[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]

And we have disagreed before as well.

Scary as X-ray machine, to you. To the general public, in my opinion, it will be seen as more like a fission plant, at first.

As dangerous as a transformer. Absolutely disagree. Transformers are not powerful sources of X-ray and less powerful, but still considerable sources of neutrons. They no longer have PCB’s in their oil (and it wasn’t considered a hazard when it was used).

Point to you on value of heat for HVAC and process use. This will drive distributed use to happen somewhat sooner.

Regarding ecomomy of scale, your point about the core size of a focus fusion module neglects all of the supporting infrastructure. Cooling, fuel and waste handling, controls, maintenance etc. All of these are subject to economy of scale.

I agree that the best fit plant size will be smaller then the current 1-3 GW per site. And distributed use will start sooner and grow more and more with time.

But not to any large percentage of installed capacity during the first 5-10 years. Note: I’m assuming distributed to mean less then 10 power blocks and especially, being place in an urban or commercial setting. Large industrial plants will have them early on.

[Rematog]

Rezwan, I agree with everything you’ve said. And it will take your vision of peace to bring it about.

But, I posted this thread to discuss the ways Focus Fusion might effect the “Military Arts”. It is worth discussing. As you’ve agreed, defence is needed as well. And the best defence is often a good offense, or at least the threat of one.

Militarily, Focus Fusion will aid/change both offensive and defensive technologies.

And if someone attacks my country, I want their battered corpse to look so bad, no one will consider doing it again for a very long time.

[Rematog]

I disagree with personal experience being irrelevant.

If in a discussion of say, electric car deployment, two people disagree on how they will be operated and maintained. One has had a career in the automotive repair business, the other has not (I know nothing of your background or expertise).

Which ones thoughts on that particular subject would carry more weight with a third party?

I’ve made my case based on:

Existing asset reuse, including very importantly, transmission access (we have agreed, most residential and light commercial power needs will be provided by local distribution I believe).

Likely Regulatory issues.

Public Fears.

Security issues.

Added installation cost for distributed siting (economies of scale).

We disagree on how important these thing are, but I don’t think you could make a believable claim any of them are of no account.

As I recall, the only reasons you’ve stated for distributed installation are:

Savings on transmission costs.

People want to own/control their own generators.

I do not consider philosophic reasons of “I like it more” or “I dislike big business” to be valid arguments.

I agree transmission costs will be an important factor. I just do not believe it and the desire to own will out weight the disadvantages/hurdles I’ve mentioned above, at least for the first 10 years of deployment.

I think we both agree that, with time, the Regulatory, Public Fear and Security issues will become less important. And, I’ll also agree that desire to own will increase with time.

We disagree in our evaluation of these factors. You are stating that your reasons are so strong, that they will outweigh the reasons I’ve given for my opinion that Focus Fusion will, in the first phase, be deploy at central facilities and major industrial sites, along with big ships.

Time will tell.

[Rematog]

An Orion is a US Naval Aviation aircraft, a Lockheed P-3 Orion, used primarily for anti-submarine warfare.

One resource is of course, land. In any foreseeable near term, land for growing food will be in ever greater demand. As Samuel Clemens said “Invest in Land, they’ve quit making it.” Another is political power.

One con hope that in the future, we can move past war. It has gotten just too dang dangerous.

But, that is hope for the future. The reality today is that we need to be able to defend ourselves. If you want peace, prepare for war.

[Rematog]

I’ll plead the 5th on the charge of “Appeal to Authority”.

But, my point was that I am speaking from personal experience, not some third hand, unknown authority.

My personal experience is the regulatory agencies can be flustering and arbitrary. My personal experience is that even on attended plants with rent a guards, security issues happen. On these basis, I state that my opinion is that the NRC will be one of the permitting agencies and will require on site security.

I understand you disagree. If I understand correctly, you think that Focus Fusion will be treated like a transformer or air conditioner unit and can be installed anywhere an owner pleases, and believe that remote monitoring and a lock on the door will be the security requirement. You feel that maintenance can be contracted out, just like the building plumping or HVAC maintenance needs. If this is not correct, please explain what I’ve misunderstood and how you think it will happen.

Note: I have limited my discussions to what I’ve referred to as the “first phase” of deployment. This being the 5-10 years needed to switch over, transitioning to more de-centralized nodes out to twenty years after commercial availability. I am not considering the world 50-100 years from now. I’ll be dead.

At this point, I think we will both have to wait and see what actually happens, if it happens at all.

[Rematog]

Oh my god…..

Yes, this is by far and way the most frightening thing about FF anyone has mentioned. And, no way, really, to keep it from being possible….as the rest of the world will demand, and copy, the technology.

Talk about a two edged sword….

No, never took class in nuclear physics, and am a layman on the subject.

I can see why supporters would not bring this up.

[Rematog]

Good point, didn’t think about the mag field.

Still, too useful an energy source not to be used, so I imagine there would be extensive efforts at shielding.

But, it would hamper it’s military use.

[Rematog]

Transmute,

You mention NMRI. Why do you think the public knows it as MRI, not NMRI….. The equipment manufacture felt that having the N word (nuclear) on the machine would make people not want to use it.

So, this example, in fact, supports my position that the general public has a “mistrust”, at the very least, of radiation and nuclear technology.

Why has pasteurisation using ionizing radiation not become more accepted? Why is it called “cold pasteurisation” instead?

[Rematog]

No, they don’t require security of that nature at water treatment plants (but, they too are centralized facilities, most with a 24/7 staff). Didn’t say it was rational, in fact, said it was not.

But, Focus Fusion plants WILL, for the first period at least, be regulated and licensed by the NRC in the United States. They will, in my opinion, require security.

