the Real Cost of Energy for Japan

[DATsunONE]

When comparing the cost of emerging energy production technologies, against that of China’s current cost of energy production, it is important to factor in the cost of development and licensing. In addition, to charging a tidy profit, a licensor of an emerging technology, will spread the cost of development over the next 20 years, the time in which their technological innovation is protected by patent law. Profit wise, generally, the larger the developer the greater the cost for licensing.

Take for example, Lockheed Martin’s promised compact fusion reactor. They claim they’ve been diligently and feverishly working on it (compact fusion) since the 60's, which means they expect to be reimbursed for a lot of money. They claim that, they will have practical units available for sale in 10 years, which means they expect to be reimbursed for a lot more money, when they do offer such units for sale. Of course, Lockheed Martin will patent each such unit. Since they are one of the largest developers around, they will charge the most for their licenses, even if they do offer licenses for that technology; which, they don’t have to do. They could just partner up with another large corporation to manufacture them.

For Japan, that means buying compact fusion reactors from Lockheed Martin at well over twice the actual cost of manufacturing them. Even if Lockheed Martin’s compact fusion reactors produced energy, equal to or below that of what China produces, cost wise, 10 years from now, Japan would still be paying, at least, twice as much for the same energy for 20 years, after that. China has no intention of paying Lockheed Martin a license fee for the use of their technology.

Unless Japan can develop and patent it’s own practical compact fusion reactors, before Lockheed Martin does, or Lockheed Martin literally gives (open sources) that technology away to Japan, that form of compact fusion could not possibly solve Japan’s energy dilemma for, at least, 30 years. U.S. charity to Japan ended many years ago; and, Japan does not have the luxury of waiting 30 years, before it can compete with China. Japan has not developed compact fusion reactors; and, as such, could not be first in time to patent such practical reactors.

It is truly bizarre how one can come away from (misinterpret) these strategic business comparative cost analyzes with the conclusion that Japan has no hope of competing economically with China, in time to prevent it’s demise (total economic collapse). Certainly, advocates of each of the technologies that I have and am shooting down are expected to tell you that; there is no hope for Japan unless Japan buys their technology from them. Japan should put them to the task and make them do the calcs. They won’t do that because they know their technologies don’t pencil. If they were honorable, they would have submitted those calculations to Japan before they offered their technologies to Japan for sale.

Yes; there are prospective solutions to Japan’s energy dilemma. It would be dishonorable to offer any solution to Japan, however, absent providing cost comparison calculations for with it. Before any cost comparative calculations for any new prospective solution can be offered, though; it is necessary (a prerequisite) to provide those calculations for all other currently offered solutions, for review. It is only honorable to present those critiques to the advocates of those currently offered solutions, to allow for rebuttal.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

What I am saying, apparently, does not translate well into Japanese.

I will try to simplify it.

To illustrate:

China manufactures a small toy (like a building block) for 40 yen and sells that toy for 80 yen. China makes a profit, from the sale of that toy, of 40 yen; a 100% profit.

Japan, when it used only foreign oil, natural gas, and coal, for energy, it manufactured that same small toy for 200 yen and sold that toy for 80 yen, to compete. Japan lost, from the sale of that toy, 120 yen; at a 150% loss.

Japan, when it used foreign oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power, for energy, it manufactured that same small toy for 140 yen and sold that toy for 80 yen, to compete. Japan lost, from the sale of that toy, 60 yen; at a 75% loss.

Japan proposes to use foreign oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear power, wind generation, solar cells collection, and tidal and wave generation, for energy, to manufacture that same small toy for 80 yen and intends to sell that toy for 80 yen, to compete. Japan will not lose anything, from the sale of that toy. Nor, will it profit anything, either, 0 yen; at a 0% loss/profit.

Japan cannot just break even and expect to be able to compete in business with China.

Even if Japan is willing to risk installing solar panels (PV) on existing buildings, PV cost too much; compared to what China pays to generate electricity.

China’s projected energy consumption, for year 2040 is: coal 52%; hydroelectric 18%; wind 12%; nuclear 7%; and natural gas 5%. Coal will continue to be China’s primary source of producing energy, by far.

For Japan, nuclear power, tidal power, wave power, and wind power, all cost more than PV. For Japan, nuclear power and wind power will cost more than what China will pay for the same source of energy.

