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
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