[Rematog]

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

[Rematog]

Space.

The ultimate “high ground”. Using Focus Fusion power, an orbiting satellite could have the power needed to use directed energy weapons. This power would also be available for ion drives to allow limited maneuverability.

These weapons might be lasers, microwave beams, particle beams, etc. Not expert in this, but know it is being researched.

These “orbital battle stations” could be either manned or, more likely, automated.

Putting something like this in orbit is, with today’s technology, limited to a handful of world powers (USA, Russia, China, possibly Japan and EU powers).

For communications, reconn and other uses, a FF powered satellite with ion drives would have staying power and maneuverability, greatly enhancing it’s usefulness.

Without need for solar cells, FF powered satellites would be less fragile. I would think “armored” would be unlikely due to weight it would require. But, “stealth” satellites may be possible. They would have a tiny radar cross section, be dark not shiny (so hard to see with telescope) and have all heat radiators directed away from earth.

[Rematog]

Aaron,

Any one who thinks military applications won’t happen is a fool. Any one who pretends they won’t happen, is ignoring reality.

Bad things happen to those who are fools or ignore reality.

I’ve made it clear, I work in the power industry. But….I’m no fool, and as an engineer, I pay attention to reality. Even if the US doesn’t deploy these types of weapons, we MUST plan for defenses against them.

So any forum discussing impact of a world changing technology like Focus Fusion seems to be a place where ALL effects should be discussed. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

[Rematog]

Long endurance aircraft….

5-20 MW is 6,700 to 26,800 hp. The upper end of this is about the power needed for a C-130. Using boosters for take-off, a very large aircraft could be design with range and endurance limited by its mechanical reliability and needed for crew food and water.

Large “Loitering” aircraft could serve as AWAC’s type sentries. An unmanned version, a “super predator” drone could be launched, travel across the world to it’s combat zone, then provide observation and fire missiles, until the ammo ran out or it was shot down.

And as transports, the FF power unit would allow non-stop flights around the world. This would have much more change effect on civilian rather then military usage, as the military already has mid-air refueling to allow this.

Fuel costs savings would be huge, all the way around.

One effect would be in balance of power. United States has mid-air refueling, other top tier military powers have it. But with FF powered aircraft, round the world flights would be possible with out the highly trained crews and world wide base structure the US has.

All in all, Focus Fusion would level the military playing field, putting more power in the hands of smaller or less economically powerful countries.

[Rematog]

Exactly right, distribution is in place. And, therefore, it must be maintained. Tree limbs cut, poles replaced when they rot, wire replaced when they fall during ice storm, hurricane, etc..

Yes, increased usage (with decreased price, esp if used to replace natural gas for heating, hot water, cooking) and then possible electric vehicles would mean upgrades to the distribution system as well. Also, if twice as much power is sold, cost to “deliver” a kw-hr is less (not quite half, but likely close).

Yes, the HV transmission system would require far less in the way of upgrades as new load is taken up by “nodes” of 50-100 FF modules at less centralised, and closer to urban, locations. But, one of my main points, that the first 5-10 years would see repowering existing plants, which have much of the infrastructure already in place, with transmission systems designed for power to “go in here”, is not contradicted by any of this.

I’ve been assuming that the “distributed” power was, as had been mentioned elsewhere, powering individual buildings (large offices, skyscrapers, malls, etc. It is that kind of use that I see as farthest down the road, and as having the least impact on our world.

The reduced cost, vastly reduced environmental impact, and just as vastly increased availability of power will all be more important than any reduction in need for centralized plants. In my opinion.

[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.

[Rematog]

Almost all land under transmission lines is right-of way. Farmers fields, etc. But some is owned.

Cost of power, wholesale, is generally between $40 and $80 per MW-hour, or 4-8 cents per kw-hr. So yes, some savings is possible with distributed…but. I know more than half of my power bill is “Fuel adjustment” This is a direct charge for the cost of fuel (mostly natural gas were I live) burned to make the power. So, I disagree that distributed generation will be the largest savings. That will be fuel costs and elimination of pollution and pollution controls.

Unless we are talking about a “Mr. Fusion” in every home, there will still be a large cost to distribute power “the last mile”. And, if larger users (malls, office complexes, etc.) can go off grid, the cost to small users to support the need distribution system will go up, not down. It’s not just big transmission lines, but also the poles on you neighborhood street.