If Japan uses, or continues to use, any of the means of generating energy that it plans to utilize, (solar, wind, tidal, wave, nuclear fission, or nuclear fusion), Japan will not be able to compete in business with China. This is because Japan cannot power its commercial ships or power it’s overseas mining and farming operations with any of these means of producing energy; whereas, China does not need to. In addition, coastal land is at a premium for Japan; whereas, it is not for China.

I am not guessing at this conclusion. I did the mathematics. I calculated the cost of energy for China and compared the results of my calculations with the cost of energy for Japan. I calculated these costs for each and every proposed method of generation of energy that Japan proposes to use.

If Japan calculates the cost of energy for China and compares those calculations with the cost of generating energy for Japan, it will come to the same conclusion.

Utilizing solar, wind, tidal, wave, or nuclear, for generating energy, will allow Japan to stop buying oil, natural gas, and coal; in country only. However, it will not allow Japan to compete with China.

Competing with China is the goal. It is not to just stop buying oil, natural gas, and coal; for in country applications only. Doing that alone is not good enough to compete with China. To achieve the goal, Japan has to be able to generate energy at the same or less cost as does China; no matter where Japan requires that energy; including, on the oceans and in other countries.

Utilizing solar, wind, tidal, wave, or nuclear, for generating energy, will not allow Japan to attain the goal because these means of generating energy cost much more than what China pays to generate it’s energy.

Japan will not look for another solution to it’s energy problem if it continues to believe that generating energy by solar, wind, tidal, wave, or nuclear, means will solve that problem. None of these methods of producing energy will solve Japan’s energy problem. Japan is being mislead into believing otherwise; that, these means of generating energy will solve it’s energy problem when, in fact, they could not.

Until Japan admits that it has been mislead into believing that these methods of producing energy will solve Japan’s energy problem when, in fact, none of them will, (not one alone or all of them together), there is no reason to offer any other alternative solution to Japan’s energy problem.

Until Japan performs their own unbiased calculations (or checks my calculations) comparing the cost of energy of it’s proposed means of generating energy with those of China’s means of generating energy, it will not be able to make that admission.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

In the United States, there is a new cadre (type) of thief; copper thieves. They steal copper and sell it for around three dollars (340 yen/lb.) a pound. It has become popular, among thieves, in the United States, to steal copper because, unlike most other things stolen, copper is not usually guarded, well.

The boldest of copper thieves, in the United States, specialize in stealing electricity transformer substation components, rich in copper. They jump the substation chain link fence, disassemble the components, and throw a few hundred pounds of those components over the fence, and load them up in their pickup truck; all in under 10 minutes.

Disassembling a substation causes an outage. This is one of the main reasons why power outages cost as much as an additional 45% to generate electricity in the United States; copper theft.

Copper thieves are willing to steal substation components for a few hundred dollars; $600 (68070 yen) for 200 pounds of copper.

Lockheed Martin says they will have a practical compact fusion reactor, for military purposes, in 10 years. That means that they won’t have one for commercial applications (at a reasonable cost) for 20 years.

No one is saying exactly how much Lockheed Martin is going to charge for it’s 100 megawatt compact fusion reactor in 10 years or even 20 years. Some commentators estimate that the first such reactors will cost $50 million (56.8 oku yen). Giving Lockheed Martin the benefit of the doubt, a 100 megawatt compact fusion reactor will cost as much as $5 million (5.68 oku yen) and as little as $1 million (1.14 oku yen). That does not include the cost of security, though.

If a 100 megawatt compact fusion reactor, weighing a few hundred pounds and not more than a couple of meters in diameter, is not secured, two men could easily jump the fence and steal one, in under 10 minutes. Instead of walking away with just a few hundred dollars (68070 yen), though, they would be walking away with a cool million dollars (1.14 oku yen), instead. In other words, if compact fusion reactors are not secured, they will most certainly be stolen.

The cost of securing a 100 megawatt compact fusion reactor then becomes the real question of what one will actually cost. Since a 100 megawatt compact fusion reactor can be loaded onto a pickup truck and operate a 100 megawatt laser canon, which can also be loaded onto that same pickup truck, the highest level of security must be employed to secure them. If you thought that a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on a pickup truck gives a small highly mobile army a distinctive military advantage, you cannot even imagine what military advantage a 100 megawatt laser canon will provide. A one megawatt laser canon can take out most opposition armament and aircraft, more than a mile away, in a single 5 second burst. Multiple 5 second bursts, from a 100 megawatt laser canon, can disintegrate almost anything; including, tanks, large numbers of troops, and bank vault walls. The cost of securing a 100 megawatt compact fusion reactor would be astronomical. They would be so highly sought after, for military purposes, that even a highly skilled, heavily armed, with advanced weaponry, army and air force couldn’t possibly prevent their theft.