Just remember, I’m seeing this thru eyes experienced in maintenance, operation and construction of heavy industrial facilities. I would be very poorly equipped to critic the methodology of a laboratory. It may be I’m more concerned than you are, due to having to have dealt with people cutting fences, stealing (usually by employees of either the company or contractors on site doing work) and having the public “intervene”. I’ve personally had some one walk up to me and threaten to “bring friends and guns and dynamite and blow this place up” if it was not shut down (a coal fired plant). He was a crack-pot and local police dealt with him.

But…..this stuff is real.

I’ve had to deal directly with State, and indirectly with federal environmental, OSHA and pressure vessel code inspectors. I’ve seen some real chickenshit. I could fill a couple of posts with stories of just plain stupid stuff they have required. Not something to make the environment cleaner or the work place safer, but to comply with their interpretation of the bureaucratic regulatory system they run.

Do not think that Focus Fusion will somehow be immune to this stuff.

One pressure vessel inspector (for State of California), required that some piping be torn out and replaced, for a second time, because after it was replaced the first time and all necessary inspections and paperwork given to him (this had been neglected by the contractor that built the plant), the wind blew the papers out of his clipboard while he was in the parking lot. He then refused to accept replacement documents, and wanted the pipe torn out and replace again. He first name was, I swear this is true, Nimrod.

PS: My letter of protest to Mr N. T.’s boss resulted in the acceptance of the replacement documents. But still…..

[Rematog]

Brian,

That is very true.

[Rematog]

Certainly regulations make work….but that’s not the stated purpose for most.

While we may disagree on how much more singleton units would cost to install, it is certain that they would cost more. Compare custom built homes with tract homes. The custom built costs more, per square foot, to build. Focus Fusion would be subject to many, in fact I think at lot more, of the same effects.

And, hard numbers will be looked at, by experienced professional engineering firms, before the first million is spent.

Thats a fact, jack.

Ask, and I will post some background about how multi-million dollar projects are financed by major corporations and Wall Street.

[Rematog]

If it is setting up that fast, it is something other than portland cement based concrete. Special addatives are used to get foundations to be ready to take a load in seven days. (referred to ash “High Early”). Normal, non-accelerated concrete cures for 14 to 28 days before use.

And cement does not DRY. That would ruin it. The cementous bond is formed by the water in the mix linking molecules together. It’s called a hydrolic bond. Care is taken to keep fresh concrete moist, so that it cures well and develops it’s full intended strength.

Don’t have any idea what they are proposing to use, but it is not regular portland cement based concrete.

From Wikipedia:

When water is mixed with Portland cement, the product sets in a few hours and hardens over a period of weeks. These processes can vary widely depending upon the mix used and the conditions of curing of the product, but a typical concrete sets (i.e. becomes rigid) in about 6 hours, and develops a compressive strength of 8~ MPa in 24 hours. The strength rises to 15~ MPa at 3 days, 23~ MPa at one week, 35~ MPa at 4 weeks, and 41~ MPa at three months. In principle, the strength continues to rise slowly as long as water is available for continued hydration, but concrete is usually allowed to dry out after a few weeks, and this causes strength growth to stop.

Setting and hardening of Portland cement is caused by the formation of water-containing compounds, forming as a result of reactions between cement components and water. Usually, cement reacts in a plastic mixture only at water/cement ratios between 0.25 and 0.75. The reaction and the reaction products are referred to as hydration and hydrates or hydrate phases, respectively. As a result of the reactions (which start immediately), a stiffening can be observed which is very small in the beginning, but which increases with time. The point in time at which it reaches a certain level is called the start of setting. The consecutive further consolidation is called setting, after which the phase of hardening begins.

[Rematog]

I admit, I don’t know how dangerous a neurotoxin the Decaborane used as fuel is. Is it up there with military nerve gas? Or is it very mild, taking a large dose and long time to cause a problem. One thing I’m sure of, propane is not a neurotoxin. If it is a very dangerous material, then the reason for security is obvious.

Radiation. The general public is very uncomfortable about it. That is a simple fact. It may not be based in fact, but the fear is, never the less, a political reality. So, no, it will that a long time (my opinion is >20 years) before the public will accept them near urban areas.

I would point out that your example, windmills, tend to be installed in “wind farms”. Land acquisition, transmission access and ease of maintenance are all reasons for this. So, your example has aspects that support my point. Certainly, some wind power units are singletons. Mostly as one will support the load the owner wants to supply.

I’ve never said that there would be no distributed installations. And I would agree that more distributed use will grow in time. But there are also reasons to centralize things. These factors will, in my opinion, for reasons I’ve stated, lead to initial deployment being more centralized, repowering existing plants and installation of new FF “nodes” at locations were transmission, land use and other factors make it a good choice. Heavy industry, remote loads, ships, etc. will also be early locations. After the first period of deployment, smaller nodes, nearer load, will likely develop.

I’ve not seen anyone give a reason, other the philosophic, why extreme distribution, one for this building, one for that neighborhood, etc. has enough advantage in transmission cost to overcome the dis-advantage in installation and operations cost it would entail. But, as no one yet has hard numbers for these things, it will remain strictly opinion until Focus Fusion is actually deployed.

But, I’ve never disagreed that the economic, environmental and supply availability advantages of FF would drive it to very, very rapid deployment. I’ve only disagreed on the method of that deployment.

[Rematog]

Offended, not at all. Employed would be better description.

100 single unit sites will take many times as much engineering and management manpower as one site with 100 units.

Thats many times as much employement opportunity for me ;-{O

[Author]

Posts