[Rematog]

Nothing you’ve stated has addressed the fundamental fact that they will require significant security. Killer Robots? This is a great idea for an office building. Janitor killed, $20 million wrongful death settlement. But really. All of this security, remote maintenance (read, crew costing $300-500 an hour spending at least two travel hours per job (shudder), driving in a $50k maint. truck, not having the right part on board….etc.

What’s the response time if there is a security breach? Who responds, local police? The county sheriff? What happens if a fuel gas leak detector alarms (there would have to be one, the stuff is toxic). A radiation detector alarms? Who responds, how fast? I assume the unit would be tripped immediately by it’s control system. And stays off line till a maint. crew gets there to fix the problem.

Also, distributed installations to power, say a building, would also have a grid connection (and not many would be unconnected to grid, for power during shutdown, etc). That means it would need remote switching etc. You can NOT have a power source hooked to the grid that can’t be remotely isolated. Otherwise, you back feed power when not expected and kill linemen. The union frowns on this. ….wait. Just had a thought. How are you thinking your going to control these things. Via Internet. Not a good idea.

Security requirements alone for something like this would make that difficult to impossible. Allowing Internet access to a plant control system is not normally allowed. There are major security concerns just having third part access to plant LAN for equipment maintenance. And the LAN is NOT part of the Plant DCS. You would need to install some very secure (read expensive) means of accessing the Focus Fusion module’s control PLC/DCS, if not installing a dedicated hard wire connection. And it would have to shut-down on losing it’s Internet connection, otherwise, it’s not monitored at all.

I could easily see the installation cost of a single Focus Fusion module being twice that of a “central” location with a hundred (or more) modules.

And they will require any number of permits….for each site. Heck, the permits alone will cost tens of thousands per site. Remember, we are talking about installing 100,000 or more modules in the first 5-10 years. Just think of the effort needed to obtain 100,000 site permits. More job security for lawyers. Like they need it.

I just don’t see this being well thought out. It feels to me like distributed operation is being insisted on based on philosophical reasons, not economic/engineering ones. And deployment of hundreds of billions of dollars of assets will be driven by economic/engineering and political reasons….not philosophy.

[Rematog]

Breakable,

You mention solar cells for $1/watt ($1,000/kw). But what does a thousand dollars get you?…A crate full of solar cells, not an operating power system. And as someone (Brian I think, can’t see while posting) mentioned, solar cells have a poor capacity factor. A unit running at full rated power, 24/7/365 has a CF of 100%. Solar cells run at what? I’d guess between 20% to 40%, depending on climate, etc. Given numbers (very rough one, granted) mentioned elsewhere on this board, Focus fusion would have a CF similar, maybe a little better, then conventional power plants, I.E. 80-90%. So a fully installed solar cell system (not just the cells) would need to be less than half the cost to own and operate, per Kw of installed capacity, to have the same cost of power. And yes, while it is much lower, solar cell systems do require some maintenance.

Regarding utilities. Sure, they are corporations and want to make money. But they are REGULATED. They can’t make money hand over fist. The regulators (which are politically appointed in states where they are not directly elected) can and have made utilities cut rates if they make more than the regulator thinks is “fair”.

And I’m certainly of the belief that a relatively cheap, very clean, low resource use, power source would change a great deal in our world. And almost all of it, for the better.

PS: Solar is NOT a low resource power source. As solar power density is low, it would take up a great deal of land. So solar, no matter how cheap or efficient the actual cells become, lacks the basic ability to make power truly plentiful. That is the difference. Focus Fusion would not only allow, but the lower cost would encourage, a massive increase in power usage. But with much less environmental impact.

The steam engine changed the world, by making power very much cheaper and more plentiful compared to what it replaced, muscle power (animal and human). This is what I would see Focus Fusion doing.

[Rematog]

Brian,

My bad on that, fusion/fission thing. I’ve corrected my original post.

You are right about transmission losses and cost of transmission facilities. I agree, focus fusion would lend itself to smaller facilities, and eventually, they could be close to urban areas.

And, what is not being stressed enough, is the possible use of focus fusion (both for power and heat) in industrial facilities. Again, it would start with the big, power intensive industries, aluminum, steel, paper, chemical etc. With time, both acceptance, and a work force skilled in operation would allow use in smaller industrial facilities. And, lower cost power would make new things possible. Heavy industrial users would get full benefit of the cost reductions, and this would eventually result in lower prices on the goods they make, benefiting everyone.