Dan

 

[Nekota]

There are so many holes and inaccuracies in your facts that they can only be taken as opinions. For example German products in Walmart -- Siemens makes circuit breakers and Walmart sells them. I am sure there are many other products and I will buy a Siemens circuit breaker without hesitation but one made in PRC?

Small nuclear power plant fuel can be used for weapons - what are you claiming here? Small vs large and what is the material you imply that can be used as a nuclear weapon?

And about good engineers and bad engineers related to the tsunami in Japan. First you claim the plant did not with stand the earthquake nor tsunami when the plants all survived and shutdown from the quake. However the seawall was not tall enough to resist the tsunami and the seawater stopped the diesel generators that were supplying backup power for the plant's safety systems. Another plant which was even closer to the epicenter survived both the quake and the tsunami. Also the Japanese have developed uranium extraction from sea water which would enable many centuries of energy generation. Now was it an engineer that built the seawall too low or a government bureaucrat? (Hint - Yanosuke Hirai and Onagawa Power Station) vs the B schooled "Regulatory capture" at Fukushima . So it's not so much about good vs bad engineers as the true value of sound engineering and that's not taught in B schools.

I value the principle of energy to transform materials into products and add value to them in the process. Germany does this very well and so has Japan. But Germany's economy is not doing well which some say is due to the expensive energy sources it is entertaining. Deming as an American engineer was invited to Japan to teach the principles of statistical process control to the Japanese and their success is built on many of those practices. Now for the PRC, which have had coal and resources long before today, what's changed? Where is the innovation and creativity and engineering prowess in PRC? How much longer do we wait or is it a matter of stealing the IP and just making the parts the method that PRC pursues? True the current labor and pricing structure greatly favors labor and manufacturing costs but that is because of a depression in the economic levels in PRC which is correcting itself. In fact most of the times when I pick up something and it says made in China - I look for another source for I have seen what the PRC culture does to Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam.

I avoid PRC investments for the same reasons and the recent stock retraction was much to do with PRC backpedaling. I'm not sure freedom nor abundant energy will free the PRC since the Asian concept of command and control wreaks havoc with the creative process. These are not facts, they are however my opinions and should be taken as such.

 

[DATsunONE]

Yes, you are correct; these are posts on a public forum thread. As such, they should only be taken as opinion; nothing more. I have no idea how you could possibly have come away thinking otherwise; that, they were more than just someone’s opinion. No foundation of expertise was given. So, it cannot even be taken as expert opinion. Nor, were academic credentials or academic references provided or cited. It wouldn’t even pass as hearsay.

You found a German product for sale in a United States Walmart. Cool! I haven’t found many. I don’t buy circuit breakers though; but, cool, anyway. When I compare prices, like most people do, I usually buy the cheaper one; which, the German products do not appear to be.
There are no small (compact) nuclear fission power plants for sale on the open market; small enough to put inside and run a home or an automobile. That’s a fact. Show me one that is small enough and, I will show you why it is not for sale on the open market.

Yes; that’s correct, the seawall wasn’t built to be tall enough at the Fuskushima I Power Plant, even though the Japanese authorities were forewarned against it. That was my point. I believe I discussed the hydrology report which said that the seawall wasn’t tall enough; and, the failure of management to adhere to that report. The good engineer was the one that said the wall wasn’t tall enough; and, the bad engineers were the many that said the wall was tall enough. Essentially, management weighed their engineers’ opinions (instead of looking at the calculations) and decided, wrongly, to save a little money, and not to build that seawall tall enough. That’s the lesson. Japanese management needs to do the comparative energy cost calculations themselves and stop making decisions based upon the weight of advocates advocacy, for each particular alternative means of producing energy.

