TerraPower and Bill Gates Have a Radical Vision For the Reactors of Tomorrow
online.wsj.com
online.wsj.com
This is the most disappointing part of the piece. This is too often the case with many forward looking technologies these days, high-speed rail, etc. Great news for the planet though!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/a-vision-for-high-sp...
Exactly. It isn't China, France, Spain or Japan. People in this countries are :
1. used and able to [relatively comfortable] live very close to each other
and
2. not able to live far apart - not enough cars, land, etc...
In short - they don't have choice.
The 1. and 2. are completely reversed for America. I personally like it this way. I spent enough years doing public transportation to value what i have here (Bay Area).
Add: and don't tell me about global warming - will talk about it once everybody get really serious. Even today there is enough technology do avoid it - nobody [with real political and economical power] just care about it. For example (do you own research) - 20-30KWt/Hr batteries (300-450Kg) can get you 100-200 miles range. Even at today's prices (no economy of scale) $1000-500 per Kwt/hr - lets say $20K (though you can do even with $10K). Minus complicated engine, transmission and other related stuff (around the same weight) - pretty much the same price of the car. Gas station infrastructure - complete saving. Instead of all these underground and transportation gas tanks, safety measures, etc... - each existing gas station _already_ has high-amperage electrical connect to it - the only investment is a plug with card reader attached.
Any Uranium reactor produces Pu-239 but don't present a serious proliferation risk. Breeding reactors or MOX factories are risky.
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/02/america-wrong-cont...
But as a Tampa resident, I feel confident that anybody who has much reason to travel from here to Orlando already has a car, and at most a weak preference for high-speed rail. In NYC, Philadelphia, D.C., and Boston I'd feel much less confident.
Better yet, I would like to be able to take modern (read next generation beyond current Amtrak tech) rail all the way from Milwaukee to Orlando for these trips.
I think the skies are getting pretty saturated with plane traffic, and security/fear concerns make air travel miserable.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Route_C&...
In practice of course, goverment is too heavily influenced by those who currently happen to have the most resources. As a result, they are incapable of correctly evaluating the true value of immediate energy output versus future greenhouse gas levels. It makes the question of how to solve the energy problem moot, because there's no way to implement that solution under the current political conditions.
By definition, unprofitable ventures will run out of capital and stop without government intervention.
> There seems to be a common misconception that free markets will arise naturally
History is full examples of humans freely trading with humans. International trade is completely co-operative, free of government oversight (there is no world government).
It is not a misconception that people can trade without a central authority figure. And the presence of the black market in all cultures shows us that it is universal that people want to trade freely.
> the role of goverment should be to determine the immediate value and future costs fossil fuel energy production.
Can you cite an example of when price fixing has improved living standard of the general population?
And is there ever been a time when raising energy costs has improved the human condition?
Do you really propose lowering the standard of living for the poor and middle class because of an unproven theory that the climate is a positive feedback loop and 2 degree change will snowball into catastrophic effects?
>By definition, unprofitable ventures will run out of capital and stop without government intervention.
in the context of this discussion it means : "not just moving it from one place to another to generate personal profit at a somebody else's [usually wide public's] loss." The government role is to prevent such profitable ventures which profit at the loss of the general public - free market isn't able to do so on its own.
>Do you really propose lowering the standard of living for the poor and middle class because of an unproven theory that the climate is a positive feedback loop and 2 degree change will snowball into catastrophic effects?
this is just Red Book of Cheyney.
Anyway, technological progress, including development of new sources of energy, has generally benefited poor. Where is limiting market competition by subsidizing ineffective outdated technological processes (which de-facto happens right now with coal and other fossil fuel energy) has always restricted technological progress and thus impacted the whole society, including poor.
>And the presence of the black market in all cultures shows us that it is universal that people want to trade freely.
presence of black market in the Soviet Union was showing universal people desire to smoke Marlboro and wear LEVI's jeans. Desire to trade freely would created the black market in bread as well, yet no such market existed. Such market exist in Zimbabwe though, where it shows universal people desire to eat.
