The QuarkX will produce electricity. Heat production will minimized and be a waste product. The QuarkX will be produced in a similar way as a ITEL processor chip. Most E-Cat reactors will be produced using robots.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> It will take only a few thousand people to implement. Most of them >> >will be researchers, who are seldom paid much money. Cold fusion will >> wipe >> >out an entire sector of the economy. Whether it will add new sectors >> >remains to be seen. >> >> Someone has to work in the factories that build the generators. This is >> especially true if the generators are home sized rather than GW plants. >> > > I am afraid that analysis is incorrect. Manufacturing a cold fusion > generator will not require more labor or materials than manufacturing > something like a gas fired conventional electric generator. Manufacturing a > cold fusion automobile engine will require less material and less labor > than an internal combustion engine, because you do not need pollution > controls and you can trade off Carnot efficiency for a simpler design. > > Assuming the total demand for generators and motors remains about the same > as it is now, the cost and labor of manufacturing these machines will be > about the same as it is now. The cost of supplying them with fuel will be > zero. It is the fuel production segment of the economy that will vanish. > > Of course you can say the same thing for wind and solar energy. The fuel > cost is zero. However, as it happens, these two technologies require > considerably more labor per unit of energy then fossil fuel or nuclear > power. The maintenance costs of wind turbines are also higher per > megawatt-hour than they are for things like coal and gas turbines. So > employment is not reduced. > > Employment may be somewhat reduced with utility scale solar energy > compared to conventional generation or wind. > > Maintenance costs for cold fusion devices will eventually be lower than > they are for any of today's energy sources. Again this is because you can > trade off Carnot efficiency for a low maintenance design. There is no use > for Carnot efficiency above 5% in a cold fusion device. (5% is roughly the > efficiency of automobiles in 1960.) Low efficiency just means you have lots > of waste heat going up the chimney. It costs nothing. > > - Jed > >
