I wrote:
> Also -- as I pointed out -- the cold fusion motor would soon be cheaper, > as the technology matures. Two reasons: > > 1. No pollution control, gas tank, muffler, or catalytic converter needed. > > 2. Thermoelectric chips will be used across a much wider range of > applications . . . > Reason 3. No need to conserve fuel. That means: You can use cheaper, heavier materials across the board, for the chassis, doors, engines, generators and so on. There is no need to save weight. There is no need to make the body extremely aerodynamic. You can have a large front end fan, like a car from the 1960s, even though that increases wind resistance. You will probably need that for a condenser with a steam turbine. You do not need a high performance expensive air conditioner. You do not even need to the lightest and most powerful electric motor you can get. A heavier but cheaper model might be better. In other words, you can trade off energy efficiency for lower cost. The sticker price of cars has increased in part because they are more efficient. (Also because they are safer and they last longer -- the actual cost of ownership over time is lower, after inflation.) The cost of gasoline is bound to fall, so ordinary cars can also be made less efficient. I do not think gasoline hybrid cars will be made after cold fusion is introduced. The only gasoline models that will be sold will be the dirt-cheap, bottom-of-the-line models. The top end will be the first to go to cold fusion, followed by heavy vehicles that use a lot of gas. In the past, when radical new technology came it, it replaced high-end products first. Wealthy people were the first customers. Poor people still used horses and kerosene lighting long after most people drove cars and had electricity. Even in the 1950s there were elderly, poor farmers using horses on farms, because they were cheap. - Jed
