[Rematog]

I’ve worked at a PURPA “Shark”. That was the name for small NUG’s that were built in California in the 80’s and 90’s in response to the very attractive “avoided cost” set by the State of California.

The key question is “What is the avoided cost?”. Remember, the “avoided cost” was meant to be the cost of the power plant not built and operated by the utility due to the NUG supplied power. This becomes a political issue, generally settled by state legislatures and rate commissions.

If properly done, it is a good way to encourage innovation and efficiency. If not, it either leads to “Sharks” (the plant I worked at was, by 1995, receiving OVER the residential rate for power being sold to the utility wholesale, we were, in effect, being subsidized. Or, the utility can get (they have considerable political power) “avoided costs” set low enough to prevent “competition” from NUGs.

If the Utility was deploying FF modules, they would likely argue (with some merit) that the avoided cost was the cost of FF generated power.

[Rematog]

PS: I also understand and acknowledge that utilities are profit driven entities that strive and scheme and use politics to gain as much profit as they can. That does not make them “evil” (unless they cheat). They will, to a lesser or greater degree, change as technology changes. If FF becomes commercial, they will deploy, faster or slower, as they perceive the “fear vs. greed” equation that ALL business decisions come down to.

The public and the government (including the courts) they elect (as least in the US) will mold the business landscape the utilities will try to navigate through in their attempt to gain the most benefit (greed) or least harm (fear) from the new technology.

So the people will in the end determine the winners and losers. They need to elect politicians that have the general good at heart and do a fair, compasionate job of allocating the benefits and costs of FF deployment. Unfortunately, those politicians are a rare bred. Nuff said.

[Rematog]

Eric,

While bonds will have more institutional investors, Utility stocks are very popular with older, often retired investors due to relative low risk and more stable yield. My 82 year old father is one of them. And, stock holders are the last in line when companies go under or take heavy losses. So, I’d not be too flippant when suggesting that utilities creditors be given the short end of the stick when/if FF is deployed. And stock and bonds of investment grade are what make up the portfolios of most retirement, 401k and pension funds. Hopefully they are diversified enough to weather drops in these.

But…. I just don’t think it is right to gleefully suggest utilities get the shaft for making the NECESSARY investments in long term capital assets needed to provide the electric power needed to run our civilization.

I live in Baton Rouge, and personally witnessed the effects of a city without power for over a week. Lines in front of Wal-Mart, hoping to get in to buy food (no power, no lights, no cash register). After only a half hour in line, I was let into the store… then an employee told me to hurry, the generator was almost out of gas, and if I didn’t check out before the power died, I’d not get the food, batteries, etc I’d been able to find. I had to wait over an hour for gas, as gas stations didn’t have power to pump the gas. Believe me, life without power was very unpleasant.

Utilities have a legal OBLIGATION to serve. They can’t wait for FF to change the world. And many of the assets they currently hold were built in the ’70’s, 80’sand 90’s. They are partial depreciated. But, the remainder of the book value, like the remained of a 30 year mortgage after 20 years, needs to be re-paid.

That is what I’m talking about when I mention stranded assets.

What I’ve just said does NOT mean that power rates would not go down. FF could halve the retail cost of power in a short period of time, with further decreases as old assets are retired. Part of the reason cost would go down slower would be “distributed generation”.

Think about it, who would have the ability to deploy FF very early, besides the existing utility companies. My answer would be large industrial power users and small municipals and REA’s. These bulk customers (they buy power wholesale or at state set rates) help pay for the power plant assets that FF would make obsolete. The remaining commercial and residential customers would then have to pay a higher percentage, unless some mechanism is put into place to allocate the cost of the stranded assets.

So the early adaptors of distributed generation will complicate the political issues. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen, or won’t happen. It just means that FF deployment will be a HUGH source of political wrangling over who gets to benefit and who gets stuck with the “toxic assets” that will result from FF deployment.

[Rematog]

Brian,

Well, First, I still disagree with the assumed installed cost of $250k/ 5 MW module. With all costs (land, roads, buildings, cooling tower, transformers, etc.) I would argue between 1 to 2 million per FF module, IF modules sold for $500k FOB site. But, even with my upper estimate ($400/kw installed), many towns and cities would likely become their own utilities. With the low capital ($400/kw is dirt cheap) and operation costs (almost no cost for fuel), this would be very attracative. But, this would also require these entities to have service contracts with someone to provide high tech maintenance. And this facility would not be located downtown, but outside of town, probable near the local distrubution sub-station.

