The Glade 4.0

Just wondering what people here think, so I made a poll. This does not count inflation.

It'd most certainly take time, but there would eventually be a reduction in the cost of electricity compared against the rest of expenses.

Initially, Lockheed Martin needs to make up their R&D costs and turn a profit at the same time, so they wouldn't price these things significantly different than current energy production.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Depends on how they make the energy cheap. If it is a small unit for every household, after the initial cost of the unit it should be fairly cheap. If it is macro sized, the energy suppliers will try to pay off their current overhead before prices go down substantially. The monopoly factor of owning the power lines makes a huge difference in scenario and outcome.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

A reduction in cost for the consumer would be nice, but not dramatic. It's also not where the biggest differences to societal direction would come from.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

It depends on what you mean. On a per-watt basis, I would expect it to stay the same for quite awhile and then eventually start to decline. So I went with the third option.

But if you just strictly mean the overall size of the bill, I suspect it will more or less stay the same over the long run. There may be a bit of a dip some years/decades out as the development and initial overhead of deployment are covered, but getting cheaper power is a lot like getting a larger hard drive. If you build it, they will come.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Also, the government will step in to keep prices about the same, and use any savings on to subsidize the poor, etc.

Tracked against inflation, it may eventually dip a bit.

Option 3, followed by creatures from the 12th dimension invading our plane and taking over all governments.

_________________

I, for one, welcome our new 12th dimension overlords.

_________________

Won't change. The way energy commodities are traded would prevent much change. Usually the market dominates, but simply wouldn't make much of a difference.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

*IF* small reactor design and localize power production for markets by decentralizing generation, essentially reducing or eliminating the demand forecasting, load dispatching and distribution functions currently performed by electric companies, then the nature of pricing changes considerably.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

The smoothed prices value isn't a very good representation.

I don't think you understand how monopolies work. No rational CEO is going to willingly decrease their revenue just because their costs are lower. Instead, the power companies will probably use this as an excuse to hire more employees and expand the business, stockpile cash, or return more dividends to shareholders.

They don't have a monopoly. Their fusion reactor will have to come in and compete with current power generation. If it's too costly, it won't be used. Ideally they'll undercut all current power generation.

Also, i doubt Lockheed Martin wants to get into the utilities business. They'll be selling these reactors to existing utility companies.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

You didn't comprehend what was written. Power companies won't exist in the same nature they do now because tramission of power will be completely different since small reactor design means that power could be decentralized.

The reason there is a quasi-monopoly now is because power generation is centralized and distributed by semi-public companies, joining the ranks of which, means clearing nearly insurmountable regulatory hurdles. Small reactor design implies the beginning of the end of decentralized power distribution and therefore, the end of the competitive advantage held by the monopoly.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

More news on this topic...

http://www.washington.edu/news/blog/fus ... versation/