Adding an option

[rj40]

It has just occurred to me (sorry, I’m rather slow) that if this Polywell thing really works as we hope, it would change the whole climate change debate. Ignoring for a moment the controversy, this would add an option that a lot of people would really like. Right now the advertised options are 1. global warming or 2. relative austerity with gradual input from solar, wind and “other" (Right?). With Polwell, not only would we have people yelling for cutting back as fast as we can, we would have another group (maybe the same group?) yelling for more funds to produce BFRs. Do you think BFRs could/would do more sooner to curb man-made CO2 output than solar and wind schemes? When I look at video of steel manufacturing or aluminum processing, I can’t really bring myself to believe stuff like this could be produced from solar or wind energy. At least produced anytime soon.

[djolds1]

Do you think BFRs could/would do more sooner to curb man-made CO2 output than solar and wind schemes?

Solar remains an inefficient joke, ergo the Watermelons still like it.

Wind has finally become semi-effective. Thus it is now hated for being an eyesore and chopping the poor birdies. See the rejection of its use off the New England coast.

BFRs will doubtless create far too much heat, thermodynamically threatening the environmental system of Mother Gaia.

Duane

[David_Jay]

Aluminum (my industry) smelting is very electricity-intensive.

Most of the smelters are located next to dams, etc. BFR technology could put the smelters where the bauxite is...

[Scupperer]

Solar remains an inefficient joke, ergo the Watermelons still like it.

It's not so much that solar is inefficient, as that it's expensive. At least, for small scale use. I'm an architect, and every now and then I get a client interested in putting solar cells on the roof of their house or business. So, I end up doing a cost analysis every other year or so, and it always shows that solar power costs about $0.35/kwh over 20 years (standard warranted life of cells). When you're competing with utility rates of $0.075/kwh, it just can't be justified, except in states with high utility rates (I think mine is one of the cheapest in the nation), and that subsidy it.

I've been anxiously awaiting pricing of the new thin-film solar cells for small-scale use, which are supposed to be considerably less expensive once some of the manufacturing plants come online, which is supposed to be this summer. Life fusion, it always seems to be a case of "sometime in the future".

It'd be interesting to see a cost analysis in terms of price/kwh for a predicted BFR. Will they really be cost competitive?

EDIT: Nevermind. Just did a quick look. Assuming a $200 million cost for a 100 MW plant, a staff of 6 handsomely paid ($200k/year) nuclear physicists to run it, fuel costs of $500/day (am I even close?), and maintenance costs of $1 million/year, the break-even cost of power over 20 years would be about $0.03/kwh.

So, it'd be easily competitive with a comfortable profit at $0.05/kwh.

You don't even need to throw in assumptions that mass-produced BFR's will cost less and produce even more power, but if you do, you're looking at break-even costs as low as $.0005/kwh.

[Tom Ligon]

At some point the costs of maintaining the grid and maintaining the office staff to send out the bills will set a lower limit on grid power costs, but the truth is, electric power is a great deal for most of us as it is.

The linemen who go out in storms to fix the wires earn their pay.

Energy-hungry industries will certainly benefit, and industries that don't make economic sense now (hydrogen production, for instance) will be more likely to be profitable if wholesale power is substantially cheaper.

Fuel costs could conceivably get down to a box of borax a day, maybe a couple of bucks. Even refining it to isotopically pure B11 metal, or boron hydride, won't be too bad.

[blaisepascal]

Just did a quick look. Assuming a $200 million cost for a 100 MW plant, a staff of 6 handsomely paid ($200k/year) nuclear physicists to run it, fuel costs of $500/day (am I even close?), and maintenance costs of $1 million/year, the break-even cost of power over 20 years would be about $0.03/kwh.

The fuel costs of $500/day are, as near as I can tell, grossly overestimated.

Let's figure this out... Assume the 100MW plant is gross power, not net power (so the actual power put on the grid is smaller). The total energy produced per day is 2.4GWh. Each fusion event generates 8.7MeV of energy, so 2.4GWh of energy corresponds to 6.2x10^24 fusion events, let's call that 11 mols. It takes 1 B11 and 1 p per reaction, so we consume 11mols of B11 per day, or about 121g.