Plus, that town would have to buy the distribution assets of the utility currently servicing the area. Even using eminate domain, the govenment, local, state or national, can’t just take property. It must pay for it, likely the utilites book value for those assets. If the utility is dropping rates, due to the utility replacing it’s old plant’s with FF power, then the incentive is less.

Lastly, remember, that part of the “Pact” of a regulated utility with the government is that in return for giving up the ability to determine what it will charge for power (the rates are set by state commissions in most cases), the Utility is guaranteed a fair return on investment. In the past, this has resulted in “stranded assets” (plants that can’t be run due to new laws) owned by the utility being charged to the consumer. You can be sure that the utilities lawyers will file to have that town’s portion of the “stranded assets” included in the book value of the assets the town would have to pay for.

When all is said and done, these small city owned “utilities” running local FF modules, would be looked on by the town govenment as a revenue source for the city (like a lot of small water districts…I’ve been to city council meetings and seen this). The town council would set rates based on the old fear and greed model. I.e. “How much can we charge the voters before they get too mad at us and vote us out.” Also, these local run gov. agencies often become full of patronage jobs….

Regarding a unit in the basement of a shopping mall…… FF is not likely to get that well accepted in my lifetime. I’m in my fifties, and doubt that they would be allowed in urban areas for at least 20-30 years. The attitude that these are as safe and easy to use as an air conditioner, well, I just don’t buy it. They are certainly way more complex. They generate X-rays and some level of nuclear contamination, and the fuel is a pretty hazardous material. Not something to put in a basement and run by someone that can’t fix their own air-conditioner or plumbing.

[Rematog]

Breakable wrote:

… 30 years or so after initial deployment, FF modules may become accepted enough to site at a shopping mall, but not right away.
REMATOG

An how do you think people are gonna pay for oxigen, nano-defence and war on the moon if all the money is wasted on grid decentralization? 😉

The Nano Tax increase will pay for nano-defence, and the war on the moon will be funded by the drug taxes put in place at the end of the war on drugs.

Oxigen??? Free as the air we breathe…..

Rematog

[Rematog]

All of the recent discussion has left the original topic NIMBY vs Decentralized Generation.

I’ve not been convenienced by any of the arguements made that FF deployment would be Decentralized in the near to middle term. Yes, I agree that in theory it would be more effienct and safe enought to use in urban areas.

BUT…. if the cost of power generation has dropped 10 fold, what would be the huge push to site them in urban areas (the added cost savings for tranmission would be insignificant compared to the savings in generation costs due to FF). Certainly the technology would be RELATIVELY quickly sited near urban areas (roughly 20-50 miles from down town). I define relatively as after most fossil fuel and fission central stations have been re-powered with FF modules. The second phase of deployment would be smaller (100 to 1000 MW) new FF “complexes” located at transmission access points just outside of urban areas. This would supply the rapid load growth caused by cheaper power (Edison’s revenge, the compact floresent bulb would go the way of the Dodo).

Note, land use alone would push this. A FF complex of from 20-200 FF modules (100 to 1000MW @ 5 MW/Module) would require from 10 to 100 acres @2 mod/ acre avg. density. Remember, that land requirement includes maintenance/office buidlings, cooling tower (316b will prevent open cycle cooling), roads, power and piping chases, etc. If containment is still required, the land use goes up. There would be some economy of scale in land use, bigger complexes would likely have a little greater average density (mods/acre).

No, I think the NIMBY’s will control the game for the first and second phases of deployment. 30 years or so after initial deployment, FF modules may become accepted enough to site at a shopping mall, but not right away.

REMATOG

[Rematog]

Regarding “pushing” alternative energy. I recently heard a very knowledgeable person who works for a company that owns a large amount of wind energy generating capacity in West Texas speak. When asked about effect of price of electrical power on future of wind power, he indicated that it was not very sensitive to the price, as only 30% of the “revenues” from the project were from electrical sales, the rest being tax credits, incentives, accelerated depreciation, etc.

He also commented that the wind energy field was booming, causing an upward pressure on prices for new wind turbines, as manufactures are having trouble keeping up with demand.

I’d say we are pushing that type of alternate energy as hard as is reasonable, maybe a little bit harder.