I think there is room for well defined externalities to be captured in transactions, but handing out subsidies to special interest in the name of technology progress is ridiculous. Who picks the winners and losers? How long do you subsidize? Who pays when the costs of the new tech do not come down? Will you raise the cost of transportation so I can develop teleportation technology?
I think Spain is going to provide a painful lesson in what happens when you subsidize green tech, and unfortunately the people who pay for it are already impoverished.
The government already provides incentives to individuals who don't murder people, and businesses who don't hire child workers. There's lots of profit to be made in building an army and stealing from others, but we discourage it as a society because it doesn't result in a net benefit. There are plenty of fines for fraud and other transactions that are deemed to be not in the best interest of society, no matter how much profit they generate for the actor. Where is the break-even point on this spectrum as far as you are concerned?
The winners are still picked by market forces. The losers are picked by the scientific evidence and the decision making processes of our democracy. The market is set up to penalize actors who take from the common good. "Subsidy" is a misnomer, think of it as a sumptuary tax or a fine. These taxes can be left in place indefinitely, since the goal is to discourage use.
some governments, some actions. Some governments kill their people, some - protect, though still killing a bit.
>I think there is room for well defined externalities to be captured in transactions, but handing out subsidies to special interest in the name of technology progress is ridiculous.
yep, that is the point- minimizing the subsidies. 200-50 years ago we didn't know these externalities - they weren't included. Once they recognized - they need to be included. That really means removing [recognized] subsidy. No new subsidies should be created. Any subsidies, even for green tech, limit the market forces and create tumor of special interest on the body of the economy.
>I think Spain is going to provide a painful lesson in what happens when you subsidize green tech
no arguing here. Have you heard about Russian cars? It is the most heavily subsidized and protected industries in Russia. Such ugly and low-tech (and overpriced) cars can't be found anywhere.
Now if you are talking about a refinery that does lead smelting, that is quite different.
BTW I suggest you read up on the CO2 trading scams that came to light in Europe a while ago, and that a rational person would realize are endemic to such markets ... relatively non-partisan link from Canada's CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-c...
unbalanced (by say consumption by forests) emitting of CO2 shifts the make-up of the atmosphere and thus energy balance of the planet's surface.
unbalanced (by say atropine injection) emitting of VX gases into your body would shift the make-up of enzymes in your nerve system : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_%28nerve_agent%29#Chemical_c...
How about "toxin" instead of "pollutant"?
See: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm
Name me a toxin that does that ...
CO2 != mercury in the water supply
great. We're making progress. You've just recognized the fact that CO2 emissions affect ecosphere. Supposedly you pointing to the negative feedback in this dynamic system [more CO2 - > more plants -> more CO2 consumption]. Next step - show that this dynamic system is stable (or at least not unstable) as mere presence of negative feedback doesn't guarantee stability and may even be cause of increased instability.
Let suppose there is some stability. Normal (as of 1900 lets say or pick any other) CO2 , increased CO2, decreased CO2 [back to normal?], and repeat ... The issue, is what happens with energy surplus [Quantum Mechanical "green house" effect] and its effects accumulated during periods of increased CO2.
I am not the one suggesting that huge amounts of changes need be made, including a fraud-ridden scheme like the current carbon credit scam, which makes me guilty, simply due to my entirely natural and necessary respiration.
You want to claim that CO2 is something dangerous, and should be lumped in with radium, cadmium, mercury (all actual, true pollutants)? Prove it.
The gamma radiation of radium and absorbtion wavelengths of CO2 [ if absorbing CO2 molecule is flying in the atmosphere it is frequently called "green house" effect, if you don't like this term we can use another - "decreasing permeability of the Earth atmosphere for radiation with wavelengths corresponding to the black body radiation with temperature 14-15C by increasing atmospheric CO2 content" ] are pretty much from the same page of Quantum Mechanics. QM couldn't be proven even to Einstein, though. So there is no way i can prove it to you. Sorry.
http://energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=...
It doesn't seem to offer much (if any) advantage over other liquid metal fast breeder reactors.
What could possibly go wrong?
So yes, you are missing something.