I can't seem to find a price for bulk depleted boron. The best I can do is about $1000/ton for borax. 1 (metric) ton of borax (molecular weight of 61) corresponds to about 13kMol of B11, or enough B11 to run a 100MW plant for 3 years at $1/day in borax. Even if you are generous with the costs of producing purified B11 from borax, such that it costs $10/day, that's much lower fuel costs than your $500/day estimate.

[MSimon]

Don't forget the cost of pure H2. No Ds or Ts.

And you have to add in the cost of recycling. The actual fuel flows may be greatly in excess of the burn rate in order to maintain a given gas pressure against the pumps.

I'd say $500 a day is a good BOE figure. Consider that you need to man the plant with two $100 an hour people (fully burdened) and the fuel cost is still not excessive ($20 an hr).

B11 is widely used in the semiconductor industry for rad hard implantation. B10 (a very good thermal neutron absorber) is the waste product.

[rj40]

Heh, heh, heh, heh.
Ooooo, I really want this to work. Too bad what I want has so little bearing on reality.

[Scupperer]

Heh, heh, heh, heh.
Ooooo, I really want this to work. Too bad what I want has so little bearing on reality.

If it works, reality will change

The original poster asked about the effects on climate change. He asked the wrong question:

Do you think BFRs could/would do more sooner to curb man-made CO2 output than solar and wind schemes?

Power would be inexpensive enough where mechanically removing CO2 from the atmosphere in massive amounts would be a viable option. It becomes more a question of do we let nature heal itself, or do we help it along, and how much?

Environmentalism will (I hope) become a dead issue. With coal/oil/natural gas power plants switched over to fusion, excess CO2 output will be limited to transportation. Electricity will be inexpensive enough where oil could be mechanically manufactured from excess biomass economically (instead of from food), so there's zero carbon footprint on continued use of hydrocarbon transportation until a switch to electric or hydrogen or whatever can happen, if it even needs to.

Unfortunately, the political forces behind environmentalism won't die - they'll just find a new mask to wear.

As for energy intensive manufacturing processes, like aluminum and other metals, I'd love to see a cost analysis of how inexpensive electricity would affect those commodity prices, as well as quality. I can just imagine the construction boom, and really neat stuff that could be built with 150 ksi structural steel priced at $250/short ton (vs. 1100 right now, for 50 ksi). Imagine aluminum stud framing costing less than wood. Then, with oil prices bottoming out, closed-cell foam insulation drops to .25/s.f., instead of $3, making it possible to insulate houses to R30 or better in all walls, nooks and crannies, further reducing costs (and environmental impact) by reducing A/C loads. (Just starting with what I know).

Then, with commodities so inexpensive, and standards of living rising everywhere for less cost, the family with 2-working parents can let 1 job go, drop to a 30-hour work week, actually parent the kids, enjoy life a little bit more...

Well, I can dream.

[tombo]

Aluminum (my industry) smelting is very electricity-intensive.

Most of the smelters are located next to dams, etc. BFR technology could put the smelters where the bauxite is...

A mothballed aluminum smelter might be a good site for an early BFR-100 test.
It has a huge current capacity to jump-start the BFR and a fat hose into the grid for when it fires up.

[djolds1]

Power would be inexpensive enough where mechanically removing CO2 from the atmosphere in massive amounts would be a viable option. It becomes more a question of do we let nature heal itself, or do we help it along, and how much?

That's been doable for about 4 billion years. Reinventing plants seems very stupid.

Environmentalism will (I hope) become a dead issue.

On the contrary. Its becoming the de facto religion of the Davos people. They're giving up on atheist humanism and shifting over to supernaturalist spiritualism. And Mother Gaia appears to be the lucky God(dess). Quite pious actually.

And "saving the Earth" is a wonderful excuse to take ever more regulatory power, impose rationing, etc.

As for energy intensive manufacturing processes, like aluminum and other metals, I'd love to see a cost analysis of how inexpensive electricity would affect those commodity prices, as well as quality. I can just imagine the construction boom, and really neat stuff that could be built with 150 ksi structural steel priced at $250/short ton (vs. 1100 right now, for 50 ksi). Imagine aluminum stud framing costing less than wood.

Fusion powered plasma torch. Dump in raw ore/dirt/whatever. Magnetically sort the ions into separate hoppers to serve as raw material for fabrication.

Then, with commodities so inexpensive, and standards of living rising everywhere for less cost, the family with 2-working parents can let 1 job go, drop to a 30-hour work week, actually parent the kids, enjoy life a little bit more...

