5 ms·

"One country he is certain won't be a customer anytime soon is the U.S., which doesn't yet have a certification process for reactors like TerraPower's. It would

by jabits 16y ago

"One country he is certain won't be a customer anytime soon is the U.S., which doesn't yet have a certification process for reactors like TerraPower's. It would likely be a decade or more before the reactor could be tested on U.S. soil. "I don't think the U.S. has the willpower or desire to build new kinds of nuclear reactors," Mr. Myrhvold says. "Right now there's a long, drawn-out process." 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!

juiceandjuice 16y ago
Nuclear is a special circumstance. Any reactor here that produces Plutonium 239 is a huge proliferation risk unless it can do so in a completely closed cycle.
- Wientje 16y ago
  Not necessarily. As long as other byproducts like Plutonium 241 etc. are created in reasonable measures as well, the resulting Plutonium will be way to unstable to use in bombs. Any Uranium reactor produces Pu-239 but don't present a serious proliferation risk. Breeding reactors or MOX factories are risky.
dantheman 16y ago
Highspeed rail as it's currently proposed - CA, FL doesn't make sense. It only makes sense in the northeast corridor where cities are walkable, and population density can support it. High speed rail requires massive public transit in destination cities, which is why the current proposal in FL (Orlando - Tampa) makes absolutely no sense.
- m0th87 16y ago
  Unless the original high speed rail plan has been scrapped, it is far more sophisticated than "just" a link from the east coast to the west coast: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/a-vision-for-high-speed-rail/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/a-vision-for-high-sp...
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    >There's no reason why we can't do this. This is America. 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.
  - dantheman 16y ago
    Sorry if my comment above was unclear -- there is no plan for a highspeed rail across the US, I was mentioning specific plans in FL and CA. Both of which do no make sense when you run the numbers, and are the ones that are the furthest along in planning.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
While I agree with your thesis, high speed rail is a bad example. The US simply doesn't have the population density for it. http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/02/america-wrong-continent-for-high-speed.html http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/02/america-wrong-cont...
- khafra 16y ago
  dantheman's criticism is more on-target. There are certainly places in the US with highly-concentrated populations, a significant percentage of which would like to travel to nearby population clusters. 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.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    We already have high speed rail from DC to Boston. It's very nice (NY to Boston is 3.5 hours), although much more expensive than the Chinatown bus (5-6 hours). http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Route_C&pagename=am/Layout&cid=1241245664867 http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Route_C&#38...
    - khafra 16y ago
      It would appear the market knows which continents to build high-speed rail on, and where to build them, which--I would guess--is the point you wanted to make in the first place.
  - jabits 16y ago
    As a monthly Orlando visitor, I would love to be able to hop a train to Tampa, as well as down the eastern shore to Miami. And easier alternative airport options vs MCO would be nice as well. A two hour train ride would make Miami a viable alternative destination for an Orlando visit. Multiple airport destination choices will help alleviate congestion and will help lower the ridiculous spring fares. 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.
bugsy 16y ago
I don't think the regulation issue is all that important since there are many other countries besides the US. The US is a basket case regarding its paranoia and hysteria regarding nuclear power. The cost of pushing through regulations is not worth it. Besides, energy costs a lot more in other places like island nations that depend on burning very costly ship imported oil to make electricity. That's the place to start, higher profit and the people are easier to deal with. Long after the rest of the world has moved on, its possible that some of the people left in the US, living in caves and without access to electricity, might reconsider and then change regulations on their own accord.

by jabits 16y ago

juiceandjuice 16y ago

Nuclear is a special circumstance. Any reactor here that produces Plutonium 239 is a huge proliferation risk unless it can do so in a completely closed cycle.

Wientje 16y ago
Not necessarily. As long as other byproducts like Plutonium 241 etc. are created in reasonable measures as well, the resulting Plutonium will be way to unstable to use in bombs. Any Uranium reactor produces Pu-239 but don't present a serious proliferation risk. Breeding reactors or MOX factories are risky.

dantheman 16y ago

Highspeed rail as it's currently proposed - CA, FL doesn't make sense. It only makes sense in the northeast corridor where cities are walkable, and population density can support it. High speed rail requires massive public transit in destination cities, which is why the current proposal in FL (Orlando - Tampa) makes absolutely no sense.

m0th87 16y ago
Unless the original high speed rail plan has been scrapped, it is far more sophisticated than "just" a link from the east coast to the west coast: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/a-vision-for-high-speed-rail/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/a-vision-for-high-sp...
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >There's no reason why we can't do this. This is America. 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.
- dantheman 16y ago
  Sorry if my comment above was unclear -- there is no plan for a highspeed rail across the US, I was mentioning specific plans in FL and CA. Both of which do no make sense when you run the numbers, and are the ones that are the furthest along in planning.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

While I agree with your thesis, high speed rail is a bad example. The US simply doesn't have the population density for it. http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/02/america-wrong-continent-for-high-speed.html http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/02/america-wrong-cont...

khafra 16y ago
dantheman's criticism is more on-target. There are certainly places in the US with highly-concentrated populations, a significant percentage of which would like to travel to nearby population clusters. 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.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  We already have high speed rail from DC to Boston. It's very nice (NY to Boston is 3.5 hours), although much more expensive than the Chinatown bus (5-6 hours). http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Route_C&pagename=am/Layout&cid=1241245664867 http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Route_C&#38...
  - khafra 16y ago
    It would appear the market knows which continents to build high-speed rail on, and where to build them, which--I would guess--is the point you wanted to make in the first place.
- jabits 16y ago
  As a monthly Orlando visitor, I would love to be able to hop a train to Tampa, as well as down the eastern shore to Miami. And easier alternative airport options vs MCO would be nice as well. A two hour train ride would make Miami a viable alternative destination for an Orlando visit. Multiple airport destination choices will help alleviate congestion and will help lower the ridiculous spring fares. 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.

bugsy 16y ago

I don't think the regulation issue is all that important since there are many other countries besides the US. The US is a basket case regarding its paranoia and hysteria regarding nuclear power. The cost of pushing through regulations is not worth it. Besides, energy costs a lot more in other places like island nations that depend on burning very costly ship imported oil to make electricity. That's the place to start, higher profit and the people are easier to deal with. Long after the rest of the world has moved on, its possible that some of the people left in the US, living in caves and without access to electricity, might reconsider and then change regulations on their own accord.