Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
LENR is similar to the pharmaceutical industry were the value of the material that comprises the product is very small, but the worth of the its intellectual capital is very large. When Jed says that the cost of the power derived from LENR is almost zero, he is inferring that the people who research and develop LENR work for almost nothing. The intellectual value and the associated compensation for the science and testing that is involved in LENR product development will be very high. In the near future, the top students entering higher education will reject life as investment bankers and hedge fund managers for the high pay and prestige of becoming a LENR engineer. Commodification of LERN services must be avoided from the very beginning. In short, the value added to provide LENR based services will be very high and LENR professionals should always strive to keep it that way. * * * * On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: No. LENR will be far cheaper than any other source. Eventually it will be thousands of times cheaper. Some history on the phrase too cheap to meter LENR will not be too cheap to meter. It will be free. The cost will be so close to zero it will be negligible. An ordinary person will use no more than a few dollars worth of water and nickel in a lifetime. The cost of equipment will be no greater than it is for today's power supplies. You don't count the cost of the electric motor in your food processor as an energy cost. That's equipment. In the distant future it will be a thermoelectric cold fusion device, which will eventually be as cheap as today's electric motor. People will use energy the way we breathe the air; or the way I use hard disk storage these days; or the way you burn firewood when you live in 50 acres of woods. (Except that there is a cost to gathering and cutting the wood, which there will not be in case of LENR.) I commented on Strauss in my book: It is foolish to dismiss the likes of von Neumann or Strauss. They were wrong by several decades, but in the long term they will undoubtedly be proven correct. With or without cold fusion, methods will be discovered to generate all of the energy we want. As explained in the link, too cheap to meter implies it might be sold on a flat fee basis by the power company. I say it will be far cheaper than that. Not sold by anyone. Not accounted for. There will be no power company. It will be built into every machine. Listing a charge for the energy supply in your car would be like charging you an extra 3 cents for one of the screws, or for a 1 cm square section of the carpet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR is similar to the pharmaceutical industry were the value of the material that comprises the product is very small, but the worth of the its intellectual capital is very large. I do not think it will cost much to develop cold fusion into a practical source of energy. Perhaps $300 million to $1 billion. $1 billion is what it cost to develop the Prius, but you do not see a huge premium (extra cost) on that car. $1 billion is about what it costs to build 200 miles of rural highway. We do not have to charge a gigantic tax per gallon of gas to pay for the thousands of miles of highway we have constructed. The cost of development of cold fusion will be amortized soon after commercial sales begin. When Jed says that the cost of the power derived from LENR is almost zero, he is inferring that the people who research and develop LENR work for almost nothing. That is nonsense. The engineers who developed the Prius were well paid. Their RD effort (the $1 billion) did raise the cost of the car slightly at first, but it was paid for long ago. The premium is now charged only because the car is so popular. It is all profit. The people who build highways for $5 to $10 million per mile are well paid, but that does not mean we have to pay $10 per gallon highway tax on gasoline to pay them. Many people drive cars, so the cost is spread out over many consumers. Everyone on earth will use cold fusion, so billions of people will contribute to amortizing the cost of the RD. The individual cost will be negligible. Even if we paid Rossi $10 billion today for his discovery, in a few years you would be paying only a few dollars extra per car or a few dollars per year for electricity to reimburse him. Within a decade the whole $10 billion would be paid off. Even if only first-world people use cold fusion, there are roughly 1.5 billion of them, so that's about $7 per person. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
I wrote: Even if we paid Rossi $10 billion today for his discovery, in a few years you would be paying only a few dollars extra per car or a few dollars per year for electricity to reimburse him. That is not to say cold fusion devices will be cheap at first. You will pay a tremendous premium for them. That money will be profit for the companies that made the machines. The RD will be amortized quickly and the rest will be gravy. It will take a while to make cold fusion into a commodity. The patents will have to expire. The knowledge of how to make them will have to spread. Once it becomes a commodity the price will fall, and fall, and fall until there is practically no profit in making it. Eventually, cold fusion motors will be cheaper than today's gasoline or electric motors. (With robotics and other techniques, today's motors would also get cheaper if we continued to develop them, but we won't.) The fuel, hydrogen, is the cheapest and most abundant substance in the universe, so it will never cost any measurable amount of money, even including the cost of