Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Antman013 t1_j1v4vrs wrote

Well, economically, it means that for every $1.00 spent in production costs, the reactor returns a $1.10 worth of electrical power (just made up #s). That means that energy prices will, inevitably, get lower and lower across the board.

​

Now, think about your life if you no longer had to pay (or paid a MINIMAL COST) for electricity. How much MORE $$$ will you have to spend, in that scenario? Then factor in that EVERYONE, including businesses, will be in the same boat.

​

Everyone LITERALLY becomes "wealthier overnight".

4

Over_North8884 t1_j1v8gqi wrote

Well not really, "electricity too cheap to meter" opens up all sorts of possibilities. Internal combustion engine transportation will be obsolete and transportation costs will collapse. The cost of running data centers collapses because refrigeration and electricity for powering computers, the major costs, becomes insignificant, so computing power will dramatically expand. Urban night will become like day with streetlights everywhere. Climate control will be available to almost all of the world population. Indoor agriculture will be feasible for most crops and worldwide hunger will be eliminated. We can expect major advances in science and technology because some scientific research is bound by the cost of energy. This just scratches the surface. Dirt cheap electricity will make changes akin to the industrial revolution.

5

poemmys t1_j1v7h0z wrote

You really believe the power companies would pass those savings on to the consumers?

4

nesquikchocolate t1_j1v85zc wrote

Not everyone lives in capitalist america... In some places, power providers are not-for-profit or state-owned, meaning any real savings in production costs automatically get passed on to users.

2

poemmys t1_j1val7e wrote

The VAST majority of the western world capable of nuclear power is capitalistic and will not see a monetary benefit from nuclear fusion/fission on the consumer level. But congrats to those handful of Nordic countries with tiny populations that are lucky enough to have socialist programs for necessities I guess. But most of us aren't that lucky.

0

nesquikchocolate t1_j1vdrlm wrote

Funny that you bring up populations... Less than a quarter of the world's population would "suffer" under your supposed situation of greedy power companies... Both the largest and the second largest countries by population are nuclear powers, and both have massive stakes in fusion research as well.

Maybe, just maybe, you guys can look beyond how "big" your problem is, actually go out and vote for something worth believing in, and change the rules in favour of the people in stead of the corporation...

1

poemmys t1_j1venhq wrote

Nothing is changing over here short of violent revolution. Voting does nothing when both sides are in on the grift. But I appreciate your youthful optimism. If I could move to a socialist country I would do so in an instant.

1

NameUnavail t1_j1v5hsm wrote

That's not at all what it means. And it makes no sense. Net energy positive has nothing at all to do with cost or price of development. And as I said, comparing output value to production cost (rather than running cost) also makes no sense without a time span.

If you run it long enough, even a trillion dollar reactor that produces only a milliwatt of power will eventually have produced more value out than it's production cost.

2

PeterM_from_ABQ t1_j1v8yoc wrote

Just want to point out that you also need to figure in operating and maintenance costs, and cost of capital. If you invest a trillion dollars, you need to generate at least $50B-ish per year just to cover the interest on the loan. You ain't gonna make $50-B-ish per yera on a milliwatt. You also need to consider opportunity cost. If you took that trillion and invested in gas fired turbine plants, you'd get back your investment....

1