If we can believe the Parkins paper, what would be the use of a $15/W electricity plant? Even when corrected for the plant factor difference, photovoltaic would be half the installation cost ($2/W*0.8/0.2 = $8/W), not to mention running costs!
Inexpensive Nanosolar type photovoltaic + large scale compressed air energy storage drawing energy from the environment, couldn't this be the winning combination? Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Standing Bear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 6:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: ITER Budget Slashed > On Friday 11 January 2008 09:35, Michel Jullian wrote: >> It has been suggested on another list that they were convinced by the 2006 > posthumous Science >> article by William Parkins mirrored by NET here: >> >> "[Hot] Fusion Power: Will It Ever Come?" >> http://www.newenergytimes.com/Inthenews/2006/SCIENCE-FusionPower.htm >> >> Quote: "Scaling of the construction costs from the Bechtel estimates > suggests a total plant cost on >> the order of $15 billion, or $15,000/kWe of plant rating. At a plant factor > of 0.8 and total annual >> charges of 17% against the capital investment, these capital charges alone > would contribute 36 cents >> to the cost of generating each kilowatt hour. This is far outside the > competitive price range." >> >> $15/W is indeed a lot compared to the ~$2/W of a coal powered plant, or > better now a Nanosolar PV >> plant ($2/W too, admittedly with a lower plant factor (~0.2?) than coal due > to insolation not being >> constant, but with arguably much lower operating costs!) >> >> Michel >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:12 PM >> Subject: [Vo]:ITER Budget Slashed >> >> >> > By 93.3%: >> > >> > http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/07/557301.aspx >> > >> > Is Congress coming to their senses? >> > >> > Terry >> > > Not to worry too much. Failure of vision by Congress will be replaced by > funding from China and others, and possibly the reorganiztion of the project > to include the United States out of the affair altogether. A rather > ignominious end to > US involvement. Somebody...a group of somebodies...are comparing apples > and oranges, again. This is new project and costs are going to be quite > high, especially on something that this species has never accomplished > before in this period of its literate self awareness. To compare its supposed > economics with anything at all not to mention a coal fired boiler is > preposterous and smacks of an institution looking to bail and willing to use > any excuse. It also smells like bankruptcy, something an institution would do > when it privately knows it is insolvent but does not want that fact known > outside its inner circle. > This project is historic. It is not a silicon valley startup inventing a > faster thumb drive or a new way of concealing corporate mal-ware in one; and > finding out that the neighbors can do it 'cheaper'. The failure of the > Americans will not be the end of it. It will only mean that the project will > be built without American help, interference, or control; and its benefits > will be to those with the vision to persevere in it. > The eventual cost of this short-sightedness will be at first be economic, > as new 'intellectually licenced' plants will spread over the world outside > of the United States and start to lift the rest of the world to the leadership > role that we are now abdicating. Second will be political and possibly > territorial, as the United States becomes a third world nation sinking first > into poverty and then into loss of territory. History has not been kind to > those who pass on the torch of leadership. We gained our leadership > by realizing that energy production leadership translated to leadership > in factory production as muscles were replaced by machines run by > abundant energy. Fusion energy is to chemical energy as chemical > energy was to muscle energy. Fusion will work. The French know this. > Eighty percent of their nation is run on atomics, and this fact is seen > by others, giving the lie to detractors who endlessly prattle to pandering > barrators about 'waste'. So it will be with fusion. This plant built in > France over US objections....do we detect sour grapes here.... will be > the model. > When I was at university, an old professor instilled a lesson in a > half forgotten class about 'activation energy'. A low energy process > could be initiated by a relatively lower energy of activation, as in a > spark initiating the firing of compressed gas in a cylinder. A high > energy process will require more energy. Fusion requires more energy. > Large fusion will require a lot more, but then society will get more in > return. Meanwhile a small project, Focus-Fusion, languishes with low > funding in a South American country yet soldiers on. They too could be > successful with the dense plasma focus, and I pray they are. Burning > dead dinosaurs and petrified ground litter and petrified fish guts will > only last so long. > Maybe that is why so many civilizations are episodic. > > Standing Bear >