purification. Even if only deuterium works. The technology is high tech but fundamentally simple, like making writable CD disks or NiCad batteries. It is something that any of a thousand industrial companies can learn to do, and hundreds of them will learn to do it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The patents will have to expire. The knowledge of how to make them will have to spread. I have been wanting to get to the patents before too long. I know very little about patents at this point. But I would not be surprised if the existing patents are all encumbered by details that will invalidate them. Andrea Rossi and Defkalion appear to be the only ones with practicable devices at this point. I am unaware of any intellectual property filed by Defkalion -- they appear to want to keep the details a trade secret instead. Rossi's patent makes reference to specific isotopes of nickel, and the nickel isotopes may be an unessential or even unimportant detail. So I would not be surprised if the technology breaks out into the mass market before a patent can be defended. If that happens, manufacturers will have to compete on the basis of quality, price, brand name, etc., rather than rely upon an IP strategy. This may be distressing for some who wanted to make billions. But if the details mentioned by or in connection with Rossi and Defkalion are to be taken at face value, it seems they will already have derived a substantial reward for their efforts through the various collaborations with large multinationals and other organizations that are suggested to be underway. Eric
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
Jed’s concept of the LENR product line evolution is sadly limited to energy products. With the money that LENR based firms make from energy production and products, they will reinvest in the transmutation technology where cheap material like waste, junk, silicon, carbon, and oxygen are transmuted into rare earths, copper and nickel. To achieve that level of control of the processes that are going on inside the nucleus requires a huge amount of science and engineering RD. The money to do this science and engineering will come from the first tier of LENR products. The next step will be the integration of 3D based printing that is coupled with LERN transmutation. For example, the design and build specifications of a car will be fed into a large scale manufacturing 3D printer that is fed by mountains of junk, sand and/or water input material. Cars will roll out of the business end of the LENR 3D printing factory. It takes capital to design and build such advancements in science and engineering. Jed sees LENR energy production as the end point of the LENR design and science cycle. His focus is narrow and myopic. Because of his lack of vision, Jed’s predictions cannot be true. LENR energy production is just the beginning. What capabilities that LENR will allow us to achieve cannot be currently imagined. What is certain is that money from the first tier of LENR products will be used to build the next tier of products. This need for research funding is what will keep the cost of LENR energy moderately high. On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: Even if we paid Rossi $10 billion today for his discovery, in a few years you would be paying only a few dollars extra per car or a few dollars per year for electricity to reimburse him. That is not to say cold fusion devices will be cheap at first. You will pay a tremendous premium for them. That money will be profit for the companies that made the machines. The RD will be amortized quickly and the rest will be gravy. It will take a while to make cold fusion into a commodity. The patents will have to expire. The knowledge of how to make them will have to spread. Once it becomes a commodity the price will fall, and fall, and fall until there is practically no profit in making it. Eventually, cold fusion motors will be cheaper than today's gasoline or electric motors. (With robotics and other techniques, today's motors would also get cheaper if we continued to develop them, but we won't.) The fuel, hydrogen, is the cheapest and most abundant substance in the universe, so it will never cost any measurable amount of money, even including the cost of purification. Even if only deuterium works. The technology is high tech but fundamentally simple, like making writable CD disks or NiCad batteries. It is something that any of a thousand industrial companies can learn to do, and hundreds of them will learn to do it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/nasa-test-fires-3d-printed-rocket-parts-low-cost-high-power-innovation/ NASA test-fires 3D printed rocket parts: low cost, high power innovation Today, NASA can build a rocket engine using 3 D manufacturing. On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Jed’s concept of the LENR product line evolution is sadly limited to energy products. With the money that LENR based firms make from energy production and products, they will reinvest in the transmutation technology where cheap material like waste, junk, silicon, carbon, and oxygen are transmuted into rare earths, copper and nickel. To achieve that level of control of the processes that are going on inside the nucleus requires a huge amount of science and engineering RD. The money to do this science and engineering will come from the first tier of LENR products. The next step will be the integration of 3D based printing that is coupled with LERN transmutation. For example, the design and build specifications of a car will be fed into a large scale manufacturing 3D printer that is fed by mountains of junk, sand and/or water input material. Cars