Well, I can dream.

Use BFRs to power relatively small scale universal constructors. Realistic versions of Star Trek Replicators.

Duane

[kttopdad]

I suspect that having really inexpensive electricity will just shift those individuals of the activist disposition from fossil-fuel-activism to protect-the-earth-activism. And there will be plenty for them to do there.

I believe available power is a significant limiting factor on the ability of the billions of consumers on the planet to damage the planet worse than we already are. If electricity becomes inexpensive, the impact to the manufacturing sector will be tremendous, leading to price drops for material possessions. There will be an economic boom that will compare with that of the industrial revolution's peak. The demand for material wealth across the globe will put additional pressure on the demand for consumption of natural resources.

Given that we are demonstrably stressing ecosystems across the globe, I can only see worse happening with inexpensive electricity. However, I'm still in favor of BFRs in a BIG way. Inexpensive power is a boon mankind needs too badly. The answer to the problems spotlighted by the activist community doesn't lie in restricting global growth. I don't really know what the solution is, but I know it's not helped by coal/petro/fission/hydro power-plants. Clean, inexpensive electricity is a great liberator.

[Scupperer]

Reinventing plants seems very stupid.

People like to be in control - and who knows how long it would take with biological processes? I imagine there'd be a push to mechanically balance atmospheric CO2 levels to pre-1900 levels, if it's feasible, regardless of how stupid it is to do so. I don't have a problem with this, because experience in a massive terraforming project would hopefully have uses elsewhere. Besides, I'll delight in the hypocrisy.

They're giving up on atheist humanism and shifting over to supernaturalist spiritualism. And Mother Gaia appears to be the lucky God(dess). Quite pious actually.

And "saving the Earth" is a wonderful excuse to take ever more regulatory power, impose rationing, etc.

Removing their M.O. will remove their excuse. Sure, they'll find new ones, but I doubt any will be nearly as compelling, especially when technological advancement really did solve the problems of technological advancement. Hopefully, it will set the movement back at least 30-40 years.

Fusion powered plasma torch. Dump in raw ore/dirt/whatever. Magnetically sort the ions into separate hoppers to serve as raw material for fabrication.

I'm sure it will come about, which will remove further excuses from the environmentalists, btw - no more strip mines, etc. I was limiting myself a bit to the most immediate consequences, with existing technologies. Using plasma to separate elements is in its infancy, though I've read that some mining operations are beginning to experiment and find methods using plasma with different ores.

Use BFRs to power relatively small scale universal constructors. Realistic versions of Star Trek Replicators.

That's jumping ahead a bit. Really, I just want to retire on Mars, which might be possible in my lifetime with BFR.

[drmike]

No matter what you do, there will be limited resources of some kind. There will always be arguments about how to distribute resources. The form of the argument ("save the earth" or "it violates god's will") doesn't really matter.

Just having the ability to turn waste into useful raw material is a huge help, but it doesn't solve the problem of farm land being lost to population growth. It would help in turning desert into farm land - but then population would move there!

There will always be people with lots of resources and many others with few resources. It would be really nice to be able to travel around the solar system in this century. The people who get to go will be the really rich, or the really powerful. I don't see that changing too much in the next 100 years.

[djolds1]

Reinventing plants seems very stupid.

People like to be in control - and who knows how long it would take with biological processes?

???

Oh Puhleez. Plants algae can grow fast.

if it's feasible, regardless of how stupid it is to do so. I don't have a problem with this, because experience in a massive terraforming project would hopefully have uses elsewhere. Besides, I'll delight in the hypocrisy.

Use BFRs to power relatively small scale universal constructors. Realistic versions of Star Trek Replicators.

That's jumping ahead a bit. Really, I just want to retire on Mars, which might be possible in my lifetime with BFR.

No. Not jumping ahead. Take the reprap fabber. Add several hundred Megawatts of power, precision mechanical positioning of components, sintering modules for 3D printing with any range of materials, some specialist modules for fabbing good quality electronics. You could "print" an entire vehicle or any small item from the bottom up, or copy the entire fabber in say a week to a month. Exponential growth of your industrial base with each new fabber.

And with a rapid-replicate industrial unit like that, creating the capital plant for a Mars colony is fast & easy.

Tho my preferred colony would not be Mars. Too crowded. If the right GUT comes along I get FTL. If not, the radiation belts of Jupiter are attractive.

Duane