LFTR is great and all, but the fact that it would completely disrupt the existing fuel cycle economy can not be discounted as a motviation point for opposition. Not saying its right to do so, but I can imagine there are folks in the existing industry that view it as a threat to be minimized and subdued.
The human animal so quickly gets stuck in the here and now.
Aussies Claim Working Fusion Reactor
I guess. But, right now we aren't building new reactors, and LFTR wouldn't necessarily shut down existing reactors, so I don't really buy the idea that they would somehow disrupt the current economy of nuclear reactors - at least in the US. Current reactors would still need their fuel. We aren't building any new reactors that would mean more fuel processing anyway.ladajo wrote:LFTR is great and all, but the fact that it would completely disrupt the existing fuel cycle economy can not be discounted as a motviation point for opposition. Not saying its right to do so, but I can imagine there are folks in the existing industry that view it as a threat to be minimized and subdued.
The human animal so quickly gets stuck in the here and now.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!
I suppose that if the fusion products had cosmic ray energies (orders of magnitude more energy), then you could breed pions.Skipjack wrote:Please explain to me where pions come from in "nature", other than in cosmic rays?
Maybe they think they can breed pions from 3 MeV neutrons or something.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!
The fuel cycle is dependant on the government (navy in particular). If the civilian side introduces LFTR, or the navy starts to switch to them, it will have an impact on the fuel life cycle. And that is big money.seedload wrote:I guess. But, right now we aren't building new reactors, and LFTR wouldn't necessarily shut down existing reactors, so I don't really buy the idea that they would somehow disrupt the current economy of nuclear reactors - at least in the US. Current reactors would still need their fuel. We aren't building any new reactors that would mean more fuel processing anyway.ladajo wrote:LFTR is great and all, but the fact that it would completely disrupt the existing fuel cycle economy can not be discounted as a motviation point for opposition. Not saying its right to do so, but I can imagine there are folks in the existing industry that view it as a threat to be minimized and subdued.
The human animal so quickly gets stuck in the here and now.
As Kite said, 08 is a well ingrained force to be reckoned with. If stubborness could have an IPO, they would open with the biggest offer ever. They are IMO one of the main reasons ONR is keeping EMC2 a low observable for now.
There is one technology that has a near guaranteed chance of success for the long term production of cheap and clean electricity on global scales, and I believe that to be LFTR.ladajo wrote:The fuel cycle is dependant on the government (navy in particular). If the civilian side introduces LFTR, or the navy starts to switch to them, it will have an impact on the fuel life cycle. And that is big money.seedload wrote:I guess. But, right now we aren't building new reactors, and LFTR wouldn't necessarily shut down existing reactors, so I don't really buy the idea that they would somehow disrupt the current economy of nuclear reactors - at least in the US. Current reactors would still need their fuel. We aren't building any new reactors that would mean more fuel processing anyway.ladajo wrote:LFTR is great and all, but the fact that it would completely disrupt the existing fuel cycle economy can not be discounted as a motviation point for opposition. Not saying its right to do so, but I can imagine there are folks in the existing industry that view it as a threat to be minimized and subdued.
The human animal so quickly gets stuck in the here and now.
As Kite said, 08 is a well ingrained force to be reckoned with. If stubborness could have an IPO, they would open with the biggest offer ever. They are IMO one of the main reasons ONR is keeping EMC2 a low observable for now.
I don't believe that the development of this technology is being held up by fuel sales. Sorry. Just saying there is big money involved doesn't necessarily make this fact the primary driving force. In fact, it rings of so many conspiracy theories of big money squashing technological breakthroughs and it ignors the history of why LFTR wasn't pursued.
LFTR was shelved in favor of the fast breeder. That wasn't a great decision, but it had nothing to do with fuel sales or LWRs. It had to do with technological and political momentum. Then, in turn, the fast breeder was shelved when nuclear became exceedingly unpopular, again not because of fuel sales.
LWRs were never thought to be a long term civilian solution, they just became one by default with their accompanying fuel economy.
Now, the existing economy of fuel sales may have something to do with why GE or Westinghouse aren't building LFTRs on their own dime, but I don't think it has much to do with why the government isn't pursuing LFTRs.
I think this has more to do with nuclear being exceedingly unpopular than anything else.
My opinion is that LFTR technology will not be held up by fuel contracts, it will be held up by not being able to effectively tell the story of why LFTRs are not your parent's nuclear.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!
Dude, I did not say "sales". I said "cycle". I think you need to take a deeper look at the relationship between DOE, DOD, USN, and Civilian nuclear power. Fast Breeders also played a role in the fuel cycle. LFTR does not. That is the issue.I don't believe that the development of this technology is being held up by fuel sales. Sorry. Just saying there is big money involved doesn't necessarily make this fact the primary driving force. In fact, it rings of so many conspiracy theories of big money squashing technological breakthroughs and it ignors the history of why LFTR wasn't pursued.