will roll out of the business end of the LENR 3D printing factory. It takes capital to design and build such advancements in science and engineering. Jed sees LENR energy production as the end point of the LENR design and science cycle. His focus is narrow and myopic. Because of his lack of vision, Jed’s predictions cannot be true. LENR energy production is just the beginning. What capabilities that LENR will allow us to achieve cannot be currently imagined. What is certain is that money from the first tier of LENR products will be used to build the next tier of products. This need for research funding is what will keep the cost of LENR energy moderately high. On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: Even if we paid Rossi $10 billion today for his discovery, in a few years you would be paying only a few dollars extra per car or a few dollars per year for electricity to reimburse him. That is not to say cold fusion devices will be cheap at first. You will pay a tremendous premium for them. That money will be profit for the companies that made the machines. The RD will be amortized quickly and the rest will be gravy. It will take a while to make cold fusion into a commodity. The patents will have to expire. The knowledge of how to make them will have to spread. Once it becomes a commodity the price will fall, and fall, and fall until there is practically no profit in making it. Eventually, cold fusion motors will be cheaper than today's gasoline or electric motors. (With robotics and other techniques, today's motors would also get cheaper if we continued to develop them, but we won't.) The fuel, hydrogen, is the cheapest and most abundant substance in the universe, so it will never cost any measurable amount of money, even including the cost of purification. Even if only deuterium works. The technology is high tech but fundamentally simple, like making writable CD disks or NiCad batteries. It is something that any of a thousand industrial companies can learn to do, and hundreds of them will learn to do it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I have been wanting to get to the patents before too long. I know very little about patents at this point. But I would not be surprised if the existing patents are all encumbered by details that will invalidate them. I know little about patents. But people who do know about them agree with you that most of the cold fusion patents will probably be invalidated. Rossi's patents seem ridiculous to me. I am unaware of any intellectual property filed by Defkalion -- they appear to want to keep the details a trade secret instead. I do not know of any patent filings by Defkalion. The strategy of keeping the details a trade secret cannot work. This is the most important discovery in the recorded history of technology. As soon as the public realizes the effect is real, every industrial corporation, university and national laboratory on earth will begin frantic efforts to reverse engineer devices from Rossi and Defkalion. The secrets will not last a week. If that happens, manufacturers will have to compete on the basis of quality, price, brand name, etc., rather than rely upon an IP strategy. This may be distressing for some who wanted to make billions. There will be many new patents as the technology develops. The original ATT patent for the transistor expired decades ago, but many new patents in semiconductor technology are filed every year. I expect new patents are filed in combustion technology, even though people have been using fire for a long time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Jed’s concept of the LENR product line evolution is sadly limited to energy products. That is nonsense. My book describes far more than that, including transmutation. With the money that LENR based firms make from energy production and products, they will reinvest in the transmutation technology where cheap material like waste, junk, silicon, carbon, and oxygen are transmuted into rare earths, copper and nickel. And they will make money from that technology as well. The cost of that RD will also soon be recovered. What is your point? To achieve that level of control of the processes that are going on inside the nucleus requires a huge amount of science and engineering RD. Yes, as I said, there are still patents being granted for semiconductors and combustion technology. People continue to improve a technology for as long as they use it. The money to do this science and engineering will come from the first tier of LENR products. Or it will come from Wall Street or from venture capitalists. Money is money. It is fungible. It does not matter where it comes from. As I said, there will be tremendous profits from the first cold fusion products, especially if the people making them have good IP and good lawyers. Jed sees LENR energy production as the end point of the LENR design and science cycle. No I do not. I suggest you read my book. His focus is narrow and myopic. This is pure bullshit. It is obnoxious. If you are not going to bother reading what I write, you should refrain from spouting off about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
