Energy Policy in Chile – Economist Article

[DerekShannon]

I think this brief article from the May 19th issue of the Economist provides some relevant background regarding why the Chilean government is perhaps more open to CCHEN and Dr. Soto’s collaboration with Eric on focus fusion. No mention of fusion in the article at all, however, but highlights include:

(*) Energy as the Chilean economy’s “Achilles heel”
(*) Problems achieving steady natural gas imports from Argentina
(*) Lack of rain (perhaps climate change related?) threatening hydroelectric output
(*) “Chile will soon face a conflict between promoting economic growth and protecting the environment.”

So, yeah, pretty much a microcosm of the global situation. Also notable is that the $2.4B cost of Chile’s new hydroelectric project works out to $1000/installed kW, vs. a projected $60/kW for focus fusion should it prove feasible and early engineering estimates for commercial generators hold true.

[MARK LOFTS]

I see what you mean by Chile being caught in a nasty trap. Fancy relying on Argentina’s natural gas – or Bolivia’s!

Chile supported Britain in the Malvinas (Falklands) War and there is a long-simmering resentment with Argentina over this. Couple this with wet wilderness hydroelectricity in the south and mining energy requirements in the north and Chile’s difficulties can only mount.

One would have thought they would have taken to solar energy in the Atacama Desert since this region contains the driest spots on Earth. However this region will probably not be good for the ‘solar wind tower’ projects i.e. kilometer high chimneys that allow warmed air to rise upward, with wind turbines in the chimney generating baseload power. These are being pioneered in Spain – so presumably Chile would be taking an interest in it. There are two reasons for their lack of interest in this option however.

1. Chile is mountainous and earthquake prone. Fancy having a 500m tower topple in an earthquake before the energy out exceeded that required to build the tower in the first place. Such towers are estimated to take 10 years to counteract the energy deficit – a long time to hope to avoid an earthquake.

2. Chile does not have large masses of warm desert air – unlike the Sahara or Australia. It is such air that the solar wind towers would be hoping to utilize. The reason for this absence is because Chile is adjacent to the Humboldt-Peruvian Current which cools the otherwise subtropical coastline leading to low nighttime temperatures even in summer – as I can personally attest. Hence there can be no buildup of warm air suitable for running such a tower effectively into the evening after sunset.

While I suspect Chile may be tempted by such solar tower technology, the long-term chances for focus fusion development there are very good since the country simply lacks decent options otherwise.

Yours faithfully

Mark Lofts

[Brian H]

Derek & Mark;
Very interesting observations. I suppose the same motivations would attract Chile to fission, but the timelines and costs are very large, of course. I’m actually surprised it’s not supporting the entire FF cost, since, say, $5M is peanuts compared to the issues it is facing.

[Brian H]

Eric reports that the Chilean researchers have dropped the ball, and seem to have ceased work, maybe distracted or directed to stop? Or then there’s my conspiracy theory, which is that they’ve taken their work into “black” labs and are hiding everything from the public and LPP.

[Author]

Posts