Yes; uranium can be extracted from seawater. The way the Japanese want to do it, though, is costlier to make fuel that way. Burning coal to produce electricity would still be a lot cheaper of a means of producing electricity than nuclear fission is; even if Japan learned how to extract uranium from seawater profitably. You do not, and will not, see nuclear fission driven commercial ships, tractors (hauling 18 wheel trailers), heavy mobile equipment, or jets. And; in the one area they do compete in, centralized production of electricity, they (nuclear fission power plants) are deplorable, comparatively speaking. Like all of the other proponents of today’s gambit of alternative energy sources, you continue to fail to perform even the simplest of cost comparative analyses. Nuclear power plants aren’t designed to last more than 40 to 50 years. In the old days, before all the failures, you could get away with exceeding design limitations; but, no longer! Today, you can’t even get away with coming close to design limitations. Worse, you keep on conveniently forgetting to calculate the costs of fuel, outages, clean ups, dumping, maintenance, security, transmission, and replacement.
You asked; what changed in the People’s Republic of China (PRC)? Before 1986, the PRC did not believe in or engage in business. The vast majority of the Central Committee of the PRC, in 1985, believed that engaging in business would be in stark contrast (diametrically opposed) to the precepts of communism. More profoundly, the PRC did not believe that, if they did engage in business, that it would be successful at it. Wouldn’t you have liked to be a fly on that wall when my Business Strategy professor convinced the PRC’s Minister of Finance otherwise. I was.
The Minister of Finance of the PRC asked my Business Strategy professor those very same questions, in 1985. He was particularly concerned about the United States’ and Japan’s ability to create and innovate faster, at the time. This was discussed, at length.

It’s funny how you see the PRC as being generally backward, technologically, and yet still having the technologically superior ability to steal technology from, supposedly, more advanced economies like Japan, Germany and, the United States, on an ongoing basis and with impunity. If Japan or the United States were so much more technologically advanced than the PRC then, why can’t they stop the PRC from stealing their technology?

Stealing innovation and creativity is something the PRC did not invent. The United States mastered that way back when. In the U.S., it is impossible for a small inventor to fend off a law suit (defend their patent); frivolous or not. Only large corporations can do that and they don’t hand out reasonable royalties to their subjects (their employees).
Generally, if you can produce (manufacture) the same product for less, you can sell more of them and make more profit, on each sale, than a competitor can. Most products are not subject to continual innovation; meaning, the difference between successive innovations is not so dramatic as to compel most buyers to buy the more expensive, newer, product. Thus, in business, competition is primarily cost leadership based; and, not product differentiation based.

Of the few products that are subject to continual innovation, there are many different alternative competitive strategies to employ, other than innovating better or faster; stealing technology, being but just one of them. My guess is that the PRC will employ other such strategies; other than stealing technology, that is. As long as stealing technology is so easy for the PRC, though; and, no one is sanctioning them for it, in any way, the PRC is going to continue to steal what they can. If you can’t secure your laboratories then, you shouldn’t be innovating in the first place. In the PRC’s view, if you refuse to secure your laboratories then, you waived your right to claim theft when your stuff gets stolen.
No body that I know, in the United States, boycotts Walmart for selling PRC products. Nor, does anybody that I know refrain from buying PRC products, anywhere they are sold. I imagine that Walmart would close, were that the case. They’re still open, as far as I can tell.
Unlike in the United States, if you’re a PRC citizen, and you invent something worth while, you will be handsomely rewarded. Everyone in the PRC knows this; just like everyone in the United States knows that if you invent something worth while, in the U.S., a big U.S. corporation will steal it from you. This was also a lesson taught to the PRC by my Business Strategy professor. PRC citizens retire at age 50, at full pay, and are provided additional facility for innovation, if warranted. Thus, almost every PRC citizen has both, time and funding, to innovate; whereas, hardly anybody does in the United States, ever. In addition, every PRC citizen is permitted to graduate from college and has full free access to all relevant scientific facilities, databases, and texts; whereas, hardly anybody does in the United States, ever.

I completely missed that economic depression you mentioned that had occurred, or is still occurring, in the PRC, all during it’s economic rise over the past 29 years. I clearly remember being out of work in 1992 for years and again, in 2007 for years, in the United States; during the, so called, recessions. Regardless, of whether you succumb to U.S. propaganda, which apparently you are fond of doing, the PRC will not relinquish their economic advantage by vastly increasing amenities and such throughout it’s population. Nor, will the people of the PRC violently revolt to acquire those things; mostly, because they believe they have it better off than we (the majority) do in the United States. You are correct in that, the PRC’s Central Committee will continue to pass on more of it’s profits to it’s people, gradually, over time.