*And they will make money from that technology as well. The cost of that RD will also soon be recovered. What is your point?* You stated that power produced from LENR will be virtually free, to cheap to even meter. If all the existing industrial infrastructure is immediately trashed by LENR, where will the RD money come from. Your posts do not add up. Where will the RD money come from: Not from Wall Street or from venture capitalists; they will be bankrupt by LENR since all their industrial investments in other thing will be immediately made worthless by LENR. Like most business experts and advisors, you wave your hands and avoid the details. Money is money. Yes, It is fungible and the government can print all they want. Is that where this RD money will come from: the government? I do not think government funding for LENR is wise. If Rossi immediacy puts all of his industrial competition out of business, were will his competition came from, and how will it be funded? I read your posts carefully and apply logic. These resent posts on RD funding do not pass the logic test. They are idealistic and unreasonable as in a dream. These posts do not reflect the way business and RD is usually carried out. In your world, LENR will be limited and stunted by a lack of competition; and the money needed to build that competition. In your world, Rossi uber alles. On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Jed’s concept of the LENR product line evolution is sadly limited to energy products. That is nonsense. My book describes far more than that, including transmutation. With the money that LENR based firms make from energy production and products, they will reinvest in the transmutation technology where cheap material like waste, junk, silicon, carbon, and oxygen are transmuted into rare earths, copper and nickel. And they will make money from that technology as well. The cost of that RD will also soon be recovered. What is your point? To achieve that level of control of the processes that are going on inside the nucleus requires a huge amount of science and engineering RD. Yes, as I said, there are still patents being granted for semiconductors and combustion technology. People continue to improve a technology for as long as they use it. The money to do this science and engineering will come from the first tier of LENR products. Or it will come from Wall Street or from venture capitalists. Money is money. It is fungible. It does not matter where it comes from. As I said, there will be tremendous profits from the first cold fusion products, especially if the people making them have good IP and good lawyers. Jed sees LENR energy production as the end point of the LENR design and science cycle. No I do not. I suggest you read my book. His focus is narrow and myopic. This is pure bullshit. It is obnoxious. If you are not going to bother reading what I write, you should refrain from spouting off about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
You guys got it all wrong. This brane we live on attracts way too much
dark matter. It is off to space for the human race with our vacuum energy
devices else we all follow the path of the dinosaurs
On Sunday, September 8, 2013, Axil Axil wrote:
*And they will make money from that technology as well. The cost of that
RD will also soon be recovered. What is your point?*
You stated that power produced from LENR will be virtually free, to cheap
to even meter. If all the existing industrial infrastructure is immediately
trashed by LENR, where will the RD money come from. Your posts do not add
up. Where will the RD money come from: Not from Wall Street or from
venture capitalists; they will be bankrupt by LENR since all their
industrial investments in other thing will be immediately made worthless by
LENR. Like most business experts and advisors, you wave your hands and
avoid the details. Money is money. Yes, It is fungible and the government
can print all they want. Is that where this RD money will come from: the
government? I do not think government funding for LENR is wise.
If Rossi immediacy puts all of his industrial competition out of
business, were will his competition came from, and how will it be funded?
I read your posts carefully and apply logic. These resent posts on RD
funding do not pass the logic test. They are idealistic and unreasonable as
in a dream. These posts do not reflect the way business and RD is usually
carried out.
In your world, LENR will be limited and stunted by a lack of competition;
and the money needed to build that competition. In your world, Rossi uber
alles.
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Jed Rothwell
jedrothw...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jedrothw...@gmail.com');
wrote:
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'janap...@gmail.com'); wrote:
Jed’s concept of the LENR product line evolution is sadly limited to
energy products.
That is nonsense. My book describes far more than that, including
transmutation.
With the money that LENR based firms make from energy production and
products, they will reinvest in the transmutation technology where cheap
material like waste, junk, silicon, carbon, and oxygen are transmuted into
rare earths, copper and nickel.
And they will make money from that technology as well. The cost of that
RD will also soon be recovered. What is your point?
To achieve that level of control of the processes that are going on
inside the nucleus requires a huge amount of science and engineering RD.
Yes, as I said, there are still patents being granted for semiconductors
and combustion technology. People continue to improve a technology for as
long as they use it.
The money to do this science and engineering will come from the first
tier of LENR products.
Or it will come from Wall Street or from venture capitalists. Money is
money. It is fungible. It does not matter where it comes from.
As I said, there will be tremendous profits from the first cold fusion
products, especially if the people making them have good IP and good
lawyers.
Jed sees LENR energy production as the end point of the LENR design and
science cycle.
No I do not. I suggest you read my book.
His focus is narrow and myopic.
