NIMBY FUD

[Rematog]

Brian,

There is a vast middle ground between so called “hyper-regulated” and being able to do anything you want.

We all are regulated to a greater or lesser degree. We all get a driver’s license in order to drive a car. That license places limits on how we drive.

So when I mention that, especially in the initial phase of deployment, NRC licensing may limit distributed use and require site security, this is a limit, not “attempting to kill” the technoloy. It is very possible (and I think, very likely) for focus fusion to be a massive success without it being used as you believe it should be.

This debate is starting to remind me of my one encounter with Scientology. They kept telling me “no, you don’t understand, you have to think this way…”

[Rematog]

Brian,

There is a vast middle ground between being “hyper-regulated” and being able to do anything you want. We are all regulated to a greater or lesser degree in what we do. We all get a drivers license in order to be able to drive a car. That drivers license places limits on how we drive and requires us to do things (pass a test) before we can drive.

Industrial facilities are (and I think should be) regulated in a number of ways. Focus Fusion is an “industrial facility” that happens to also be a nuclear (fusion) technology.

So when I state that, especially in the initial deployment phase, Focus Fusion will be licensed by the NRC, and that I think that license will require site security, this is not implying that “special interests” are attempting to “kill” the technology. I believe that Focus Fusion can be a massive success even if it’s initial deployment is not done the way you feel is best, i.e. highly distributed (and un-regulated).

This debate is starting to remind me of my only encounter with Scientology. They kept saying “no, you don’t understand, you have to think this way…”

[Transmute]

Brian H wrote:

Yes but the amount of helium produced is minor, though pumping it into a storage tank would not be hard and replacing said tank every few months any trained ape could do.

IIRC, Eric estimated that at full stretch FF would supply about 1/8 of the world’s current helium consumption.

Exactly, we would need 8 times the electricity production to just match todays helium production… Oh wait that would be a good thing! 😀

Rematog,

Don’t debate Scientologiest, you can’t debate religious beliefs, especially cults, the only things that will work is de-brainwashing and (in Scientology lingo) “R2-45”.

I understand your argument but why would they require strict regulation at first? After testing and a few pilot plants the full safety of the device can be gaged, if it turns out to be as safe as these guys claim then why would strict regulation be needed?

[Brian H]

Rematog wrote: Brian,

There is a vast middle ground between so called “hyper-regulated” and being able to do anything you want.

We all are regulated to a greater or lesser degree. We all get a driver’s license in order to drive a car. That license places limits on how we drive.

So when I mention that, especially in the initial phase of deployment, NRC licensing may limit distributed use and require site security, this is a limit, not “attempting to kill” the technoloy. It is very possible (and I think, very likely) for focus fusion to be a massive success without it being used as you believe it should be.

This debate is starting to remind me of my one encounter with Scientology. They kept telling me “no, you don’t understand, you have to think this way…”

There are power issues here; FF will chop the ground out from under any number of long-dominant economic clusters. As far as regulation, I invite you to check out { http://jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail408.html#Iron } “Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy [which] states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.”

As with any other power base, the implicit survival-maximizing goal of maximizing influence and persistence takes over (fairly quickly) from ostensible purposes and efforts to deliver external benefits.

My hope and belief is that the depth and breadth of benefits FF offers will break that reflexive but potent opposition; my major uncertainty is whether this will happen “automatically”, or require heavy targeted advocacy and legal plus public relations plus political conflict.

[Rematog]

Actually, I think we have two factors on this issue.

First is how “strict” the regulation will be. Second is what each of us view’s as strict.

I would call how a current fission plant is regulated as “strict”. I don’t see this being the case for FF.

This is what I would see as the “regulation” for the first 5-10 years (while it is new and unproven, see below).

Site: (not NRC so much as state/local regs). Limits to how much population can be within a certain radius. My low end is a 1 mile radius, may be higher. Would require warning alarm for radiation leakage.

Operations and Security: I feel the NRC would require 24/7/365 on-site operators and security. Don’t think you’d be required to have the SWAT team. Building required to contain any radiation leakage, but not have the massive strength of a fission plant containment dome.

Other: Standard air/water/wetlands/construction permits required. If new site, would need an environmental impact statement. Would have to meet OSHA requirements for operations staff.

Business/Financial: While not “regulation” in the sense of rules of law, the factor’s of how business is done and why, do constrain how things happen.

If installed by for profit corporation, esp if publicly traded company, there would need to be the usually cost/operations guarantees. The FF power module manufacturer would need to guarantee the output, the required inputs (fuel, cooling water), environmental effects (emissions of gases, waste heat, radiation, etc) and to some degree the amount of maintenance required. The Engineering and Construction companies that design and build the complete facility would have to guarantee the overall cost to build and total system performance (including things like cooling water usage).

The actual owner avoids most of the risk involved in purchasing/building the facility. The owner gets the risks involved with running it. The lending institutions (banks/bond holders etc.) that finance a lot of the cost, INSIST on this risk avoidance.

If the owner is a utility or public agency, this changes more in the details. Neither of these types of owner is generally willing to take much of the risk for a project’s development.