Depending on costs, electrolysis of water for hydrogen, with nitrogen taken from the air, would allow ammonia production without natural gas feed stocks (currently most common method). Not only can ammonia be used as a fertilizer, it may also be usable as a fuel for a fuel cell. This could be a possible means to move to a hydrogen economy.

I have worked for a very small (privately owned) facility. I’ve seen the short cuts they took. I’d be very uncomfortable about that kind of operation running a fission plant. I’m not saying all small operators would be bad…but some certainly would be. At least large companies, as they are run today, are VERY afraid of risk. They would be quite concerned with safety and avoiding accidents. The fact they have deep pockets means they don’t want to be in a situation of having a serious liability issue come up at plants they run. Again, certainly not saying they are perfect (they certainly are not). But this is why I’m not a believer in distributed use as realistic in the first phase of deployment (first 20 years). After that, we would have to see.

[Rematog]

Do not think that my disagreement with distributed installation means I am “against” Focus Fusion. If it works at 10 times the cost that is claimed on this site, it would still quickly come to dominate power generation. Even if more expensive then coal or fission, it would be much better from an envionmental standpoint alone.

And if it’s costs are close to what I have estimated, based on information from this site, I would see my home power bill drop to 1/2 or even 1/3 it’s current amount. And, it would provide the potential for growth to take over from other power sources for transportion, whether from electric vehicles or synthetic fuel production, without increasing envionmental impact from fossil fuels or fission byproducts.

And the cost savings and envionmental benefits would ripple thru the industrial sector, resulting in most manufactured items dropping in price, and having less environmental impacts. The greater real wealth this would provide, for both developed economies and the developing world, would allow more concern for the environment to be practical.

So, while I may debate the details… I agree that if it can be developed, this would be a world changing technology.

[Rematog]

Brian….I assume you mean 5 MW. 5 GW would be enough to power a medium sized city.

Placing in individual buildings….maybe in medium to long range future.

I know Mr. Lerner feels this will happen sooner rather than later. I just disagree. It is still a reactor, so will be regulated. And it has a very dangerous chemical for a fuel…not something you can leave un-attended. Maintenance will require trained crafts with engineering/physics and management support. The cost trade-off between transmission system costs vs extra cost to operate the Focus Fusion unit’s distributed will in end drive the decision.

Why would it cost more to operate distributed? Distributed intallation would have travel time and other costs for maintenance personnel to visit for repairs that a central facility would avoid for one. Distrubuted installation would also have added cost for security and monitoring of remote locations. Higher cost to install one here, one there (placing a hundred Focus Fusion block at a central facility would reduce unit cost to install). How would haz-mat response be done for distributed focus fusion units?

Think about the building managers and building maintenance personnel you’ve known. Do you want to work/live in building where they would be running a fusion reactor? With neurotoxic fuel?

[Rematog]

Electrical Sub-stations do NOT have any normal staffing. They just have a fence with a gate and a lock. Totally NOT secure location. In fact, current price of copper wiring has led to increase in thefts from these sub-stations. Haven’t heard of a fatality from trying to steal a live wire……yet.

As for service stations….lol, A lone 17 year old attendant at 03:00….. to be in charge of a fission plant, producing x-ray and some neutron radiation….with a small tank of a neurotoxin for fuel…this is security???

I just don’t understand why the insistence on this….but, really it doesn’t matter. The government WILL decide where and how they are deployed. And, at first (and likely for a long time…), it would be deployed by utilities and major industries.

The “focus” of Focus Fusion needs to be making it happen at all. Once licenses are granted to manufactures, such as GE, Westinghouse, Siemens, Mitsubishi, etc… Then they will sell to buyer’s who will have to get licenses and permits to install, from agencies as varied as the NRC to the local zoning commission.

Rematog.

[Rematog]

My experience, working for one of the companies making investment decisions regarding electrical power, it that it is not being considered at all.

But, granted, I’m about a half dozen paygrades below the people attending Board of Director meetings.

Rematog

[Rematog]

Regarding the replacement of taxes now collected on oil, etc (mentioned earlier in this thread).

Electric utilities are already major (if not the biggest non-governmental) tax collectors. Look at your electric bill. Electric power is already taxed more than many commodities. So, if cost the of power went down, I don’t doubt govenment’s willingness to increase taxes on retail sales to make up for other lost revenues……

Rematog

[Author]

Posts