This is pure bullshit. It is obnoxious. If you are not going to bother
reading what I write, you should refrain from spouting off about it.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *And they will make money from that technology as well. The cost of that RD will also soon be recovered. What is your point?* You stated that power produced from LENR will be virtually free, to cheap to even meter. I said that would happen eventually. It will happen after the initial patents expire and the profits are made. All industries follow that pattern. All products eventually become low profit or no profit commodities, as mass production is perfected and competition increases. Railroads in the U.S. were profitable from 1840 to 1890. By then, they were overbuilt and competing so much they were profitless. Computers were hugely profitable for IBM from the 1960s through 1990 or so, but nowadays only Apple makes a decent profit selling them. Marx pointed this out, and he was right. Computer hard disks are so cheap and abundant Google gives away cloud storage. I haven't had to buy more capacity in years, except for backup. I can't imagine needing more than 1 TB of main hard disk storage even in 10 years, whereas in the 70s and 80s I was doubling my disk storage every few years, as soon as I could. This is how capitalism works, whether we like it or not. There will be a generation or two in which people make tons of money with cold fusion. Then, gradually, the cost will decline until the cost of energy needed for daily life will be trivial, just as the cost of hard disk storage has become. Some people may still spend a lot on energy, but that will be for projects such as irrigating the Sahara desert or sending a million people to Mars while terraforming the whole planet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
The IBM Personal Computer, commonly known as the IBM PC, is the original version and progenitor of the IBM PC compatible hardware platform. IBM developed their first PC in 1981. It was created by a team of professional computer engineers and designers under the direction of top engineering management from IBM Entry Systems Division in Boca Raton, Florida. IBM completely missed the fast-growing minicomputer market during the 1970s and devoted their efforts to the main frame market. IBM management saw the potential of the products like the Commodore PET, Atari 8-bit family, Apple II, Tandy Corporation's TRS-80s, and various CP/M machines. IBM did not want to be shut out of the new personal computer market, then dominated by the small computers from startup companies. Pushed by this competition from these small startup companies, rather than going through the usual IBM design process, a special team was assembled with authorization to bypass normal company restrictions and get something to market rapidly. This project was given the code name Project Chess at the IBM Entry Systems Division in Boca Raton, Florida. The team consisted of twelve people directed by Estridge, with Chief Designer Lewis Eggebrecht. At the time, this new product was not considered a threat to the main IBM product lines, but the PC turned out to be a mainframe killer. IBM had the clout to impose hardware and software standardization into the PC marketplace. Instead of proprietary components, the team decided to speed development by building the machine with off-the-shelf parts from a variety of different original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and countries. This open product development approach was a fatal mistake. To avoid the same fate that befell IBM, the unwritten law of corporate behavior is to insure that the corporate product line is ALWAYS proprietary. Open source standardization is vigorously resisted by corporate management. Proprietary product development is the key to corporate acceptance of the LENR paradigm. As is true on the internet today, open standards minimize profits through the support of unlimited cut throat competition. The capital equipment owned by corporations provides capital flow. It is this profit margin that comes with this revenue that must be protected and the equipment that produces it. Corporate finance is required to optimally develop LENR technology. To guarantee optimum RD capital funding levels that corporate profit incentives support, LENR must retain its proprietary standing for the 20 years of intellectual capital protection that patent law provides. After that, LENR will become ubiquitous, widely understood, and widely applied throughout industry and business. When you remove the means for making a profit, you destroy the motive for new product development and the revenue that supports that development. The definition of obsolete equipment is equipment that can no longer make a profit. Detroit was abandoned because it could no longer make money. If 1980s IBM mainframes and DEC minicomputers could still make money with good margins, this equipment and the people that ran them would still be in use. On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I have often read the argument that we cannot afford to abandon our oil production facilities, or we cannot afford to replace all automobiles. This is wrong because we do abandon and replace all oil refinery equipment over time, probably 20 or 30 years. We replace nearly every car on the road in about 9 to 12 years (depending on the economy). We also abandon hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure, buildings, houses and so on before it wears out and has to replaced. Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The systems that have developed over the centuries cannot be overturned in a shocking overnight revolution of disruption. Here are some photos of Detroit, MI.: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2011/jan/02/photography-detroit They show billions of dollars worth of buildings and infrastructure that have been abruptly abandoned. Libraries with thousands of books, schools, hospitals . . . all rotting away. It has all gone to waste. In any rural district in Japan you will find depopulated areas with abandoned roads, collapsed houses, abandoned factories and schools. Billions and billions of dollars worth of stuff. No one claims that we cannot afford to abandon Detroit. On the contrary, we cannot afford to maintain it, because fewer people want to live there. When cold fusion replaces a third of gasoline powered cars, the others will soon be abandoned the same way Detroit has been. Yes, it will be a waste of still-useful equipment, but that is what always happens when technology changes. Not only can we afford it, it is actually cheaper than trying to maintain obsolete equipment. If it was not cheaper to abandon obsolete but still serviceable machines,
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