LFTR was shelved in favor of the fast breeder. That wasn't a great decision, but it had nothing to do with fuel sales or LWRs. It had to do with technological and political momentum. Then, in turn, the fast breeder was shelved when nuclear became exceedingly unpopular, again not because of fuel sales.
You are talking about a very large and complex infrastructure that it would seem that you do not fully understand. This is a relationship that crosses all things US (and some foreign) nuclear, dealing with specific isotopes and uses. LFTR is an outlayer in this well established an controlled infrastructure.
I understand that LFTR has no relationship to the current infrastructure in regards to the fuel cycle. It is an outlier. I agree.ladajo wrote:Dude, I did not say "sales". I said "cycle". I think you need to take a deeper look at the relationship between DOE, DOD, USN, and Civilian nuclear power. Fast Breeders also played a role in the fuel cycle. LFTR does not. That is the issue.I don't believe that the development of this technology is being held up by fuel sales. Sorry. Just saying there is big money involved doesn't necessarily make this fact the primary driving force. In fact, it rings of so many conspiracy theories of big money squashing technological breakthroughs and it ignors the history of why LFTR wasn't pursued.
LFTR was shelved in favor of the fast breeder. That wasn't a great decision, but it had nothing to do with fuel sales or LWRs. It had to do with technological and political momentum. Then, in turn, the fast breeder was shelved when nuclear became exceedingly unpopular, again not because of fuel sales.
You are talking about a very large and complex infrastructure that it would seem that you do not fully understand. This is a relationship that crosses all things US (and some foreign) nuclear, dealing with specific isotopes and uses. LFTR is an outlayer in this well established an controlled infrastructure.
I think that you and I would also agree that being an outlier makes it a foreign concept to those in decision making positions which is a definite negative to its potential development.
Our only disagreement is to whether being an outlier should make it threatening to the current cycle and the "big money" to which you referred. I think LFTRs, if developed, will live along side the dying remnants of our solid fuel light water reactor industry, neither hastening nor prolonging their inevitable death.
After all, the existing uber powerful big money fuel cycle syndicate of government and industry has failed to break ground on a single new operational commercial plant in almost 40 years.
Signed,
Dude
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!
Dude,
Look up "Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, Current Wars"
It is not a new problem. It has nothing to do with engineers i.e. the merits of the case.
You don't get politics and money. Money corrupts politics and politics corrupts money.I think that you and I would also agree that being an outlier makes it a foreign concept to those in decision making positions which is a definite negative to its potential development.
Look up "Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, Current Wars"
It is not a new problem. It has nothing to do with engineers i.e. the merits of the case.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Dude,
He said "big money" not "Big Money" as in "it will cost a lot,", not "it will upset the owners".
Of course, the result will be "big money" too.
Alcoa is currently sitting on three cold pot lines here in the states due to the lack of sufficient reliable power. LFTR could help them a lot. This would help all the aluminium users too. Just a thought.
He said "big money" not "Big Money" as in "it will cost a lot,", not "it will upset the owners".
Of course, the result will be "big money" too.
Alcoa is currently sitting on three cold pot lines here in the states due to the lack of sufficient reliable power. LFTR could help them a lot. This would help all the aluminium users too. Just a thought.
Not sure what all the hubbub is about. I am a fan of LFTR. I think it is THE solution. I love LFTR.
The only disagreement is about what would hold it up. I think the politics of nuclear being exceedingly unpopular is much more of a problem than an entrenchment of the current fuel cycle and the fiefdoms that surround it. That's it. No big deal.
I know that politics is all about power and control to you, M. And, certainly you want to draw all conversations back to your single minded theory of everything. You might even be right in some/most cases. Or you might not even realize how exceedingly closed minded you are becoming because of your commendable efforts to be open minded. Who knows? Certainly not someone who is so incapable of understanding politics as I am.
Hey, at least you didn't recommend that we all fire up a blunt and everything would be OK.
regards
The only disagreement is about what would hold it up. I think the politics of nuclear being exceedingly unpopular is much more of a problem than an entrenchment of the current fuel cycle and the fiefdoms that surround it. That's it. No big deal.
I know that politics is all about power and control to you, M. And, certainly you want to draw all conversations back to your single minded theory of everything. You might even be right in some/most cases. Or you might not even realize how exceedingly closed minded you are becoming because of your commendable efforts to be open minded. Who knows? Certainly not someone who is so incapable of understanding politics as I am.