By the way, since it’s beginnings, wind energy has mainly been driven by tax incentives, not the value of the energy actually generated. In the very early ninties, I heard a speaker state that wind farms in California could generate a “profit” with zero energy sales. That was how great the tax incentives there were at that time.

[Rematog]

Duke,

Your cure is WAY worse then the disease.

FF would solve global warming, very quickly, by replacing fossil fuel use in coal fired plants, and cheap electrical power and high oil prices would push electric vehicles for a very large part of transportation needs.

History, and the people of the world, have spoken, very loudly. Single party, authoritarian government is NOT a good solution. I would agree, if it was a clear case of life or death, a “When World Collide” situation, that a Stalinist state might be called for. But baring that, no way.

By the way, I would think Mr. Obama would also shudder at what you propose.

[Rematog]

Breakable wrote: Please read a little more about the
http://www.moller.com/newm400.htm
Mileage from 20mpg. Somewhat comparable to a normal car.
And yes, they are trying to fully automate it so you would not need to do anything else, just define the destination.
And of course you should not need a pilots license, and drunk flying should not be a problem 😉
at least most of the time for the rest – there are parachutes installed

I looked at the site you posted a link to and saw nothing about “totally Automated”. What I did see was “you will require a “powered-lift normal (read Helicopter) category pilot’s license”. It goes on to say “our intention that the Volantor will EVENTUALLY EVOLVE into a completely automated…” (my emphsis). This is pie in sky wishing, not any kind of near future capability.

By the way, while I’m not a helicopter pilot (single engine fixed wing only), I’ve asked fully rated fixed wing and helicopter pilots about how hard it would be for a fixed wing pilot to learn to fly a chopper. He told me it was somewhat different and required good coordination of the controls and more attention to them. Remember, there is an additional control in a helicopter, not present in a fixed wing aircraft, the cyclic, which controls the pitch of the rotor. The air car, as a ducted fan, may not have this, but the tilt of the fans would add some complication.

The milage figure may be somewhat misleading. That is likely a “cruising” fuel consumption. I read years ago that the P-47 Thunderbolt (a very large World War II pistion engined fighter) got 3 mpg. This was based on fuel use of 100 gallons per hour at 300 mph cruising speed. I would bet that the 20 mpg figure does not include low speed flight, take-off and climbing (uses lots of fuel) or hover/land. Look at the total horsepower, figure a gallons per hour at full power for 10 min say to take-off and reach altitute, then 5 more minutes for landing, for a total of 15 min full power fuel use for no distance traveled, then start thinking of anyting less than city to city travel, at it will amaze you how much fuel it uses.

But, if you can afford a $500,000 price tag (the web site you linked to gives this as the price of series producion) you can afford the fuel.

[Rematog]

Another problem with flying cars, besides cost and energy (fuel) useage being inherently greater then automobiles, is the complexity of piloting.

If a train (one dimensional) only take stop, go and speed, cars (2 dimensions) take that and left/straight/right, i.e square the complexity. Flying is not three, but four dimensions. It is, in this analogy, the fourth power of complexity.

The third dimension, height, is obvious. Less obvious is energy. Flying is an exercise in energy management. If all you do is push down on the stick, you will go down…..fast. And then a landing is impossible, you will either float over the runway, or crash into it….not a landing by my instructor’s definition.

Anyone who was lucky enough to see the airshow demonstrations of the great Bob Hoover will have a bit of an understanding of the energy management aspect. Look him up on Wikipedia if you don’t know who he is. The video is great.

So unless totally automated (yawn), Piloting is a much more demanding skill than driving a car.

And look how many people insist on talking on cell phones, eating, etc while driving a car. Would you really want them all flying over your house? Some of them seem to need even driving automated……

[Rematog]

But, the cost per unit for FF modules is roughly 10 times that of most automobiles. And the 40,000 to 50,000 units per year is WAY above that of packaged equipment such as gas turbines, etc. that are individually made on a shop floor. Focus Fusion modules would also be much more standardized, with only a handful of variations needed (electrical or thermal output, possibly size of output, frequency (60 or 50 hz), etc).

Also, likely to be lesser number of factories. If each factory turned out one module per hour for 8700 hours per year, 5 or 6 factories would meet the US needs. This is similar to the production rate of aircraft in the US during World War 2 (about 100,000 per year, of all types, as I recall). Complexity wise, I would compare a FF module with a WWII bomber. That was an assembly line process, and they were large, technical items.