You keep evading the issue. I keep telling you that Japan’s current and proposed means of producing energy couldn’t possibly allow it to compete economically with the PRC. Instead of comparing costs, you keep saying that, at some undisclosed far off point in the future, the PRC will have to pay more than it does today for energy because it will have to improve the livelihood of it’s people. The PRC doesn’t have to improve the livelihood of it’s people to keep up with the U.S.; i.e., how the U.S. treats it’s people. The PRC has already past the U.S., in that regard. Never-the-less, the PRC will continue to substantially improve the livelihood of it’s people; so much so, that China will become the preferred location for foreigners. And; in doing that, substantially improving the livelihood of it’s people, the PRC will not significantly increase the cost of production of goods for export, to the extent that Japan can compete with it.
The inverse is also not true. Japan does not have to diminish the amenities and services it affords it’s people to compete against the PRC, either. Japan has to learn how to compete but, it will not be able to do that if it continues to fail to perform thorough and complete cost comparative analyses, when evaluating prospective alternative energy sources. As long as Japan remains under the illusion that any of it’s current or proposed alternative means of producing energy will permit it to compete against the PRC, it has no chance of doing so.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

Japan is into fusion; not cold, not compact but, fusion never-the-less. They have the largest superconducting stellarator in Toki Gifu, of their own design. It’s not online, though. This may be because it is not very reliable or it may be because it is too costly, in comparison to nuclear fission power plants. Japan uses it for research towards the design of helical plasma reactors. To date, Japan does not have any fusion reactors online, what to speak of cost competitive ones, that are installed in a commercial ship, a commercial tractor (for 18 wheel trailer), heavy mobile equipment, or a commercial jet.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

Several cold fusion devices have been introduced, as of recent. Verification by the propagandists (the Oil Companies) has been lagging, to say the least. E-Cat is, alleged, to have developed a 50 megawatt model, ready for production. Regardless of the reality of such devices, they ain’t cold. They run at 1400C. That’s too hot to be placed inside of a home or an automobile. They are steam engines; and, as such, suffer all of the frequent wear and tear, typical of steam engines. Some say they are finicky; meaning they can’t be moved around. So; they might not be able to be installed in a commercial ship, a commercial tractor (for 18 wheel trailer), heavy mobile equipment, or a commercial jet; meaning they won’t be able to replace oil and natural gas. If they are that finicky then, they can’t be installed on a truck, complete with 50 megawatt laser canon. I suspect that they aren’t so finicky, though; and, as such, can be used to charge a 50 megawatt mobile laser canon. In that event, they suffer the same fate as compact fusion reactors; the cost of securing them would be astronomical.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

Nobody, commenting on this thread, has presented any evidence countering my contention that, Japan cannot compete economically against the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) because it pays too much for energy. Nor, has anyone presented any evidence countering my contention that, all of Japan’s proposed alternative means of producing energy could not possibly relieve Japan from this dire circumstance.

Sure, a lot of off topic, weird ideas, (like the magical “S” curve), were presented but, no comparative cost analyses for any proposed alternative means of producing energy, relevant facts, were given. Nothing is contributed to this thread my making an unsupported claim that the PRC will do something it hasn’t done, nor plans to do. Nothing is contributed to this thread by making an unsupported claim that the people in the PRC are going to violently overthrow their government. Laying down in the streets of one tiny corner of the PRC, Hong Kong, does not a violent revolution make!

It never ceases to amaze me just how many other sciences the engineers and physicists, commenting on this thread, claim to be experts in, just because they are engineers and physicists. They think you can learn business strategy, or any other science, by osmosis; without even cracking a book on the subject. Wow! Talk about delusional. I actually had to go to college for many years to study business science. In addition, I actually read the academic text books and journals on the subjects I discuss here.

These are simple cost comparative analyses between the varied energy production means currently employed, and those proposed to be employed, by the PRC and Japan. At least, in business strategy, we know how to stay on point. Unlike those engineers and physicists, who have commented on this thread, business strategists also know that they have to support their points. For example; it is not enough to just say that solar power is an acceptable (competitive) alternative means of producing energy. In law, we move to strike such comments as being conclusory. Yea; I went to law school and practiced law, too. Stating a conclusion does not make it so. Nor, does it support a point. Even if you could install them on roofs in Japan and the people wanted to give up their roofs for that purpose, and you most certainly cannot and they most certainly will not, solar cell arrays are still so much more expensive than their comparative counterpart in the PRC, that they fail, miserably, as an acceptable (competitive) alternative means of producing energy.

In the absence of any credible opposition to my contentions, as stated above, I will move on.
Before I move on to parameters, though; I still need to discuss another reason why Japan should stop listening to Oil Company propagandists. Parameters define the range of what would work. With those design parameters, Japan can focus it’s research and development efforts. Oil Company propagandists are those who advocate alternative energy means of producing energy that do not, nor every could, allow Japan to compete economically against the PRC.

