Lets say that the EMC2 group are successful with their research objectives on the WB-8 come June of this year. Can anyone venture a guess if this would have any effect on the near-term price of oil?
It seems to me that the oil prices would not be affected. Even if WB-8 is successful, it will still take 10 years to get commercial fusion (as there are still many technical hurtles to overcome) based on polywell concept. Also, successful fusion power would be good for generating electricity, but more work would be needed to develop the thermal processes and equipment for manufacturing synthetic hydrocarbon fuels.
Any comments?
WB-8 success effects on oil prices
I don't think oil prices will change a lot when WB-8 hits first plasma and works as advertised.
It becomes a different story when the first fusion reactor starts delivering juice to the grid. This means there will be a gradual decrease in demand for electricity from other sources (e.g. hydrocarbon based), and the first thing that would happen would be that the power price drops and the oil price would go UP because of decreasing demand.
People would take more trains and fill their cars up from the power plugs, because electricity becomes cheap and gas will become priceless.
After that, it can go a few ways. There is a chance that the H2 economy picks up because there is a cheap and reliable way to synthesize H2 fuel.
It becomes a different story when the first fusion reactor starts delivering juice to the grid. This means there will be a gradual decrease in demand for electricity from other sources (e.g. hydrocarbon based), and the first thing that would happen would be that the power price drops and the oil price would go UP because of decreasing demand.
People would take more trains and fill their cars up from the power plugs, because electricity becomes cheap and gas will become priceless.
After that, it can go a few ways. There is a chance that the H2 economy picks up because there is a cheap and reliable way to synthesize H2 fuel.
Because we can.
-
happyjack27
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm
i don't know, here in wisconsin we had the option of building an essentiall fre light rail connecting us to chicago and madison. and dumb-$$$ walker turned it down for got-only-knows what reason and the peole voted for him. and after that happened they didnt change their opinion of him. "inter-urban high speed rail for free? sounds horrible!" they said. you're welcome california. just remember you owe us bigtime now!
Not this grenade again.
The answer is yes. The question is how much, how fast and which way?
You can bet OPEC is going to get real interested, and they probably already have ideas for a transitional strategy.
I think things will get more squirrelly in the energy markets, and there will be an uptick in emotional trading. How this manifest physically in the markets is uncertain.
My guess is that the markets will be more volitile, and trend towards a lower price over time, with OPEC playing with production quotas to milk the cow. There will also be a push to market oil more cheaply to the poor world in an effort to maintain cash flows as developed countries shift to a fusion grid, and follow with grid powered transport.
Time.
Russia will have a problem.
The answer is yes. The question is how much, how fast and which way?
You can bet OPEC is going to get real interested, and they probably already have ideas for a transitional strategy.
I think things will get more squirrelly in the energy markets, and there will be an uptick in emotional trading. How this manifest physically in the markets is uncertain.
My guess is that the markets will be more volitile, and trend towards a lower price over time, with OPEC playing with production quotas to milk the cow. There will also be a push to market oil more cheaply to the poor world in an effort to maintain cash flows as developed countries shift to a fusion grid, and follow with grid powered transport.
Time.
Russia will have a problem.
You may have read deeply between my words and have suspected I might, deep down, be a little tiny bit of a cynic.
So here's one of my bigger bits of cynicism; governments only fund fusion research, and energy research in general, because if they keep the oil-producing countries thinking we have alternatives then the oil-producers will want to keep the West 'addicted' to oil by keeping production high and the prices low.
The very fact that the West is following energy research means that oil producers should consider whether their pricing encourages such research, because if it does encourage it too much, then the research might just work out and we figure out a way to do without [someone else's] oil. So oil is priced so that such projects as Polywell don't attract huge research investments.
If that bit of cynicism hasn't made you laugh or cry and you think there may be some truth in it, then the answer is that Polywell, and all the other projects that contribute to the impression that we're doing something about energy in the West, already has caused prices to stay low.
...and if that isn't up to the deep cynicism you think I am capable of... then maybe you can start wondering now about the relationship of oil companies and their influence on the timetable for ITER - a project that looks like it may well fail... that'd be a perfect one to keep going and stretching it out as long as possible, and to make it look as expensive as possible to make oil price rises look reasonable.
What's in it for Big Oil Money to back alternative energy research that looks like it might actually work out!? Best to fund the no-hopers...
So here's one of my bigger bits of cynicism; governments only fund fusion research, and energy research in general, because if they keep the oil-producing countries thinking we have alternatives then the oil-producers will want to keep the West 'addicted' to oil by keeping production high and the prices low.
The very fact that the West is following energy research means that oil producers should consider whether their pricing encourages such research, because if it does encourage it too much, then the research might just work out and we figure out a way to do without [someone else's] oil. So oil is priced so that such projects as Polywell don't attract huge research investments.
If that bit of cynicism hasn't made you laugh or cry and you think there may be some truth in it, then the answer is that Polywell, and all the other projects that contribute to the impression that we're doing something about energy in the West, already has caused prices to stay low.
...and if that isn't up to the deep cynicism you think I am capable of... then maybe you can start wondering now about the relationship of oil companies and their influence on the timetable for ITER - a project that looks like it may well fail... that'd be a perfect one to keep going and stretching it out as long as possible, and to make it look as expensive as possible to make oil price rises look reasonable.
What's in it for Big Oil Money to back alternative energy research that looks like it might actually work out!? Best to fund the no-hopers...