By the way, Ford made bombers during World War 2.

Then, after the “boom” years and demand fell off, the factories could cut back to a single shift, 40 hr week. That alone would reduce production to 1/4 of the 8700 hr/year figure, which requires 4 shifts of workers to achieve.

[Rematog]

Given the large number of FF modules that would be produced, the manufacture of these would have more in common with automobile manufacture then traditional power generation equipment manufacturing.

As it would take roughly 200,000 modules to replace the current US electrical generation, plus the number required to supply the load growth during that time, say 10 years, plus the FF modules used for thermal load in industry, I would put the demand for modules at 400,000 to 500,000 over the first ten years. That is an average annual production of 40,000 to 50,000 modules, at $300k to $500k ea. That is sales of between $12 and 25 billion per year. These are an assembly line type of volume.

There will also be lots of supply industries developed at the same time. Just as with the auto industry, the FF module factory will not make many of the components, they will be purchased, delivered and the module assembled. The capacitors, electrical components, vacuum pumps, for example, may be made by supplier industries.

So maybe the FF modules will be Ford or GM products, not Westinghouse or General Electric?

[Rematog]

James,

I’ve had the please to travel to Britain twice in my life, and greatly enjoyed it and the wonderful underground system in London.

But, as I posted, this type of system only exists in the great metropolises. It may be possible to reduce car usage, and I’m sure that practical electric vehicles are possible in the near term.

But one thing I’ve noticed is that Europeans are, for the most part, lacking a “gut feel” for the size of the United States, esp. the western half. They can understand it when they look up a distance and make calculations, but their “feel” for the world is just smaller then the reality of the western US.

One small example, I was working at a food packaging plant in Iowa with a couple of vendor’s engineers from Italy. When we were about to have our Memorial Day holiday, which gives Monday off, making a three day weekend, they asked my about the Grand Canyon in Arizona, and begun to make plans to drive there. They asked my if they could get there after work in an evening’s drive…..I pointed out, that it is about 2,000 kilometers from Des Moines, Iowa to the Grand Canyon. They were thunderstruck.

What this means is that the type of public transportation systems the work in Europe, and the American Northeast, are not so practical in the Mid-west and western US. Yes, our cities were designed for the car. They grew up with it. It would take, I believe, more then one generation to change that. And what is the driving reason to make that change?

Some light rail for larger cities heavy traffic corridors makes sense. Add practical electric vehicles for commuting and alternate fuel (name one) vehicles for long range use. Remember, for a family living on a ranch in Montana, a trip to the city for grocery’s and sundries is a long range trip (often over 100 km each way).

Rematog

[Rematog]

Mass transit can be used, and useful, only where large numbers of people travel, in predictable directions and times.

Only during the early 80’s have I worked where this was remotely possible. And then, the local bus system was a joke.

Where traffic, etc. makes it useful, such as New York, Washington, etc, real mass transit systems (trains/subways) are good. But most American cities have only an underfunded bus system. The city I live in (a state capital, but relatively small in size) has a bus system that was recently criticized in the local paper as taking 1 to 1.5 hours to cross town. This is a trip requiring about 15-20 minutes by car, 30 minutes at the worst of traffic conditions. If you can get where your going at all, and still may have to walk 1/2 a mile or more to a bus stop, possibly in the rain, etc. (in summer, it rains many afternoons around 3-4 pm).

I’ve worked outside of town most of my life (power plants are the post child of NIMBY). If I can’t drive to work…I’d have to walk, or bicycle, 35 miles, each way. And on country roads, with no shoulders, a bicycle would be a death sentence, especially at 6:30 in the morning, in winter, when it’s dark, possibly foggy… you get my point.

So yes, I get my dander up when someone seems to imply that I should give up my car. You’ll take the steering wheel from my cold dead fingers….(or, maybe, I should be buried in my car, nah…it’s been done).

[Rematog]

Eric,

“Have to get cars off the road…”

WHY??? I like my car and my freedom to travel where I wish. Given limited supplies of petroleum and air pollution effects, I understand need to get internal combustion engines off the road. But this does not imply cars.

The statement about “needing” to get rid of cars…well lets just say I strongly disagree with the world view that implies.

REMATOG

[Author]

Posts