Cheap energy. Cheap, powerful manufacturing might enable the fabrication of cheap solar cells and cheap batteries that help to overcome intermittency in solar power, leading to very cheap solar power (although, naively, Iām unsure how large an effect this would be given that advanced nanotechnology wouldnāt on the face of it reduce land and labour costs).
If the typical solar cell thickness is 400 Āµm and a density of 2.3 kg/āL and efficiency of 20%, with 1000 W/ām2 and $1000/ākg, this would be ~$5/āW, which is significantly more expensive than current solar cells. However, some solar cells have much thinner active layers, so it could be lower cost. The cost of land is much less than the cost of the solar cells. Labor still could be significant. Batteries are already less than $1000 per kilogram, so the main question is how much better performance they would have.
General wealth /ā economic growth. On the face of it, if we can make high-performance materials and devices very cheaply, people will on average be very wealthy compared to today (whether this is a deviation from trend GDP growth will, of course, depend on when and how the technology is developed).
Drexler claims that (something similar to) complex APM would be able to manufacture products for $1/ākg or less and with a throughput of 1kg every 3 hours or less per kg of machinery (for ā$1/ākg or lessā, see, for example, Radical Abundance, 2013, p. 172; for āa throughput of 1kg every 3 hours or less per kg of machineryā, see Nanosystems, 1992, p. 1, 3rd bullet). I set a lower bar for my definition of consequential APM here [$1000/ākg] because I think this lower bar is more than sufficient to imply an extremely impactful technology, while perhaps capturing a larger fraction of potential scenarios over the next few decades.
Some have noted that even at the one dollar per kilogram cost, manufacturing is a relatively small fraction of the economy, so if this were to go much smaller, it would not help that much. However, if you could get truly self replicating equipment that could just draw minerals from the ground and get energy from the sun, an individual with a plot of land could produce a big house, lots of cars, lots of consumer goods, etc., so then they would be very wealthy. If we just get $1000 per kilogram, I donāt think it would save very much of the economy, so the main question is how much higher the performance would be.
Very helpful post!
If the typical solar cell thickness is 400 Āµm and a density of 2.3 kg/āL and efficiency of 20%, with 1000 W/ām2 and $1000/ākg, this would be ~$5/āW, which is significantly more expensive than current solar cells. However, some solar cells have much thinner active layers, so it could be lower cost. The cost of land is much less than the cost of the solar cells. Labor still could be significant. Batteries are already less than $1000 per kilogram, so the main question is how much better performance they would have.
Some have noted that even at the one dollar per kilogram cost, manufacturing is a relatively small fraction of the economy, so if this were to go much smaller, it would not help that much. However, if you could get truly self replicating equipment that could just draw minerals from the ground and get energy from the sun, an individual with a plot of land could produce a big house, lots of cars, lots of consumer goods, etc., so then they would be very wealthy. If we just get $1000 per kilogram, I donāt think it would save very much of the economy, so the main question is how much higher the performance would be.