The effect of free energy

[Zarathustra]

Postulation:

If suddenly, tomorrow for example, a brilliant scientist discovered a method for producing a completely or near completely clean, free energy source, for example, an efficient fusion reactor, or even something along the lines of a sort of "cold fusion" what would be a possible effect on the world economy?

Let us also add that whatever this new source would be like, it could also be miniaturized to at least the size available for something along the lines of public transport.

I assume that costs for production of consumer goods and food could go down as the justification for the overhead would be transparent in the sense that for another example, if a company produces Jeans, the assembly could be completely powered automatically for free, the cotton grown for use would be produced by similar automation, powered also for free, transport fuel costs would be eliminated, which would seem to only leave small labor costs and actual profit. Would the labor costs go up, or down, would this user in an era of Utopian plenty, or would this perchance lead to the our ultimate demise?

I am interested in hearing the thoughts of you all.

 

[Ziggurat]

It would be a fantastic boon.

The thing about automation is that the automation itself still costs money AND time to design and set up (and it still takes some labor to keep running). That cannot and will not happen overnight, especially for the global economy as a whole. So we wouldn't be faced with a situation of suddenly not needing labor anymore, even though there would be massive shifts in the labor market. Demand for unskilled labor would decrease over time, but demand for skilled labor would likely increase, as cheaper goods allowed people to spend more of their income on services. SOME industries would suffer, but the economy as a whole would greatly benefit - just like containerized shipping put lots of stevedores out of work, but contributed to a global boom.

A number of serious global problems revolve around access to fresh water, and many of those would also disappear with unlimited energy, which would make desalination dirt cheap. That's actually no small thing either.

 

[Zarathustra]

A number of serious global problems revolve around access to fresh water, and many of those would also disappear with unlimited energy, which would make desalination dirt cheap. That's actually no small thing either.

Why do you feel this would be the case? Why would there be such problems?

In my view, wouldn't a virtually limitless supply of cheap energy be instrumental in the creation of fresh water as well as other basics?

My feeling is that there would be also a revolution in robotics; Not necessarily smarter, but simply more of them, and more kinds of them. Would it not be also possible to eliminate by gradual phase out to a bare bones minimum manual labor at that point?

 

[Jimbo07]

A number of serious global problems revolve around access to fresh water, and many of those would also disappear with unlimited energy, which would make desalination dirt cheap. That's actually no small thing either.

Why do you feel this would be the case? Why would there be such problems?

In my view, wouldn't a virtually limitless supply of cheap energy be instrumental in the creation of fresh water as well as other basics?

Ummm... you're agreeing.

Zig essentially said that there are global problems surrounding fresh water, not there will be.

 

[Ziggurat]

My feeling is that there would be also a revolution in robotics; Not necessarily smarter, but simply more of them, and more kinds of them.

I would expect so, yes.

Would it not be also possible to eliminate by gradual phase out to a bare bones minimum manual labor at that point?

Human labor is a resource which will always be available. It will get used in accordance with its relative value. If the relative value of manual labor goes down because the cost of automation goes down, the use of manual labor will go down. But on the flip side, if you, as a worker, have nothing to offer of any greater value than your manual labor (ie, you've got no particular skill), you're still going to offer your manual labor on the market, and you'll probably find a buyer for it somewhere. So I would expect the use of manual labor to drop, but I doubt it will drop to what you would consider "bare bones minimum".

 

[Cuddles]

I am interested in hearing the thoughts of you all.

I'm not sure it would really make that much difference, in the short to medium to at least. Most people already act as though they have unlimited energy at their disposal, so actually having it wouldn't make any difference to them. Even though things are likely to change in the near future, at the moment and in the past coal and oil have been plentiful and cheap enough that power hasn't really been an issue for most things, it is other costs and considerations that are the problem.

For example, desalination plants have already been mentioned. But power is not the issue for these at all, it is simply that other ways of getting water are cheaper or easier, no matter where you get the power to run them from. It's the plant itself that is expensive, not the power source you plug it in to. Similarly, automated production is all very well but, again, power is not the main cost. It's certainly a cost, and cheaper power might reduce prices or allow automation in a few areas where it isn't currently cost effective, but in general, free power won't really make much difference.

One area where there would be a huge difference would be space travel. While engineering is a pretty big issue, the amount of energy needed to launch any significant mass is one of the biggest problems. If you could remove one of the biggest costs involved with launches, space travel would be revolutionised, and I think industry and tourism would really take off.

Of course, you also need to think of the problems involved. The problems caused by coal and oil were not thought about when they were first used. What kind of problems would the new energy source cause, and would we recognise them before they became too big? Obviously it's impossible to answer this without the energy source actually existing, but it's important to recognise that even if something like this could exist, it's unlikely to be the traditional sci-fi fluffy machine pumping out cute bunnies and rainbows.

One obvous problem would be global warming. But not in the sense we know it now. All energy we produce eventually ends up as heat. If we have an unlimited, free source of energy, we will use more energy. Being humans, we will use as much as we can. And it will all end up as heat. This is a point often rasied when people claim to have perpetual motion machines, but perpetual motion isn't required to cause problems - just remove the constraints on energy useage and let human nature take its course.

 

[Ziggurat]

For example, desalination plants have already been mentioned. But power is not the issue for these at all, it is simply that other ways of getting water are cheaper or easier, no matter where you get the power to run them from. It's the plant itself that is expensive, not the power source you plug it in to.

It's expensive to build an efficient desalination plant, which you need to do precisely because the energy cost to run them is not free. If you didn't care about efficiency, you could make the plant itself fairly cheaply. And free energy will drop the cost of everything, including the cosntruction costs of a plant.

