LFTR and Market Failures

[niemivh]

Is anyone aware on this forum about the promise of LFTR technology? 

http://superfuelbook.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

Go to Youtube and search LFTR.  Watch about 6 hours of the videos that are available. 

Then go to this site:

http://energyfromthorium.com/

and read as much of the documentation as you can muster.

Then come back to me and explain why the "Free Market" or "Private Enterprise" or "Free Enterprise" hasn't been able to build another one of these, after the prototype, in the past 40-ish years.

You can do that after you admit that the technology also solely exists because of Government funded research to begin with.

 

[1713278306]

1713278306

[1713278306]

1713278306

[1713278306]

1713278306

[1713278306]

1713278306

[FreeMoney]

I have no idea about the particular technology you mention, but your implication is dubious no matter what it is.

What we can do has been governed closely for a few millennial, it's not remotely like being free.

Government invested in and then abandoned some great technology and that's the fault of restricted individuals?

[Luceo]

Because government has constantly subsidized the alternatives, probably.

If government creates a financial disincentive to research thorium energy, then we don't have a free market.

[niemivh]

Looks like the laziness of the Internet-Libertarian archetype persists above all else.  Gotta play D3 or Skyrim or whatever other digital narcotic is presently in vogue.  Please, for the love of all that is good, do the requisite, minimalist research on the links that I was kind enough to provide before commenting on this thread.

The bottom on my disappointment-meter has fallen out.

 

[myrkul]

The bottom on my disappointment-meter has fallen out.

 

*yawn*

[niemivh]

The bottom on my disappointment-meter has fallen out.

 

*yawn*

It has fallen out again.

Is anyone actually going to take the challenge to learn something new?

[qbg]

Then come back to me and explain why the "Free Market" or "Private Enterprise" or "Free Enterprise" hasn't been able to build another one of these, after the prototype, in the past 40-ish years.

Take a look at all of the government invention in LFTR's area. Look at all of the hoops that would have to be jumped to privately bring it to market.

You can do that after you admit that the technology also solely exists because of Government funded research to begin with.

Weinberg new that the aircraft reactor was a joke, but he was able to use those funds to research something more socially useful.

[asdf]

Allow me to steal %50 of wealth from an economy and I'm sure I'll produce some amazing technology too.

Why don't we give the government all out money so they can R&D us into the future!

[myrkul]

Why don't we give the government all our money so they can R&D us into the future!

[Foxpup]

Then come back to me and explain why the "Free Market" or "Private Enterprise" or "Free Enterprise" hasn't been able to build another one of these, after the prototype, in the past 40-ish years.

I'm pretty sure the nuclear fission market isn't completely free of government interference. After all, who knows what the free market might do with the technology. Sell atom bombs in gunshops, probably. We wouldn't want that, now, would we?

[grantbdev]

Well, both governments and markets are prone to failure because they are man made and cannot be perfect. I don't think government R&D and science is completely useless though, it gave us the internet after all.

[FirstAscent]

Allow me to steal %50 of wealth from an economy and I'm sure I'll produce some amazing technology too.

Why don't we give the government all out money so they can R&D us into the future!

There is a difference in the way private enterprise does research and development vs. the government. As a result, there is a difference in the types of projects which get funded. The first sentence in your statement above actually hints at that difference.

But I suppose private enterprise spends their money well, right? So tell me, what did RJ Reynolds spend their money on when they created a science department with Frederick Seitz at the helm? What does BP spend their money on?

Here's a nugget to ponder: how much does the government spend for toilet seats vs. Boeing?

[niemivh]

Then come back to me and explain why the "Free Market" or "Private Enterprise" or "Free Enterprise" hasn't been able to build another one of these, after the prototype, in the past 40-ish years.

Take a look at all of the government invention in LFTR's area. Look at all of the hoops that would have to be jumped to privately bring it to market.

You can do that after you admit that the technology also solely exists because of Government funded research to begin with.

Weinberg new that the aircraft reactor was a joke, but he was able to use those funds to research something more socially useful.

Tip-toeing around the fact that the government research created the thing in the first place, yes, you are accurate.  The question you should be asking is: "why is this so?"  And keep asking yourself that question until comes a little bit more broad than "the gov't did it!".

[niemivh]

Why don't we give the government all our money so they can R&D us into the future!

With intellectual acumen like this, sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

 

[niemivh]

Well, both governments and markets are prone to failure because they are man made and cannot be perfect. I don't think government R&D and science is completely useless though, it gave us the internet after all.

+1

(Some technologies upon which the Internet is founded did indeed come from Government research.)

[d'aniel]

My take on it:

• Uranium has weapons applications, thorium doesn't (means government has a major incentive to subsidize uranium over thorium).
• Government subsidizing uranium over thorium crowds out R&D for a thorium industry.
• If there's already a mature uranium industry in place (a lot of inputs are required to get the final product), why bother spending to develop thorium?
  
• Coal and natural gas are much cheaper.
  

Also, libertarians aren't the only ones prone to wearing ideological blinders.

[FirstAscent]

These all have inherent problems:

- Petroleum
- Natural gas
- Coal
- Wind
- Solar
- Tidal
- Hydroelectric
- Fission
- Fusion
- Geothermal

[niemivh]

What the Liberals and Libertarians need to take into account here is that if LFTR (or any other sufficiently able and efficient power source) was developed then literally trillions of dollars of existing energy sources would be radically devalued, if not destroyed.  That is, the same physical material in the earth would command much less wealth; and the giant pyramid of securities, bonds, stocks, debt and profits would all be radically shaken and at risk of being annihilated if technology (and mankind) were allowed to progress.

Can you imagine anyone buying some 'coal futures' or coal company stocks if LFTR was turned online and re-proven as a viable technology?  This strikes at the heart of your much cherished "free market", that the big fish in the industry (oil, coal, natural gas, existing nuclear, etc) will do everything they can, with their trillions of dollars of cash and assets to ensure that this doesn't happen anywhere and that we are closed into a closed system and a collapse-paradigm as is ensured by not being able to access the fruits of our creative potential as seen in technology.

It really is quite simple to understand.

[bb113]

What the Liberals and Libertarians need to take into account here is that if LFTR (or any other sufficiently able and efficient power source) was developed then literally trillions of dollars of existing energy sources would be radically devalued, if not destroyed.  That is, the same physical material in the earth would command much less wealth; and the giant pyramid of securities, bonds, stocks, debt and profits would all be radically shaken and at risk of being annihilated if technology (and mankind) were allowed to progress.

Can you imagine anyone buying some 'coal futures' or coal company stocks if LFTR was turned online and re-proven as a viable technology?  This strikes at the heart of your much cherished "free market", that the big fish in the industry (oil, coal, natural gas, existing nuclear, etc) will do everything they can, with their trillions of dollars of cash and assets to ensure that this doesn't happen anywhere and that we are closed into a closed system and a collapse-paradigm as is ensured by not being able to access the fruits of our creative potential as seen in technology.

It really is quite simple to understand.

Who said anything about there being a free market in existence? Especially in terms of energy industries... these are the most regulated and subsidized industries on the planet. It seems like you are arguing with some strawman who you will not find here.

If you had a trillion dollars would you risk it on an unproven technology with unlimited upside, or invest it in something safer? Eventually someone will take the risk, but it sounds like you are assuming that every idea there is hype about actually works as planned.

[myrkul]

With intellectual acumen like this, sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

 

At least you're starting to understand that you are overmatched.