Its a simple matter of capital write-off. If the operation and maintenance costs are all you have to service, and you can still make a profit, then you can't afford to abandon that infrastructure. My calculations show that even if you write off the entire capital cost of a coal plant, Rossi's system beats it if you're still burning coal -- which means you have to replace the boiler. On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I have often read the argument that we cannot afford to abandon our oil production facilities, or we cannot afford to replace all automobiles. This is wrong because we do abandon and replace all oil refinery equipment over time, probably 20 or 30 years. We replace nearly every car on the road in about 9 to 12 years (depending on the economy). We also abandon hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure, buildings, houses and so on before it wears out and has to replaced. Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The systems that have developed over the centuries cannot be overturned in a shocking overnight revolution of disruption. Here are some photos of Detroit, MI.: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2011/jan/02/photography-detroit They show billions of dollars worth of buildings and infrastructure that have been abruptly abandoned. Libraries with thousands of books, schools, hospitals . . . all rotting away. It has all gone to waste. In any rural district in Japan you will find depopulated areas with abandoned roads, collapsed houses, abandoned factories and schools. Billions and billions of dollars worth of stuff. No one claims that we cannot afford to abandon Detroit. On the contrary, we cannot afford to maintain it, because fewer people want to live there. When cold fusion replaces a third of gasoline powered cars, the others will soon be abandoned the same way Detroit has been. Yes, it will be a waste of still-useful equipment, but that is what always happens when technology changes. Not only can we afford it, it is actually cheaper than trying to maintain obsolete equipment. If it was not cheaper to abandon obsolete but still serviceable machines, we wouldn't abandon them. We would still be cranking up 1980s IBM mainframes and DEC minicomputers. I am pretty sure most of them would still work if they existed intact. (Most have been recycled.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
I have heard that for nuclear power plant the worst cost is building, not even dispantling. fuel like with LENr is negligible. Mantenance is expensive. maintaining a fission reactor a decade more is quite cheap... is it cheaper that LENR ? if not this mean that the fission reactors will be dismantled quickly... otherwise they will be maintained as long as possible to amortize the capital. It like today big investment to safety is required, it will be dismantled. 2013/9/7 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Its a simple matter of capital write-off. If the operation and maintenance costs are all you have to service, and you can still make a profit, then you can't afford to abandon that infrastructure. My calculations show that even if you write off the entire capital cost of a coal plant, Rossi's system beats it if you're still burning coal -- which means you have to replace the boiler. On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I have often read the argument that we cannot afford to abandon our oil production facilities, or we cannot afford to replace all automobiles. This is wrong because we do abandon and replace all oil refinery equipment over time, probably 20 or 30 years. We replace nearly every car on the road in about 9 to 12 years (depending on the economy). We also abandon hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure, buildings, houses and so on before it wears out and has to replaced. Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The systems that have developed over the centuries cannot be overturned in a shocking overnight revolution of disruption. Here are some photos of Detroit, MI.: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2011/jan/02/photography-detroit They show billions of dollars worth of buildings and infrastructure that have been abruptly abandoned. Libraries with thousands of books, schools, hospitals . . . all rotting away. It has all gone to waste. In any rural district in Japan you will find depopulated areas with abandoned roads, collapsed houses, abandoned factories and schools. Billions and billions of dollars worth of stuff. No one claims that we cannot afford to abandon Detroit. On the contrary, we cannot afford to maintain it, because fewer people want to live there. When cold fusion replaces a third of gasoline powered cars, the others will soon be abandoned the same way Detroit has been. Yes, it will be a waste of still-useful equipment, but that is what always happens when technology changes. Not only can we afford it, it is actually cheaper than trying to maintain obsolete equipment. If it was not cheaper to abandon obsolete but still serviceable machines, we wouldn't abandon them. We would still be cranking up 1980s IBM mainframes and DEC minicomputers. I am pretty sure most of them would still work if they existed intact. (Most have been recycled.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I have heard that for nuclear power plant the worst cost is building, not even dispantling. Dismantling. Decommission. They have not decomissioned many of them so the cost is unclear. The cost of decommissioning Three Mile Island and Connecticut Yankee was horrendously high, because they were destroyed internally and could only be taken apart with robots. No one has any idea how much it will cost to decommission and clean up Fukushima. A planned decommission with the equipment intact is cheaper. fuel like with LENr is negligible. Mantenance is expensive. Maintenance is expensive. Because the fuel is cheap but the equipment is expensive, nuclear power plants have to be run 24 hours a day for baseline generation. Otherwise they are not cost effective. maintaining a fission reactor a decade more is quite cheap... is it cheaper that LENR ? No. LENR will be far cheaper than any other source. Eventually it will be thousands of times cheaper. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Maintenance is expensive. Because the fuel is cheap but the equipment is expensive, nuclear power plants have to be run 24 hours a day for baseline generation. Otherwise they are not cost effective. They can be throttled back only so far. Did you know that, for wholesale customers, power is free between 2 and 4 am? I have a proposal for beltline.org that the trains be run on hydrogen cracked from water for free by MARTA, Ga Power's second largest customer. It would utilize the equivalent to a DMU (diesel multiple unit) common in Europe or a HMU.