Dan

 

[Nekota]

Quote : Nobody, commenting on this thread, has presented any evidence countering my contention that, Japan cannot compete economically against the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) because it pays too much for energy. Nor, has anyone presented any evidence countering my contention that, all of Japan’s proposed alternative means of producing energy could not possibly relieve Japan from this dire circumstance.

.... As pointed out before you agree these are opinions and not factual, now you try to slip in that the silence to your opinions is evidence is consent and in another week become facts? In some cultures, silence is the strongest form of censorship.

Energy is important in adding value to products, no doubt there.

 

[DATsunONE]

Many engineers and physicists tend to think that, because they are an expert in one aspect of engineering, they are an expert on the law. This is far from true. The law is a difficult field to comprehend; one that takes many years of study and practice to master.

Engineering and physics do not operate outside the law. The law is not an impediment to engineering and physics. On the contrary, it is there to make it better and more cost effective.

The charge (the informal complaint) I have made, here, is against advocates of alternative means of producing energy, proposing such means to Japan, without providing cost comparative analyses; i.e., without performing their lawful duty to disclose. The charged offenses are; unconscionable business practices, false advertising, and constructive deceit.

Complaints need not be filed in a court of law to have veracity and force. Most complaints are resolved, out of court.

Evidence and prove ups are not required, on complaint; only allegations. My opinions are allegations; and, allegations (on complaint) are presumed true until proven otherwise. My allegations, here, suffice as a lawful and complete complaint, in any and all courts of law.

Any business that represents (offers for sale) that they have an alternative means of producing energy to Japan has a concomitant duty to disclose the cost comparative analyses thereof. It is not my (the complainant’s) obligation to perform that duty. That is not a prerequisite of my complaint. All I need do is point out, allege, that they failed to perform their lawful duty to disclose those things. It is absurd to require me to do their job (disclose or prepare the cost comparative analysis of their proposed alternative means of producing energy to Japan); or, to insist that it is a prerequisite of a my complaint against them for failure to disclose or prepare those things. In law, objecting to my complaint on such grounds is tantamount to an admission of guilt.

It is not an affirmative defense to my complaint that something is expected to happen in the future which will render all means of alternative sources of producing energy cost competitive in the future for Japan; when, in fact, they are not today. What might happen in the future (speculation) is not acceptable (must be stricken) as evidence. In other words, that magical “S” curve for the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), as far as the law is concerned, is just that; magic.

To succeed on my complaint, I do not have to show (prove up) that their products do not compare, cost wise, with that of the PRC. I merely have to allege that they don’t; i.e., that, they failed to disclose those things. To overcome the charges I have brought, the burden is on the advocates of those products to affirmatively (in affirmative defense) prove that their products are indeed cost competitive with that of the PRC’s.

Failure to respond to my complaint (silence) is tantamount to a default, in law. Censorship is only relevant when there is no right to complain. My right to complain stems from their advocacy of products, in the open market, for sale to Japan. When someone offers a product for sale, on the open market, and represents that it is better than any other similar product, designed to do the same thing, that person gives me the right to file a complaint against them, in law. That is the prerequisite of entering the open market; that, the sellers subject themselves to lawful complaint. If a person wants to avoid complaints, they shouldn't offer garbage for sale to Japan! In other words, the moment anybody advocates an alternative means of producing energy to Japan, they agreed that, should a complaint be filed against them, and they fail to respond to it, that they will be found guilty in default; i.e., held legally responsible and liable for their deceptions and false advertising.

Because advertisers are unfamiliar with the law, it is understandable that some might have missed the point. The burden is on them to provide the evidence to overcome my complaint; my allegations (my opinion) of unconscionable business practices, false advertising, and constructive deceit. The burden is on them to show that the alternative means of producing energy, that they advocate Japan should use, are cost competitive with that employed, and proposed to be employed, by the PRC. Because they refuse to defend their advocacy, they lose by default. Because they lose by default, I get to say they are acting deceptively and that they are falsely advertising; that, they constructively deceived Japan into investing in alternative means of producing energy that are not, nor ever could, permit Japan to be competitive economically with the PRC.

Not to be concerned; Japan will not come after them seeking reimbursement for their deceptions and false promotions. That’s not Japan's style. I expect Japan to learn from this mistake and to look at all proposed alternative means of producing energy, with a discerning eye; by requiring cost comparative analyses and by closely examining those reports.