There is no such thing a free railroad. a Railroad has be be justified by its traffic and Madison is just not a big enough traffic source. Especially high speed rail which requires a huge traffic density to make sense.happyjack27 wrote:i don't know, here in wisconsin we had the option of building an essentiall fre light rail connecting us to chicago and madison. and dumb-$$$ walker turned it down for got-only-knows what reason and the peole voted for him. and after that happened they didnt change their opinion of him. "inter-urban high speed rail for free? sounds horrible!" they said. you're welcome california. just remember you owe us bigtime now!
Um, nothing's "free" bud. The productive people in Wisconsin are paying for it for all the rest of the people who aren't producing enough to pay for it.happyjack27 wrote:i don't know, here in wisconsin we had the option of building an essentiall fre light rail connecting us to chicago and madison. and dumb-$$$ walker turned it down for got-only-knows what reason and the peole voted for him. and after that happened they didnt change their opinion of him. "inter-urban high speed rail for free? sounds horrible!" they said. you're welcome california. just remember you owe us bigtime now!
If it is REALLY that much of a benefit, then guess what? You just became a multi-millionaire, because now YOU can go out and make that light rail system yourself, and charge people a "small fee" for using it.
You're welcome for the business idea. Presuming you told the truth about its incredibly beneficial effects, of *course* everyone's going to want to use it.
Why 50 years?choff wrote:If WB8 works, 5 years to 100MW prototype, 50 years to replace all other existing power sources. Plenty of time for the industry to adapt, and while oil will no longer rule the world, its life expectancy will be extended by an extra 200 years, just not for fuel.
You guys are thinking on "big business" and "government" time scales here.
Honestly, do you think NASA could have done what SpaceX did in such a short amount of time and with such a limited budget? NASA could barely afford to pay their administrative staff with the budget of SpaceX.
Chris,chrismb wrote:You may have read deeply between my words and have suspected I might, deep down, be a little tiny bit of a cynic.
So here's one of my bigger bits of cynicism; governments only fund fusion research, and energy research in general, because if they keep the oil-producing countries thinking we have alternatives then the oil-producers will want to keep the West 'addicted' to oil by keeping production high and the prices low.
The very fact that the West is following energy research means that oil producers should consider whether their pricing encourages such research, because if it does encourage it too much, then the research might just work out and we figure out a way to do without [someone else's] oil. So oil is priced so that such projects as Polywell don't attract huge research investments.
If that bit of cynicism hasn't made you laugh or cry and you think there may be some truth in it, then the answer is that Polywell, and all the other projects that contribute to the impression that we're doing something about energy in the West, already has caused prices to stay low.
...and if that isn't up to the deep cynicism you think I am capable of... then maybe you can start wondering now about the relationship of oil companies and their influence on the timetable for ITER - a project that looks like it may well fail... that'd be a perfect one to keep going and stretching it out as long as possible, and to make it look as expensive as possible to make oil price rises look reasonable.
What's in it for Big Oil Money to back alternative energy research that looks like it might actually work out!? Best to fund the no-hopers...
I would argue that in the investment and money world it is a time scale dependant issue.
Emotion transitions to reality. Prices fluctuate and tend to smooth over time. The dependancy lays in the extremity of the issue and thus the determined time factor.
Your argument seems to lack connective tissue between the emotion to reality. If your argument is valid, then the reality would manifest as a reduction in oil demand based on alt. energy tech., while it is counterbalanced by ever lowering prices to prevent competition. It would appear the exact opposite has happened. Oil trends up, alt energy is still futzing around.
Emotion does not last when confronted over time with reality. Its focus must change or be re-determined by another real event or event induced perception.
Value is a perception conceived of the unknown combined with the known. As time progresses, this relationship shifts in balance. In the cae of oil, value has a positive trend. It would seem that this trend is based in a reality of knowing more about its future limits and a lack ability to meet demand. It would not seem that it is a depressed value intent on limiting competitiveness of options. The guys that control this are more concerned about the Bentley they drive today verses the one their kid will drive tomorrow.
Why do you say my argument leads to a reduction in demand? I don't follow.ladajo wrote:If your argument is valid, then the reality would manifest as a reduction in oil demand based on alt. energy tech., while it is counterbalanced by ever lowering prices to prevent competition. It would appear the exact opposite has happened. Oil trends up, alt energy is still futzing around.
I would say that demand is independent of how much alternative energy research is going on. People still need energy, even if 'alternative' isn't yet proven, let alone market-mature.
In fact, I would say the opposite; that because oil prices are being held artificially low, relative to their real worth, whilst the oil producers 'keep us keen' and less interested in alternatives, that we could, and therefore would, buy more of it. This would manifest as an increasing demand as well as an increasing price, though it would be difficult to pull those things apart as that is 'usual'.
In order for the Oil Factions to think they must keep prices down, after an initial emotional reaction, they will look for evidence that it is a real issue. Lacking evidence, which so far is the case, they would not worry about it so much.
Right now, the oil factions are very much concerned as the economies they manage are struggling due to spending based on an oil price that is higher than it is. As stated many times, $75 to $90 is bare breakeven for most of these guys. Some are higher.
Right now, the oil factions are very much concerned as the economies they manage are struggling due to spending based on an oil price that is higher than it is. As stated many times, $75 to $90 is bare breakeven for most of these guys. Some are higher.