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: No. LENR will be far cheaper than any other source. Eventually it will be thousands of times cheaper. Some history on the phrase too cheap to meter http://media.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: No. LENR will be far cheaper than any other source. Eventually it will be thousands of times cheaper. Some history on the phrase too cheap to meter LENR will not be too cheap to meter. It will be free. The cost will be so close to zero it will be negligible. An ordinary person will use no more than a few dollars worth of water and nickel in a lifetime. The cost of equipment will be no greater than it is for today's power supplies. You don't count the cost of the electric motor in your food processor as an energy cost. That's equipment. In the distant future it will be a thermoelectric cold fusion device, which will eventually be as cheap as today's electric motor. People will use energy the way we breathe the air; or the way I use hard disk storage these days; or the way you burn firewood when you live in 50 acres of woods. (Except that there is a cost to gathering and cutting the wood, which there will not be in case of LENR.) I commented on Strauss in my book: It is foolish to dismiss the likes of von Neumann or Strauss. They were wrong by several decades, but in the long term they will undoubtedly be proven correct. With or without cold fusion, methods will be discovered to generate all of the energy we want. As explained in the link, too cheap to meter implies it might be sold on a flat fee basis by the power company. I say it will be far cheaper than that. Not sold by anyone. Not accounted for. There will be no power company. It will be built into every machine. Listing a charge for the energy supply in your car would be like charging you an extra 3 cents for one of the screws, or for a 1 cm square section of the carpet. - Jed
[Vo]:We abandon vast amounts of infrastructure, buildings, and so on
I have often read the argument that we cannot afford to abandon our oil production facilities, or we cannot afford to replace all automobiles. This is wrong because we do abandon and replace all oil refinery equipment over time, probably 20 or 30 years. We replace nearly every car on the road in about 9 to 12 years (depending on the economy). We also abandon hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure, buildings, houses and so on before it wears out and has to replaced. Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The systems that have developed over the centuries cannot be overturned in a shocking overnight revolution of disruption. Here are some photos of Detroit, MI.: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2011/jan/02/photography-detroit They show billions of dollars worth of buildings and infrastructure that have been abruptly abandoned. Libraries with thousands of books, schools, hospitals . . . all rotting away. It has all gone to waste. In any rural district in Japan you will find depopulated areas with abandoned roads, collapsed houses, abandoned factories and schools. Billions and billions of dollars worth of stuff. No one claims that we cannot afford to abandon Detroit. On the contrary, we cannot afford to maintain it, because fewer people want to live there. When cold fusion replaces a third of gasoline powered cars, the others will soon be abandoned the same way Detroit has been. Yes, it will be a waste of still-useful equipment, but that is what always happens when technology changes. Not only can we afford it, it is actually cheaper than trying to maintain obsolete equipment. If it was not cheaper to abandon obsolete but still serviceable machines, we wouldn't abandon them. We would still be cranking up 1980s IBM mainframes and DEC minicomputers. I am pretty sure most of them would still work if they existed intact. (Most have been recycled.) - Jed
