3 ms·

So many people here cheering for their preferred carbon-free energy source like it’s a sports team. It’s bizarre. We’re going to need to do lots of different t

by zopa 4y ago

So many people here cheering for their preferred carbon-free energy source like it’s a sports team. It’s bizarre. We’re going to need to do lots of different things. There’s no need to fight about it; everybody’s favorite will have a chance.

Mountain_Skies 4y ago
They all require funding for more research to hopefully bring them to fruition. In that sense, it's understandable why people who have joined Team Clean X would want to push the message of how it is better than Team Clean Y.
- zopa 4y ago
  Sure, but it’s wildly counterproductive. The result is free-floating negativity about all the possible solutions. Until we’re meeting the scale of the problem, we should all be focusing on “yes, and”
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    The problem is that 'yes, and' mentality is not reality. Every country and company has limited budget, you can just say 'yes' to everything. In terms of research, sure, research a whole bunch of stuff, that's good. At some point however you have to rationally look at the problem and come up with a comprehensive solution. At that point the 'yes, and' mentality hurts as much as it helps. French historical example is interesting here. When they did their nuclear program in the 70/80s they didn't say 'yes, and' they picked basically 1 type of reactor and simply mass produced it. Within 20 years the mostly solved the green electricity problem (without even trying). Its the opposite of 'yes, and', its analyzing the problem, creating a plan and executing that plan. Very big countries like the US and China will have a much more 'yes, and' approach simply because they are so much bigger, with so much more people and so much more demand that they can actually do that.
panick21_ 4y ago
> We’re going to need to do lots of different things. There’s no need to fight about it; everybody’s favorite will have a chance. Actually this isn't the case. Funding choices matter. And not all technology can get funding. Hydrogen investment for the last 40 years has cost untold billions, and has led to almost nothing. Its has actually delayed real efforts in places like Japan. Here we have an article asking for investment to find some almost mythical hydrogen that might somehow exists and if only they got money they would find it. Thorium doesn't really need that, we have mines now that produce enough of it that they basically don't know what to do with it.
- zopa 4y ago
  If thorium is cheap, there should be plenty of funding to go around. If it’s expensive, what’s the point? I’d also be interested to hear roughly how much public funding you think is implied by the article. My takeaway was that it suggested: 1) some geological surveys, 2) maybe some regulatory fixes, 3) a bunch of private investment. All of which are the next thing to free by government standards.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    > If thorium is cheap, there should be plenty of funding to go around. You seem to make the mistake to believe that government funding and government planning in regards to energy is rational and focused on finding the long term best solution. ... but it isn't. If they don't want much government investment I don't have a problem with them trying. But in general, historically the whole concept of a hydrogen economy has consumed huge amounts of government money with very little to show for it.

by zopa 4y ago

Mountain_Skies 4y ago

They all require funding for more research to hopefully bring them to fruition. In that sense, it's understandable why people who have joined Team Clean X would want to push the message of how it is better than Team Clean Y.

zopa 4y ago
Sure, but it’s wildly counterproductive. The result is free-floating negativity about all the possible solutions. Until we’re meeting the scale of the problem, we should all be focusing on “yes, and”
- panick21_ 4y ago
  The problem is that 'yes, and' mentality is not reality. Every country and company has limited budget, you can just say 'yes' to everything. In terms of research, sure, research a whole bunch of stuff, that's good. At some point however you have to rationally look at the problem and come up with a comprehensive solution. At that point the 'yes, and' mentality hurts as much as it helps. French historical example is interesting here. When they did their nuclear program in the 70/80s they didn't say 'yes, and' they picked basically 1 type of reactor and simply mass produced it. Within 20 years the mostly solved the green electricity problem (without even trying). Its the opposite of 'yes, and', its analyzing the problem, creating a plan and executing that plan. Very big countries like the US and China will have a much more 'yes, and' approach simply because they are so much bigger, with so much more people and so much more demand that they can actually do that.

panick21_ 4y ago

> We’re going to need to do lots of different things. There’s no need to fight about it; everybody’s favorite will have a chance. Actually this isn't the case. Funding choices matter. And not all technology can get funding. Hydrogen investment for the last 40 years has cost untold billions, and has led to almost nothing. Its has actually delayed real efforts in places like Japan. Here we have an article asking for investment to find some almost mythical hydrogen that might somehow exists and if only they got money they would find it. Thorium doesn't really need that, we have mines now that produce enough of it that they basically don't know what to do with it.

zopa 4y ago
If thorium is cheap, there should be plenty of funding to go around. If it’s expensive, what’s the point? I’d also be interested to hear roughly how much public funding you think is implied by the article. My takeaway was that it suggested: 1) some geological surveys, 2) maybe some regulatory fixes, 3) a bunch of private investment. All of which are the next thing to free by government standards.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  > If thorium is cheap, there should be plenty of funding to go around. You seem to make the mistake to believe that government funding and government planning in regards to energy is rational and focused on finding the long term best solution. ... but it isn't. If they don't want much government investment I don't have a problem with them trying. But in general, historically the whole concept of a hydrogen economy has consumed huge amounts of government money with very little to show for it.