3 ms·

Hate to be that guy but I can see capitalism making fusion way less cool than we all think it will be. It might cost almost nothing once it gets efficient enou

Hate to be that guy but I can see capitalism making fusion way less cool than we all think it will be. It might cost almost nothing once it gets efficient enough but will that cost savings be passed on to customers or pocketed by the fusion businesses?

airstrike 4y ago
Assuming reasonable entry costs and stringent patent protection notwithstanding, a capitalist would argue that if fusion energy producers charge too much, a different producer would come along and offer it for cheaper
LatteLazy 4y ago
That really depends who owns the patents.
bilsbie 4y ago
The biggest risk is over regulation and putting up moats to new builds. The NRC has already decided they get to regulate it.
embwbam 4y ago
I read an interesting article saying that all wealth ultimately comes from an energy surplus. Nearly-free limitless energy might launch humanity into a new level of wealth. There was another article I read that any values outside of self-preservation, such as taking care of the earth, or the poor, are only possible during a surplus. Part of the reason that the right is afraid of committing to help the poor is because they don't think the economy could handle it. If the economy is at a new level, we might be able to agree on trying new things. It'll be time to let the robots do the work, at least until they rebel and get granted citizenship.
gus_massa 4y ago
After 20 years the patents expire and everyone can build a fusion plant and sell the energy at cost, so capitalism only delays it for everyone only 20 years. > It might cost almost nothing That's just a buzzword for "we don't have to pay for the fuel", but depending on the exact isotopes they are planning to use it may be more difficult. But note that solar energy also doesn't pay for fuel, but there is still a cost to build, maintain and keep working a solar energy generator, and also the cost to distribute the energy to the houses/factories. The energy generation sector is quite competitive, so expect the price to drop when there is enough fusion generator to replace more expensive sources. (And hopefully make carbon power plants too expensive so they have to be closed.)
the_third_wave 4y ago
Ah yes, Capitalism is the problem - again. The same evil nasty capitalism which provides the funds which are used to develop potential nuclear fusion power sources but I digress. It might interest you to know that even now during the "energy crisis" in Europe we (as in "my family here in Sweden") pay about twice as much in electricity-related taxes as we do for the actual power we use. Electricity itself can be remarkably cheap here but those taxes don't change (other than being increased because of inflation like the energy tax recently was) since they are levied per kWh. Add the "certificate charges" for "green energy" and a 25% sales tax on top of everything (including the mentioned taxes) and the situation quickly becomes clear - most of the money paid for electricity is pocketed by the state, not by the electricity producers. Even when the prices rise to hitherto unknown heights the lion share of the increase is due to the state levying charges - in this case "bottle neck charges" for electricity transferred from the hydro-electric plants in the middle and north of Sweden to the south. The actual tax burden on electricity lies between 60% and 70% depending on the current price at NordPool (the electricity market for the Nordic countries). Realise also that those 60% to 70% are paid from an income which has already been taxed at a rate of 50%-60% for most people. But.. Capitalism.

airstrike 4y ago

Assuming reasonable entry costs and stringent patent protection notwithstanding, a capitalist would argue that if fusion energy producers charge too much, a different producer would come along and offer it for cheaper

LatteLazy 4y ago

That really depends who owns the patents.

bilsbie 4y ago

The biggest risk is over regulation and putting up moats to new builds. The NRC has already decided they get to regulate it.

embwbam 4y ago

I read an interesting article saying that all wealth ultimately comes from an energy surplus. Nearly-free limitless energy might launch humanity into a new level of wealth. There was another article I read that any values outside of self-preservation, such as taking care of the earth, or the poor, are only possible during a surplus. Part of the reason that the right is afraid of committing to help the poor is because they don't think the economy could handle it. If the economy is at a new level, we might be able to agree on trying new things. It'll be time to let the robots do the work, at least until they rebel and get granted citizenship.

gus_massa 4y ago

After 20 years the patents expire and everyone can build a fusion plant and sell the energy at cost, so capitalism only delays it for everyone only 20 years. > It might cost almost nothing That's just a buzzword for "we don't have to pay for the fuel", but depending on the exact isotopes they are planning to use it may be more difficult. But note that solar energy also doesn't pay for fuel, but there is still a cost to build, maintain and keep working a solar energy generator, and also the cost to distribute the energy to the houses/factories. The energy generation sector is quite competitive, so expect the price to drop when there is enough fusion generator to replace more expensive sources. (And hopefully make carbon power plants too expensive so they have to be closed.)

the_third_wave 4y ago

Ah yes, Capitalism is the problem - again. The same evil nasty capitalism which provides the funds which are used to develop potential nuclear fusion power sources but I digress. It might interest you to know that even now during the "energy crisis" in Europe we (as in "my family here in Sweden") pay about twice as much in electricity-related taxes as we do for the actual power we use. Electricity itself can be remarkably cheap here but those taxes don't change (other than being increased because of inflation like the energy tax recently was) since they are levied per kWh. Add the "certificate charges" for "green energy" and a 25% sales tax on top of everything (including the mentioned taxes) and the situation quickly becomes clear - most of the money paid for electricity is pocketed by the state, not by the electricity producers. Even when the prices rise to hitherto unknown heights the lion share of the increase is due to the state levying charges - in this case "bottle neck charges" for electricity transferred from the hydro-electric plants in the middle and north of Sweden to the south. The actual tax burden on electricity lies between 60% and 70% depending on the current price at NordPool (the electricity market for the Nordic countries). Realise also that those 60% to 70% are paid from an income which has already been taxed at a rate of 50%-60% for most people. But.. Capitalism.