rj40 wrote:What do you think the initial responses would be to the announcement of a working Polywell reactor?
From:
1. Governments
2. Corporations
3. NGOs
Joining late is better than not joining at all.
Here's a picture I ran across recently that shows where BFRs (I like that acronym) would have the greatest and most immediate impact:
What are the impacts of BFRs on the energy market?
Looking at the gazins and gazouts, the hands-down loser is King Coal (as was pointed out by TallDave and MSimon). The coal industry will very quickly have to find new markets for their product, as mentioned farther up the thread. This will be a fairly disruptive event if the BFRs are brought on-line as quickly as I suspect they will once the technology is proven. There is too much money at stake for society for this transition not to happen as quickly as possible.
Natural gas is currently used more for heating applications in residential and commercial sites than it is for generating electricity, so it'll suffer relatively little to begin with. Eventually, those residential/commercial uses for NG will switch to cheaper BFR-generated electricity, and the price of NG will drop to match demand. Since the infrastructure exists for "producing" (mining is a more accurate term) natural gas, the Big Oil folks will find other markets for their product, most likely conversion to suit the transportation sector as a liquid fuel.
Nuclear (fission plants) incurs most of its cost (I believe) in construction and decommissioning, so I suspect there won't be any real market-driven reasons to get rid of the existing plants. Some people will get black eyes over any half-constructed units when the BFRs start coming on-line.
The 400-pound gorilla in this thread is how this will affect the petro market. Initially, not at all. Petroleum products are overwhelmingly used in the transportation sector, not the energy generation sector (where the BFRs will have direct impacts). Until 1) enabling technologies come to market that allow viable pure battery electric vehicles and 2) those new vehicles become a large part of the transportation infrastructure, the petro market will remain almost untouched. As a side note for those who think LiIon batteries, the Chevy Volt, Tesla's product line and the Prius meet the needs defined above, they don't come close. They're important first steps, and the PBEV market-place is here to stay, but we're years away from electricity storage technologies that can be mass produced (Lithium is a scarce commodity) cheaply enough (battery packs are largest cost drivers in current BEVs) to affect the transportation market in any meaningful way. My next car will be a Tesla White Star (if I can afford it), and I'd love to work for Mr. Musk, but that doesn't mean I have delusions of adequacy when it comes to the current state of battery technology. End of note.
So where does this leave us with regards to the original question?
Government:
The Big Oil players still have decades to do their business. According to Dr. Bussard himself, disruptive energy changes have a half-life of around 50 years. This means that it will take the BFRs 50 years to replace half of the current (pun) electricity generation infrastructure. The antiquated, inefficient, expensive plants will be the first to go, which means the newer natural gas plants will still be around. Given that the petro industry is not directly threatened (at this time) by free electricity, the BFRs pose no direct, immediate threat to their livelihood. There will be impacts to them, such as reduced demand for Natural Gas, but nothing disruptive is on the near horizon. Therefore, BFRs offer them nothing but another source of revenue! They can safely invest some of their windfall revenue in BFR plants and enter the electricity generation market without the encumberance of legacy infrastructure. This means that there would probably be very little interference from Big Oil lobbying dollars.
Who would benefit from BFRs? The current energy providers actually stand to make money with this new/disruptive technology. Currently, they get their primary source materials (coal and natural gas) from the open market. They don't make more money when the cost of their input materials goes up. If they had the option to generate their electricity from inexpensive boron and hydrogen, they'd be perfectly happy to do so.
Again, how does this relate to the primary question of this thread? The money to be made by introducing BFRs into the energy market as quickly as possible in the developed world is great enough for enough of the key players that I don't foresee any significant effort to derail their introduction. King Coal is the big loser vs. BFRs, and the coal industry doesn't enjoy all that much support by the public.
If the government faces no serious negative lobbying from the powerhouse petro industry or from the utility industry, then the politicians will have every incentive to look like the good guys and support the rapid deployment of BFRs. Of course there will always be lobbying against any change, but in this case I predict much political support for "free" energy among our political leaders.
Corporate support:
As I said above, the big loser (coal) is not as powerful as the other players in the game (big oil, utilities, the common people) who stand to benefit from inexpensive, safe, non-polluting, plentiful electricity. High energy prices affect every aspect of doing business, so inexpensive energy equals higher profits in general. Without the drag of expensive electricity on our economy, the general business tide will rise and (almost) all sectors will benefit. Those few niche corporations that are adversely affected by the introduction of BFRs into the energy sector will be outvoted by those who benefit from inexpensive energy and won't stand a chance.
NGOs:
By NGO, I presume we're talking about entities like UNESCO, the WTO, etc. which break down into two types - humanitarian and business-oriented.
The defining characteristic of non-profit entities like UNESCO is that they are cash-strapped. Always. By definition. Any change in the world economy that makes their cash go farther towards their main goals will be welcome by them. Better economic conditions equate to more donations to their efforts. The BFR-related changes will be welcome to them for many reasons.
Those NGOs like the World Trade Organization exist to facilitate economic activity. Most of these NGOs represent broad business interests, so they should have the same attitude towards the BFR-induced changes that their constituent businesses have - positive.
So, looking into my crystal ball, I predict that 1) Governments (in general), 2) Corporations and 3) NGOs will all support the rapid introduction of this disruptive technology. Other than a few entrenched players in the narrow (but pervasive) energy sector, the support of BFRs should be wide-spread.
So ends my scrying.
Cheers.
Dean.