Hey, at least you didn't recommend that we all fire up a blunt and everything would be OK.
regards
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!
I still don't read it that way.KitemanSA wrote:Dude,
He said "big money" not "Big Money" as in "it will cost a lot,", not "it will upset the owners".
I think I said that the existing fuel cycle economy might be a reason why GE or Westinghouse may not want to pursue this technology, implying that it would be someone else. From this it seems like we agree.KitemanSA wrote: Of course, the result will be "big money" too.
Alcoa is currently sitting on three cold pot lines here in the states due to the lack of sufficient reliable power. LFTR could help them a lot. This would help all the aluminium users too. Just a thought.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!
Smoke 'em if you got 'em as my Company Commander used to say in boot camp.seedload wrote:Not sure what all the hubbub is about. I am a fan of LFTR. I think it is THE solution. I love LFTR.
The only disagreement is about what would hold it up. I think the politics of nuclear being exceedingly unpopular is much more of a problem than an entrenchment of the current fuel cycle and the fiefdoms that surround it. That's it. No big deal.
I know that politics is all about power and control to you, M. And, certainly you want to draw all conversations back to your single minded theory of everything. You might even be right in some/most cases. Or you might not even realize how exceedingly closed minded you are becoming because of your commendable efforts to be open minded. Who knows? Certainly not someone who is so incapable of understanding politics as I am.
Hey, at least you didn't recommend that we all fire up a blunt and everything would be OK.
regards
But let us just take one recent example. The makers of CFL lamps implored Congress to keep the laws as they were as allowing incandescents back in the market would hurt their business. And that is but one small example. And there is also the historical example of the "Current Wars". It is by no means a new phenomenon. Fish on Friday is another one.
I don't have a single theory. I have a multitude of evidence.
Solyndra is another. The solar business could not exist without government subsidy. It would be a strictly niche market. Same for wind.
Hell the Drug Cartels would be out of business without government subsidy (Prohibition). You think they aren't manipulating government to keep it going? And of course in that case we have the classic Baptist/Bootlegger coalition. And every one who profits from Prohibition. It is a multitude.
The Government tit is more addictive than any drug ever invented. The lure of easy money as a famous singer once sang.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7m-xiGT4X4
Wm. Burroughs once said: "Dealing his harder to give up than using."
I don't need a single theory. Why would I need one when human nature is sufficient?
My answer to all that is to shrink government to the minimum size possible. To lessen the opportunities. You can't eliminate corruption but you can reduce it.
And the smaller the government the more eyeballs on what is left.
Ladajo and I agree on this (nuclear) one. Funny that.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I am seriously starting to reconsider Anarchy as a form of government, at least you know from the start that you do not have to expect anything.MSimon wrote:My answer to all that is to shrink government to the minimum size possible. To lessen the opportunities. You can't eliminate corruption but you can reduce it.
And the smaller the government the more eyeballs on what is left.
They just made a 35 Billion US$ fiscal law in Italy, to try to save the country from bankrupt. It was supposed to be a law with a deep reduction of the political cost and a sensible cut in public sector general cost.
The law is for 32 Billion new taxes, 2,5 billion pension reduction and somewhere in the remaining 500 millions there is some reduction of the costs of the political machine.
I feel like I do not want to go back. Maybe I should stay here in China and ask for political asylum......
I don't think a different government is the answer. We need a different people. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. I'm hoping that I will have some influence on the next generation. As far as I can tell the over 30s are for the most part lost. Just like when I was a kid: never trust anyone over 30.Giorgio wrote:I am seriously starting to reconsider Anarchy as a form of government, at least you know from the start that you do not have to expect anything.MSimon wrote:My answer to all that is to shrink government to the minimum size possible. To lessen the opportunities. You can't eliminate corruption but you can reduce it.
And the smaller the government the more eyeballs on what is left.
They just made a 35 Billion US$ fiscal law in Italy, to try to save the country from bankrupt. It was supposed to be a law with a deep reduction of the political cost and a sensible cut in public sector general cost.
The law is for 32 Billion new taxes, 2,5 billion pension reduction and somewhere in the remaining 500 millions there is some reduction of the costs of the political machine.
I feel like I do not want to go back. Maybe I should stay here in China and ask for political asylum......
The interests of the over 30s is entrenched. Youth are inherently revolutionary. They have few entrenched interests. The OFs have mortgages, kids, taxes, etc. Too much to loose. So they defend the status quo. What ever it is. It is paying the bills.
In some respects I am very fortunate. I never grew up. I have had my fortune (such as it is) wiped out several times. I'm free. At 67 I'm starting out all over again. I love it. Another adventure.
BTW do you have any mfg contacts in China? I have some ideas.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.