrical distribution system working as well.

Wouldn’t the cost and logistical considerations of continual fuel supply to your diesel gen-set go a long way toward changing that metric? About 20 gallons/hour should be about right for a 500 hp diesel, depending on load.

That works out to some 175,000 gallons/year.

With such a small load a fusion device could be pulsed much more slowly. This should result in infrequent required maintaince.

I understand that there is a lower limit of power usage below which deployment of one of these devices doesn’t make sense. But I think that limit may be even lower than the one you are suggesting.

But you’re just saying that they won’t be the first in line. Not that they won’t eventually get one. Right?

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:
8-/
Selling FF as a heat source as a fall-back in case it never works as a generator is, I suppose, possible. BUT if it works, I guarantee you that all that boiler hardware etc. you have envisaged above will cost FAR more than a second FF generator to produce enough electricity to generate that same amount of heat. Remember, a boiler is the most primitive level of industrial power generation after you get past water wheels turning grist mills. It is operating well down the thermodynamic/entropy scale, with a very lossy conversion ratio back to electricity.

I suppose you could integrate FF generators into such desalination plants and use both the electric power and the waste heat, as they have need of both.

Brian, we know its just a matter of time before FF creates net energy in a lab setting (sans ion beam and X-ray generators). Until FF delivers even its first real-world MW, boiler makers will be able to build a FF for maybe 50k$ including the helium plumbing, a HUGE helium compressor, and a dozen General Atomics or Maxwell caps at around $1,000 each including fuse(s) and capbank controller. My vision of the FF for that niche market is to install the reactor as an easily removable cylinder with a diameter of .33 to 1 meter positioned on the axial centerline of a boiler with around 3 meter diameter.

Thinking like a boiler maker and his prospects,” IF this electric hocus-pocus pans out, a simple field-installed upgrade covers our bases. If it never pans out, we get the steam we need while paying next to nothing in energy. IF we ever make electricity with this, the intermittent nature of it means we can sell it to reduce or eliminate our lighting bill.”

Detroit was selling Fords long before Cadillacs, in other words. A market for basic heat/steam will be a lot easier sell than a boiler room generator, because you’re selling the holy grail, and I’m selling fuel efficiency.

[Author]

Posts