<mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> They will not require more materials than, say, the turbine, > >fuel tank, fuel regulator and ignition system in today's gas fired > >generator. They will not be more expensive. > > True, but where today such generators are a "minor" item, CF generators > will be > manufactured in their billions ( 7 billion people / 2.7 people per > household = > 3.6 billion generators.) > Ah, this starts to get involved. I am writing a paper about this very subject. Yes, the number of generators will be larger because they are small and inefficient, but the total mass of materials will not be much larger than today's centralized system. That is, when you account for the materials used in the distribution network such as wires, transformers, polls and so on. That is not to suggest the entire infrastructure will disappear overnight. But it will be reduced in mass gradually as small generators become more common. I doubt there will be much need for long distance high voltage power lines, for example. Because the small generators are likely to be less efficient than today's central generators, they will take a larger mass of materials such as steel and copper. But these materials are not expensive or rare, so the overall cost of materials for 3.6 billion generators will not be much more than today's "fleet" of large generators and wind turbines. The small generators will displace other machines, especially space heaters, because they will be used as co-generators in cold climates. This is like using an iPhone as a camera, reducing the demand for cameras. Finally, there are TREMENDOUS savings from the mass production of small machines. Even when they use more metals and other materials per kilowatt, the final cost of the cost per kilowatt of capacity is more than a hundred times lower. In the paper I am writing I include some stats I uploaded here, comparing two kinds of heat engines: . . . the advanced, combined cycle aeroderivative gas generator. It costs $2,095 per kilowatt. . . . a Chevrolet engine, 195 hp (145 kW), which you can buy for $1,460, quantity one, with free shipping. That comes to $10 per kilowatt. It is 200 times cheaper than the gas generator. Granted, you have to add a generator to the latter, but you have to add an entire distribution infrastructure to the former! I assume a 145 kW cold fusion heat engine will eventually cost ~1,500, when the technology matures and millions are manufactured every year. There is no reason to think it will be more expensive than an internal combustion engine. See also: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg106697.html > >Actually, people do not make iPhones. Robots do. > > > http://www.cnet.com/au/news/low-wages-and-long-hours-still-persist-at-iphone-factory-claims-labor-group/ > > When did robots start being paid wages? > Oh come now. Of course it takes some people to make iPhones, but many fewer than it took to make landline phones per telephone. The number of people with telephones in the world has vastly increased. Also, the Chinese plan to replace millions of workers with robots, soon, including the workers who make cell phones. See; "A Chinese company is replacing 90% of its workers with robots" The South China Morning Post reported today that Shenzhen Evenwin Precision Technology Co., a manufacturing company that makes cell phone parts and other electronics, is planning to replace roughly 90 percent of its 1,800-person workforce with machines, leaving roughly 1,600 people out of work. The company, whose chairman became a billionaire in March, is planning to spend $322 million on a new factory in Dongguan that will use “only robots for production,” according to the outlet, with a small human staff of 200 to keep tabs on the machines. http://fusion.net/story/130549/a-chinese-company-is-replacing-90-percent-of-its-workers-with-robots/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/544201/china-wants-to-replace-millions-of-workers-with-robots/ By some estimates there are more unemployed people in China than there are people with jobs in the U.S. Modern technology is not generating enough jobs for the educated population of the world. The whole point of most modern technology is to eliminate people! That has always been one of the goals of mass production technology, but now it is even more the focus than ever, because materials, energy, distribution and other costs have fallen so much in the last 100 years, human labor is the last remaining major manufacturing cost left to reduce. >Overall, the labor, materials and the physical volume of iPhones are much > >smaller than the machines they replaced, and that would be true even if we > >did not have robots. > True, and a good thing too. That's why our standard of living goes up. > Until human labor becomes worthless, the whole basis of economics (both capitalist and communist) vanish, and the whole edifice comes crashing down. Then we need to start over with a new kind of economic system. - Jed