All of the above is true even if distributed. Does a building owner take the risk for the air conditioning system working in a new building. No. The supplier is responsible for the equipment working (we call that a warranty) and the designer/builder for the system working (has power, air ducts correct, thermostats work, system cools evenly and controllable). There is a bank with a mortgage on the building. I’ve not been involved with this type of project, but I’d fall out of my chair in shock to find out that the bank just gives the owner a check and says “Have it built by anyone you want, any way you want, and we don’t care if there is anyone liable for it being built right.” I doubt is a bank commits to loan money for a major building until the bids for the design and construction are in hand and have been reviewed by the Bank’s engineer. I’ve known some Bank’s engineers, they were sharp fellows.

[Rematog]

As far as defining “proven”.

A pilot plant shows that the system works as claimed and that the construction costs are (or are not) as anticipated. Usually this also involves scale-up issues, but this would be less of a factor with a modular technology such as focus fusion.

The Permits and siting assumptions I stated above assumed that a pilot plant proved that the performance claims made on this board are demonstrated, including environmental impact, safety and to a lesser degree, cost.

But I really don’t see the following reaction. “A pilot plant that has operated successfully and safely for 6 months, this now means that the NRC, politicians, banks, industry, insurance companies and the general public now accept Focus Fusion REACTORS being placed anywhere/everywhere any developer with $XXX,XXX dollars want to put one, AND we allow unattended operation with security being a padlock and alarm system.”

I think the following statement will be more likely true: “Thousands of FF modules have been operating for 5 (or 10) years and have a near perfect track record for safety and reliability. We (NRC, politicians, banks, industry insurance companies and the general public) are comfortable with relaxing restrictions to allow these REACTORS to be placed at sites that are not near homes, schools etc. but are in urban areas. But we still want to make sure that the opeators are responsible, knowledgable that have the resources to keep this good record going.”

[Rematog]

Brian,

To me, your comment on the “Iron Law of Bureaucracy” supports my position that Focus Fusion will be carefully regulated in the initial deployment stage. It will take time to (force the) change to the way the NRC does things.

[Brian H]

Rematog wrote: Brian,

To me, your comment on the “Iron Law of Bureaucracy” supports my position that Focus Fusion will be carefully regulated in the initial deployment stage. It will take time to (force the) change to the way the NRC does things.

“Carefully regulated” implies linkage between actual risk and controls. Most of what you’ve described is horrific overkill, based on pacifying misconceptions and applying inappropriate models. That is characteristic of functionaries who regulate to maximize regulations, from which they derive influence and job security.

The cost burden of what you describe would multiply the running cost of the reactors and hence power cost. That’s where I see leverage against over-regulation: the financial penalties to users are not a few dozen percent markup, they are 100s of % markup. That’s not something heavy hitters will take lying down — and public awareness would be fairly readily attracted to that kind of impact.

We’ll see. I hope!

[Lerner]

Let’s not call them reactors Rematog, let’s call them “engines”–we can take a page from MRI’s history.

FF engines will be a mass-produced product–all identical–rolling down and assembly line. They will cost, uninstalled, about $300,000–a bit more than a car, but that may come down as production ramps up. That’s a big difference from the way electric generation is done in the US anyway, which is each generator is a unique construction.

No one is against regulation per se. But there is a qualitative difference between regulating FF engines the way fission reactors are regulated and the way auto engines are regulated, and there will be a huge impact on how rapidly the technology is implemented. If each FF engine is treated as a “unique nuclear reactor” with all the paperwork that goes with that, you can expect –maybe 10 installation per year in the whole US, tops. Even if they were all GW farms, we would still be pumping oil and the price would still be sky high 30 years from now.

If they are treated as they deserve to be, which is as non-radioactive fusion engines, then there will be intensive testing by government regulators on the initial run of generators. After that, there should be no more licensing of individual engines than is required for internal combustion engines. And then 10 years after mass production starts, oil consumption will be way down and the price will be close to the cost of production–that is about $5 a barrel or so.

Again this is independent of the question of whether they will be concentrated or dispersed. This is only dependent on the idea that they will function as we think they will. If they don’t (but do produce economical energy) then we have to look at the regulation question again.

[Brian H]

Lerner wrote: Let’s not call them reactors Rematog, let’s call them “engines”–we can take a page from MRI’s history.

FF engines will be a mass-produced product–all identical–rolling down [an] assembly line. They will cost, uninstalled, about $300,000–a bit more than a car, but that may come down as production ramps up. That’s a big difference from the way electric generation is done in the US anyway, which is each generator is a unique construction.

No one is against regulation per se. But there is a qualitative difference between regulating FF engines the way fission reactors are regulated and the way auto engines are regulated, and there will be a huge impact on how rapidly the technology is implemented. If each FF engine is treated as a “unique nuclear reactor” with all the paperwork that goes with that, you can expect –maybe 10 installation per year in the whole US, tops. Even if they were all GW farms, we would still be pumping oil and the price would still be sky high 30 years from now.

