4 ms·

> 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.

> 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.