Similarly, automated production is all very well but, again, power is not the main cost. It's certainly a cost, and cheaper power might reduce prices or allow automation in a few areas where it isn't currently cost effective, but in general, free power won't really make much difference.

Free power would drop the price of everything. Not only is it free to run the machinery, but the machinery itself would cost less, because it was cheaper to make the machinery (both to run the manufacturing of the machinery but also to extract the raw materials for its construction). Drop costs, and you increase investment. And that investment will include capital investment in automation. Human labor will still be available, so it's not like things will change overnight, but it would most definitely increase the pace of automation.

One area where there would be a huge difference would be space travel. While engineering is a pretty big issue, the amount of energy needed to launch any significant mass is one of the biggest problems. If you could remove one of the biggest costs involved with launches, space travel would be revolutionised, and I think industry and tourism would really take off.

Good point. Low-cost rocket fuel could indeed revolutionize space travel.

 

[steve s]

My feeling is that there would be also a revolution in robotics;

I don't see the link between limitless energy and robotics. I agree with Cuddles that it's not the price of electricity that is keeping factories from automating. It's the initial cost of the robots themselves.

As for transportation costs, trucks and trains would still probably rely on IC engines. Even with limitless energy, current battery technology doesn't lend itself to long-haul trucking. And the investment in infrastructure to electrify all the nation's rail lines would be enormous.

Steve S.

 

[Ziggurat]

As for transportation costs, trucks and trains would still probably rely on IC engines. Even with limitless energy, current battery technology doesn't lend itself to long-haul trucking.

Sure. But if you actually had limitless energy, you could manufacture gasoline or other hydrocarbon fuels. There's no point in doing it now because there's no sufficiently cheap source of energy to do that economically, but there's no fundamental obstacle to doing so.

 

[Vorpal]

There's also no reason why the transportation infrastructure can't change to accommodate the energy source more competitively, even if for some reason ordinary trucks lag behind. Electric freight trains would be an obvious potential alternative for the long-distance haul, for example.

 

[Ziggurat]

Electric freight trains would be an obvious potential alternative for the long-distance haul, for example.

Especially if you didn't worry about transmission losses for those long routes.

 

[Zarathustra]

I don't see the link between limitless energy and robotics. I agree with Cuddles that it's not the price of electricity that is keeping factories from automating. It's the initial cost of the robots themselves.

Here's the thought behind my statement:

I think Ziggurat summed it up fairy well here when he/she wrote:

"Free power would drop the price of everything. Not only is it free to run the machinery, but the machinery itself would cost less, because it was cheaper to make the machinery (both to run the manufacturing of the machinery but also to extract the raw materials for its construction). Drop costs, and you increase investment. And that investment will include capital investment in automation. Human labor will still be available, so it's not like things will change overnight, but it would most definitely increase the pace of automation."

Since I see Robotics as the tool to further free mankind from his toils, I assumed that there would be more expansion in this area.

But you are correct, that was indeed a jump in logic.
Thank you.

Additionally, Robots, especially autonomously mobile robots, tend to have the pervasive issue of contiguous power concerns, main of which being that if we want them to to anything impressive beyond dancing around a bit.

I was also envisioning a sort of a micro-version of a "Mr.Fusion" device that could allow complete liberty from a connected power source.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's another neat thing free energy would probably bring: cheap titanium. Titanium is very abundant, but it's expensive to refine because it's very energy-intensive (it binds very tightly to oxygen, for example). Remove energy costs from the equation, and it might become as prevalent as aluminum (which at one point was more expensive than gold). I want a titanium car.

 

[soylent]

Some anti-humanists, such as Paul Ehrlich, would be deeply worried:

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."

For those of us not similarily afflicted it would of course be incredibly useful.

 

[Delvo]

We could substantially modify weather.

We could use old garbage dumps as new sources of raw materials because we could separate and extract everything that's mixed together in there.

We could make new soil to balance erosion so there'd be no net loss.

 

[robinson]

Here's another neat thing free energy would probably bring: cheap titanium. Titanium is very abundant, but it's expensive to refine because it's very energy-intensive (it binds very tightly to oxygen, for example). Remove energy costs from the equation, and it might become as prevalent as aluminum (which at one point was more expensive than gold). I want a titanium car.

Me too.

 

[The Man]

Since I see Robotics as the tool to further free mankind from his toils, I assumed that there would be more expansion in this area.

But you are correct, that was indeed a jump in logic.
Thank you.

A good point, as currently there are a lot of things that robots simply can not do effectively. Like trouble shooting and repairing robots (which I currently do) or the more creative aspects of design (which I have done). Of course as, Ziggurat remarked, free power reduces a lot of constraints as well as cost, in particular some of those creative aspects of design. Cost, efficiency and basically just getting more bang for the buck or Kilowatt of power was the need requiring some creative approaches and applications in designing products (other then just the artistic aspects of design). Without those constraints a considerable amount of that creative potential can be redirected towards improving the limitations of robots and gaining that “jump in logic”

Additionally, Robots, especially autonomously mobile robots, tend to have the pervasive issue of contiguous power concerns, main of which being that if we want them to to anything impressive beyond dancing around a bit.

I was also envisioning a sort of a micro-version of a "Mr.Fusion" device that could allow complete liberty from a connected power source.

We currently use a non-contact inductive power system for a lot of our semi-autonomous track guided robots. Non-contact power is nothing new and there have been significant advances made (I’ll see if I can find some of the articles). Again with free power a lot of the disadvantages of non-contact power (like loss over distance) are removed, but others may arise (increased interference).