Let me put this in laymen’s terms. I get to say, as often as I want, that any alternative means of producing energy, being proposed today for Japan, are garbage because the advocates of them failed to prove that they, in fact, a viable alternative! I am allowed, by law, to continue to say that all alternative means of producing energy, being proposed today for Japan, are garbage until someone proves me wrong. To date, no one has proven me wrong. Because no one has proven me wrong, that gives more credence to my complaint.

I have never known the Japanese not to listen to a good argument; especially, when it comes to business. My argument is easy to understand. It is well supported. It is complete; has all the allegations required. It is important for Japan. It is timely. Most importantly, it makes sense. I see no reason why the Japanese wouldn't be listening to it.

Dan

 

[minispeed]

Nobody, commenting on this thread, has presented any evidence countering my contention....

I haven't seen anything coming from you that would pass as evidence, just a lot of opinions.

You Sir have the ramblings of a mad man. If you want to save Japan get on a plane.

 

[DATsunONE]

Opinion testimony is fact and evidence. My opinion is a fact and is evidence. You are questioning the weight of my opinion; the weight of that evidence.

I am testifying that, to my knowledge, after thorough investigation by me, an experienced and recognized researcher of such business reports, no one has prepared any cost comparative analyses comparing the cost of energy production sources between China and Japan. My opinion gains more veracity (weight) in the absence of anyone coming forward with such analyses and from inquiring for such reports publically (on forum).

An allegation, correctly framed on complaint, as mine are, is presumed a fact and evidentiary, until proven otherwise. I am alleging that it is deceptive to fail to provide a comparative cost analysis of a proposed alternative energy production means, when proposing that means to Japan, and representing it as being a viable alternative. No one has argued that this allegation is untrue. Thus, my allegation is true; and, therefore, a proven evidentiary fact, by virtue of the absence of any opposition to that allegation (by default).

It is a fact, not just my opinion alone any longer, that there are no cost comparative analyses for any of the alternative means of producing energy, either being implemented or proposed to be implemented, in Japan. You haven’t cited any because there are none. This is disturbing, to say the least. Doing that, implementing a means of producing energy, without performing a cost comparative analysis of that means, before implementing it, goes against every business principle there is.

If one represents any alternative means of producing energy, as being a viable alternative, the onus (burden of proof; the duty) is on that person to produce acceptable evidence (a cost comparative analysis) to prove that it is comparatively competitive, economically; that, it is, in fact, a viable alternative.


Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

A research team out of Kobe University recently determined, scientifically, that there is a one percent (1%) probability of a large volcanic eruption bringing catastrophic damage to Japan anytime within the next 100 years. Toshitsugu Fujii, the head of the government’s Coordinating Committee for Prediction of Volcanic Eruptions, urged the government to start discussing measures to prepare for a large-scale eruption, saying that one could take place in Japan at any moment.

This is the primary reason I am proposing the decentralization of energy production in Japan. The centralized production of energy, both the plants and the infrastructure to distribute that energy, are too vulnerable to such catastrophic events.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

I went, INFORMALLY, to three countries to sell our permanent magnet motor (PMM); the United States, Japan and, China; and, in that order.

The United States, basically indicated, that they weren’t having any! I surmised that this was because they already had one and that, it was a military secret; or, that they didn’t have one and the Oil Companies didn’t want the competition. To me, their real reason for rejecting our offer to make a presentation is irrelevant. If it’s a military secret, it’s release (commercially) will come too late to save the Planet from global warming. If the Oil Companies intend to quash it; they will not be able to. They may have had that kind of power, in the past but, they don’t have that kind of power any more.

Japan, basically indicated, that not a single one of their physicists or engineers, or any that they were associated with, believed that such a thing was possible. Unlike the United States, though; they left the door open for consideration.

China’s, INFORMAL, response was altogether different. They indicated that they had a PMM and that 1000s of their scientists were working on it’s further development, already; and, had been for the past 20 years. In other words, it was unnecessary to prove that a PMM was possible to China. They already know that it is. Additionally, China indicated that they had earmarked, at least, $500 billion to the effort, and appeared extremely anxious to see our white paper and technical paper (scientific and mathematical proof of concept). I was treated with the utmost respect and honor for just offering to make such a presentation.

