Investment risk

[Rematog]

Yes, if your talking about the company that was trying to sell condo’s on a giant ship/city that was to sail around and around the world. Yes it was vaporware. The site was not updated and is now down. The people supporting it were a very small group with almost no funding. The condo’s were tiny and expensive (think Central Park view expensive). And the ongoing “fee” for ownership meant that this was to be a community for the very, very rich.

But, yes focus fusion would allow more use of ships. It would take over power/propulsion needs of existing freighters and liners very, very quickly (as fast as they could get them installed, would be my guess). And large “ship board” communities would be a favorite with the rich.

But, more interesting to me, is, would focus fusion allow offshore/underwater habitats to become more viable. It would provide the power/light/heat needed for a very high tech life. What about colonizing the Antarctic. With reliable (multiple units, greater redundancy) cheap power that doesn’t require massive re-supply (oil/coal tankers, etc), it would be possible, to live at the south pole. Underground greenhouses, etc. Very much like living in a space colony. Only the vacuum would be missing.

[Brian H]

Rematog wrote: Yes, if your talking about the company that was trying to sell condo’s on a giant ship/city that was to sail around and around the world. Yes it was vaporware. The site was not updated and is now down. The people supporting it were a very small group with almost no funding. The condo’s were tiny and expensive (think Central Park view expensive). And the ongoing “fee” for ownership meant that this was to be a community for the very, very rich.

But, yes focus fusion would allow more use of ships. It would take over power/propulsion needs of existing freighters and liners very, very quickly (as fast as they could get them installed, would be my guess). And large “ship board” communities would be a favorite with the rich.

But, more interesting to me, is, would focus fusion allow offshore/underwater habitats to become more viable. It would provide the power/light/heat needed for a very high tech life. What about colonizing the Antarctic. With reliable (multiple units, greater redundancy) cheap power that doesn’t require massive re-supply (oil/coal tankers, etc), it would be possible, to live at the south pole. Underground greenhouses, etc. Very much like living in a space colony. Only the vacuum would be missing.

Yes, it would be very interesting, but aside from giving the penguins a hard time for amusement, what would be the point? O’Neill colonies, now ….

[Rematog]

Most likely reason for Antarctica colony, other the scientific, is mining. Ditto for underwater, minerals. No real reason other wise, just sounds cool.

[Brian H]

Most likely reason for Antarctica colony, other the scientific, is mining. Ditto for underwater, minerals. No real reason other wise, just sounds cool.[/quote

Isn’t there some kind of treaty promising not to mine and exploit the place, LATHA or something? (“Leave Antarctica The Hell Alone”)? ;-P

[Breakable]

Rematog,
While I admire your faith in focus fusion I still don’t believe solar cells or wind power is doomed as soon as focus fusion emerges with a usable prototype.

Regarding the efficiency, yes I believe currently it is about ~14% for production solar cells and ~40% for laboratory models. Focus fusion has an estimated efficiency of 80%, but only if their energy conversion methods work. They have not proven yet, while solar cells are. And most likely will improve in the near future,

Another factor to think about is the transmission lines. The current centralized infrastructure is about 30% efficient. I don’t think anyone will want to replace it if the energy will be cheap and plenty. Even if Sweden did that a decade ago. Although I would love to see local power generation.

Solar and Wind power can in many cases be installed at home and in suburbia cases can supply all the required power even with the current technology. If you have extra – feed back to the grid. So thats almost 0% power loss. If there is no wind and cloudy – well thats where the grid power comes in, and guess what I see at the end of the power line in this case? Fusion power actually, but for now its coal.

There is one more interesting idea about the utilities. As I believe they are not very efficient in management of funds. The numbers I quote will be taken from the clouds but let me tell them nevertheless. I heard that it costs a nuclear power plant to produce one kilowatt-hour 1 cent of imaginary currency, while at the end of the line it is sold to consumers at 30 cents. Thats where the “cheap” part sinks…

PS:How long will it take for any superior technology to overtake this huge world, with its barriers, different cultures, fear and politics?

Please don’t misunderstand me, I am just trying to be a pessimist in short term, so I could be optimistic about the long run.
Regards,
Breakable

[dash]

Breakable wrote: Another factor to think about is the transmission lines. The current centralized infrastructure is about 30% efficient. I don’t think anyone will want to replace it if the energy will be cheap and plenty. Even if Sweden did that a decade ago. Although I would love to see local power generation.

I think you’d see a recycling of the long distance power lines. The copper in the wires will be worth more and more as the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China) continue to increase consumption. The perfect place for a FF device would be the endpoint in the cities where all the transformers are, stepping down the voltage.

Also there will be a need for more land. The strip of land the power lines occupy will be more valuable, wasting it on power distribution won’t be reasonable.

I still like http://www.nanosolar.com, but they’re not real until I can go buy some of their cells — and I can’t today.

-Dave

[Breakable]

dash wrote:
I think you’d see a recycling of the long distance power lines. The copper in the wires will be worth more and more as the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China) continue to increase consumption. The perfect place for a FF device would be the endpoint in the cities where all the transformers are, stepping down the voltage.
Also there will be a need for more land. The strip of land the power lines occupy will be more valuable, wasting it on power distribution won’t be reasonable.
I still like http://www.nanosolar.com, but they’re not real until I can go buy some of their cells — and I can’t today.
-Dave

Well another point for FF advantage. But this would require decentralizing the infrastructure which is also a huge amount of work. We are talking about that more in a different thread. Look at the end.
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/181/P45/

Nanosolar is sold out for this year, but they are ramping production to unprecedented levels, so I would expect you to be able to do that in a year or two.

Unfortunately the “save the world” technology always looks just around the corner. This is why I understand the politicians who are pushing for awfully but proven technology implementations instead, like fission. This is why practically all the wind turbines in wind-farms are old-school design, when there is a huge potential in new generation of wind turbine designs.

[dash]

Breakable wrote: We are talking about that more in a different thread. Look at the end.

Your link was broken — it goes to a post reply mechanism but I can’t figure out what thread you’re referring to.

-Dave

[Breakable]

Sorry. The thread was “NIMBY FUD”,
Should be here:
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/181/P45/

[JimmyT]

Perhaps part of the problem getting this project going is the following:

The group with the highest reward/risk ratio from this project accrues to those who invest nothing, take no risk, and invest no effort. Yet, there will be considerable benefit to this group if this project is successful.

Someone please tell me I’m wrong!

[Brian H]

JimmyT wrote: Perhaps part of the problem getting this project going is the following:

The group with the highest reward/risk ratio from this project accrues to those who invest nothing, take no risk, and invest no effort. Yet, there will be considerable benefit to this group if this project is successful.

Someone please tell me I’m wrong!

If you’re talking about consumers, consider that the government(s) should be acting as their proxy, and bringing forward near- and long-term, applied and basic research initiatives to improve standards of living and quality of life. As always happens, those mechanisms have been captured by groups and special interests with gold-plated axes to grind.

So it will have to be the shoe-string DIY route.

[Author]

Posts