If they are treated as they deserve to be, which is as non-radioactive fusion engines, then there will be intensive testing by government regulators on the initial run of generators. After that, there should be no more licensing of individual engines than is required for internal combustion engines. And then 10 years after mass production starts, oil consumption will be way down and the price will be close to the cost of production–that is about $5 a barrel or so.

Again this is independent of the question of whether they will be concentrated or dispersed. This is only dependent on the idea that they will function as we think they will. If they don’t (but do produce economical energy) then we have to look at the regulation question again.

Eric;
I think there is a certain amount of chauvinism in this discussion, too. If other countries, notably China and, say, one or two 1st world nations, go flat-out building and installing them, the economic advantages from that would be so enormous as to force others (even the U.S.) to follow suit. No one can compete against an order-of-magnitude difference in energy costs for manufacturing and transportation.

[Brian H]

Rematog wrote:
…
Focus Fusion is an “industrial facility” that happens to also be a nuclear (fission) technology.
…

Just noticed that in your opening comment at the top of the page. Was that a typo? Or are you categorizing FF as “fission”, too?

[Breakable]

I would expect that centralized power distribution would not be replaced in a fast and efficient manner, even if FF engine would not produce X-Rays and would run on non-flammable fuel.
This is because there is a huge amount of inertia in how things are currently done. I think it will take 5-15 year for decentralized deployments to start in such countries as USA and UK. This is because there will be a lot of political and commercial activity required for it to change:
1)Big companies think big. Small companies will have to be created to think local. The capital will have to be raised.
2)Demand for cheaper electricity will have to happen by voters and political activists. If the prices fall a little by centralized implementation, how long would it take for people to ask for more?
3)Regulations will emerge. Who will they be targeted to? I think those will have to be adjusted for small companies to operate efficiently.
4)Huge demand for the product and human resources will have to be satisfied. This wont happen overnight.

All these things take time, money and effort. Centralized deployment seems much easier in for the beginning, even if its not so efficient. Taking one step at a time will help not to fall, and meet less resistance.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote: I would expect that centralized power distribution would not be replaced in a fast and efficient manner, even if FF engine would not produce X-Rays and would run on non-flammable fuel.
This is because there is a huge amount of inertia in how things are currently done. I think it will take 5-15 year for decentralized deployments to start in such countries as USA and UK. This is because there will be a lot of political and commercial activity required for it to change:
1)Big companies think big. Small companies will have to be created to think local. The capital will have to be raised.
2)Demand for cheaper electricity will have to happen by voters and political activists. If the prices fall a little by centralized implementation, how long would it take for people to ask for more?
3)Regulations will emerge. Who will they be targeted to? I think those will have to be adjusted for small companies to operate efficiently.
4)Huge demand for the product and human resources will have to be satisfied. This wont happen overnight.

All these things take time, money and effort. Centralized deployment seems much easier in for the beginning, even if its not so efficient. Taking one step at a time will help not to fall, and meet less resistance.

Breakable, I’d normally agree and track with your reasoning — except for the HUGE pressure to become “energy independent” and the HUGE pressure to become low carbon-emitting — and HUGE price difference! This is not a moderate improvement, it’s a factor of about 50.

I would love to be in charge of a PR campaign to pressure authorities and utilities to move fast on this. There are so many killer tools available that it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. They’d never know what hit them!

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
Breakable, I’d normally agree and track with your reasoning — except for the HUGE pressure to become “energy independent” and the HUGE pressure to become low carbon-emitting — and HUGE price difference! This is not a moderate improvement, it’s a factor of about 50.

I would love to be in charge of a PR campaign to pressure authorities and utilities to move fast on this. There are so many killer tools available that it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. They’d never know what hit them!

I am happy with your HUGE amount of optimism 😉 .
You should also notice that what I was targeting was the decentralization, and not the use of focus fusion overall.
The overall usage might be enough to bring enough benefits, for the government to ignore the added benefit of decentralization.
While I agree the potential leverages seems to be plenty, they still would have to be used very efficiently to defeat all the skepticism, fear and inertia.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:

Breakable, I’d normally agree and track with your reasoning — except for the HUGE pressure to become “energy independent” and the HUGE pressure to become low carbon-emitting — and HUGE price difference! This is not a moderate improvement, it’s a factor of about 50.

I would love to be in charge of a PR campaign to pressure authorities and utilities to move fast on this. There are so many killer tools available that it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. They’d never know what hit them!

I am happy with your HUGE amount of optimism 😉 .
You should also notice that what I was targeting was the decentralization, and not the use of focus fusion overall.
The overall usage might be enough to bring enough benefits, for the government to ignore the added benefit of decentralization.
While I agree the potential leverages seems to be plenty, they still would have to be used very efficiently to defeat all the skepticism, fear and inertia.
Nah. The fearful (countries) will go broke, fast, and the brave (countries) will get rich, fast. That should settle it. 😆 😆

As soon as the first reactors are proven to work, btw, I expect OPEC to slash its price to $!0/bbl. To try and save itself.
_______
Just thought of another benefit/spinoff. Recently (last decade or so) many hydroelectric and other dams have been being removed to permit normal river flows. With FF available, many of the flooded and silted and ruined rivers of the world can be restored. E.g., the Colorado.

[Author]

Posts