Personally, I grew up in Japan and spent many years studying various forms of Japanese martial arts; Kendo being the most recent. I know them to be a highly honorable and peaceful people, to a fault. I know nothing of the Chinese people; and, they certainly have a bad rap, when it comes to doing business with foreigners. However, I don’t see how it is possible for Japan to overcome their severe shortcomings, when it comes to the development of the PMM, in time to avert global warming. It would appear that they don’t have any monies set aside for PMM development; and, worse, much worse, they don’t have any (not one) physicists or engineers who are even up to speed on the basics of PMMs. They still don’t even believe that it is possible!

What a dilemma. What would you do?

Dan

 

[Nekota]

Warnock's dilemma applies.

 

[Nekota]

As for PMM you are aware that the LEAF's motor is a PMM? And that the motor in most hard drives are PMM?

Most companies develop their own PMM for example the hard drive industry makes PMM that sense position of the rotor without hall devices and use the kinetic energy of the motor as an emergency power source.

And yes PMM are efficient but require expensive rare earth materials due to China's manipulation of the market.

 

[DATsunONE]

Thank you for sharing. You may have noticed that more than a few people have viewed this thread.

Our team of scientists is as aware as we can be (and have been from the onset) of each progression in the development of electric drive motors (employing permanent magnets) of Toyota, Hitachi, Nissan, Power Japan Plus, Kyushu University, NTT, Sumitomo, Nikken, NHK, RIKEN and, Tesla, and other Japanese companies and their partners; especially those developments that do not employ neodymium permanent magnets. Remember; Tesla has open sourced much of their work. All that work is very impressive, indeed.

In that regard, we agree with Mr. Musk; patents are like depth charges. A real progressive motor company doesn’t need them because it moves (innovates) faster than the competition.

China can’t wait to see our research team’s presentation (white paper and technical paper) of our permanent magnet motor (PMM). They didn’t send us packing on the mere suspicion that we didn’t have anything worth looking at. They didn’t presume to know better. They wanted to see for themselves and gave us every benefit of the doubt. Now, that’s a progressive attitude toward prospective innovations coming out of a small (independent) research team!

Our research team’s offer (white paper and technical paper) to present our PMM will soon be made to Japan, formally. I am pretty sure that we won’t be able to negotiate with any Japanese companies that have non-compete agreements with Tesla, though. At first blush, Tesla’s scientists appear to be too close minded, and a bit too puffed up, to work with, constructively. I realize that this may just be Tesla’s way of covering up their secret PMM development program but, our scientists tell me otherwise. It may also just be Tesla’s highly aggressive style of doing business. Our scientists believe that, such a method of doing business reaps far less than it returns because it fosters an overbearing and extremely (unnecessary) overly hostile working environment; i.e., is too counterproductive.

It was my understanding that Nissan didn’t have such a non-compete agreement with Tesla. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

I regret to inform you that solar (PV) passed away, silently and in it’s sleep, last night. I am so sorry for your loss. Were I you, I’d get my money out of solar before you lose your shirt, your pants, and everything else you have invested there.

Dan

PS: “It’s kind of fun to do the impossible.” - Walt Disney

 

[DATsunONE]

There was an opening on our research team for which we sought applicants to fill that position. We put the same question to all three engineers that applied for that position:

“Theoretically, is it possible to build a permanent magnet motor (PMM) that produces an excess of electricity rather than consumes it? Support your answer utilizing known and proven laws of physics.”

The first applicant replied: “No, it is not possible to do that because, it would violate the first and second laws of physics.”

The second applicant replied: “Yes, it is possible to do that because, anything is possible.”

The third applicant replied: “Yes, it is possible to do that because, magnetism is a stronger form of energy than electromagnetism.” Then, to support her answer, she derived, on the blackboard, utilizing David Kaplan’s equations, as modified from empirical data, each of the strengths of each of the different forms of primary energy. Then, she compared the strengths of each such energy form so derived, mathematically; and, calculated the differences there between.

The first two applicants were not hired because their answers were vague, in specific and, not well supported.

The third person was retained, not because her answer was correct, (it wasn’t), but because she provided a scientifically and mathematically plausible, (utilizing the known and proven laws of physics, to date), well supported, explanation for her answer.

Dan

PS: “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” - Albert Einstein

 

[AndyH]

Nobody, commenting on this thread, has presented any evidence countering my contention....

I haven't seen anything coming from you that would pass as evidence, just a lot of opinions.

You Sir have the ramblings of a mad man. If you want to save Japan get on a plane.

+1

I check here in the hopes of seeing something useful, then hit 'mark thread read'...