How much would fusion power wreck the economy?

[peterperkins]

Let's imagine some genius philanthropist cracks the fusion nut in the next few years and it becomes a practical royalty/patent free reality generating clean power at say a ballpark 1p per kwh.

How much would that screw up the worlds economics and who would be the worst affected?

We will still need oil to make plastics and a host of other stuff, but if we are not burning it what is the bottom line?

Edited by peterperkins on Wednesday 30th March 06:08

[Dr Jekyll]

It would be very good for the worlds economy overall.

[Terminator X]

Always 10 years away, no chance.

TX.

[Beati Dogu]

It would be a massive benefit to all. Which is why it will never be allowed.

[glennjamin]

Like most things that either can't be taxed or will reduce income to major players in world economy. If it is successful will be bought out and put into cupboard never to be seen again. Thousands of patients bought out and hidden over the years.

[MitchT]

Energy prices so low that ordinary folk have money left to spend on other stuff. Just imagine!

[Monty Python]

Think of all those things powered by natural gas that would be replaced by electrically-powered alternatives. Also, those processes that use a lot of electricity (e.g. water desalination, hydrogen production) would become feasible. Those two alone would have a massive impact.

[Tim330]

Electricity would become too cheap to meter.

[dundarach]

It'd be great for Goole if we get it in East Yorkshire

[hidetheelephants]

Tim330 said:

Electricity would become too cheap to meter.

The projected capital costs for fusion power plants based on the JET/ITER model are extremely high so there's no danger of that.

[Dr Jekyll]

hidetheelephants said:

Tim330 said:

Electricity would become too cheap to meter.

The projected capital costs for fusion power plants based on the JET/ITER model are extremely high so there's no danger of that.

I think the suggestion is that the cost of producing each extra watt would be so small (at least compared with capital costs) that you would pay a fee to be connected, like broadband internet, rather than be charged by usage.

[bucksmanuk]

We are years off fusion being ready

First of all, we have to get more energy out than energy in. We are at 0.67 after 40 years of research.

Then we have to get a LOT more energy out (of the plasma) than we put in, so about 10-15x as we have all the inefficiencies to combat along the way. The ITER web site describes it all nicely.

Then we have to figure out a way of getting the energy out of the plasma and use it to drive something, probably steam turbines, and all the rest of the kit. As far as I am aware, this isn’t even being worked on anywhere.
(I work at Culham….)

Something tells me that the breakthrough won’t be made by one of the big research teams. It will be made by a much smaller team who have taken a fresh look at the problems. https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/ - I know someone who works there.

It’ll be some bloke in a shed who cracks it…

[Allegro_Snapon]

Also, you need fuel for Fusion still.

I heard on the grapevine, that by the time ITER starts the available commercial Tritium that hasn't decayed away since it was produced (via fission reactors) will be just enough for a years worth of experiments. Of course if the world is a happy peaceful place by the 2030s maybe the guys at Aldermaston might give back some of their Tritium and we can ask Vlad's successor for his stocks as well?

So if you know a way how to get pure Tritium, buy a share in the company that is doing so!

Plus I don't think people realise how much oil is used for other uses than ICE combustion.

I reckon fusion won't wreck any economy (unless ITER plasmarises the Earth atmosphere, then economy will be the least of things to worry about). It'll probably benefit UK plc £200m - £1billion over the next 20 years as we try to de fission though.

[hidetheelephants]

Allegro_Snapon said:

Also, you need fuel for Fusion still.

I heard on the grapevine, that by the time ITER starts the available commercial Tritium that hasn't decayed away since it was produced (via fission reactors) will be just enough for a years worth of experiments. Of course if the world is a happy peaceful place by the 2030s maybe the guys at Aldermaston might give back some of their Tritium and we can ask Vlad's successor for his stocks as well?

So if you know a way how to get pure Tritium, buy a share in the company that is doing so!

Plus I don't think people realise how much oil is used for other uses than ICE combustion.

I reckon fusion won't wreck any economy (unless ITER plasmarises the Earth atmosphere, then economy will be the least of things to worry about). It'll probably benefit UK plc £200m - £1billion over the next 20 years as we try to de fission though.

Isn't tritium generation one of the main hazards/problems of fusion? I would add 2-3 zeros on the benefit accruing to whoever perfects it though.

[TRIUMPHBULLET]

A very unimaginative way of dealing with it would be a Fusion energy tax, but we all know that no govt would do that right.

[Gary C]

Beati Dogu said:

It would be a massive benefit to all. Which is why it will never be allowed.

TFH ?

[Gary C]

Allegro_Snapon said:

So if you know a way how to get pure Tritium, buy a share in the company that is doing so!

It can make its own.

[Caddyshack]

TRIUMPHBULLET said:

A very unimaginative way of dealing with it would be a Fusion energy tax, but we all know that no govt would do that right.

Agreed, they would just tax it and everything returns to normal.

[annodomini2]

bucksmanuk said:

We are years off fusion being ready

First of all, we have to get more energy out than energy in. We are at 0.67 after 40 years of research.

90, fusion was first achieved in 1932

[annodomini2]

Fundamentally it depends on the implementation.

D-T in a massive tokamak, with Steam generation, will make little difference, it'll make a Fission plant look cheap and it would still be 50yrs away.

Alternative, possibly with Aneutronic and direct generation would likely be disruptive.