4 ms·

from what i understand http://flibeenergy.com/ http://flibeenergy.com/ shopped around at VCs in Silicon Valley, but apparently it didn't work out? i think the

by pkrein 14y ago

from what i understand http://flibeenergy.com/ http://flibeenergy.com/ shopped around at VCs in Silicon Valley, but apparently it didn't work out? i think the trick is to find an angle into the business that doesn't involve govt approval up front. some aspect of the problem that can be solved to show momentum, without hitting regulations. maybe the chemistry side of things?

krschultz 14y ago
SpaceX had a lot of the same challenges but the first money making contract - flights to ISS - was only about 5-10 years out. NASA also paid them when they hit certain design milestones toward that contract. I would think that the best path forward on this would be for the DOE to setup similar milestones w/ large cash rewards. Private companies compete on getting to those milestones with oversight by the appropriate regulatory bodies. Then once through the initial milestones the company could actually build a small scale reactor, make money on it, then build a large scale and really make some money. Not saying it is going to happen, but that is MORE likely to happen than the DOE building this kind of reactor themselves.
- apendleton 14y ago
  SpaceX also had the advantage of a very wealthy founder willing to pour lots of his own money into the project. This certainly wasn't enough to finance the entire development up until the first ISS flight, but it did allow him to hire a bunch of hotshot engineers right from the get-go, and probably establish a degree of legitimacy that made attracting more funds, government contracts, etc., somewhat easier. I'd wager that if Elon Musk had decided to fund LFTRs instead of rockets, we'd already have a prototype.
thingification 14y ago
I don't know whether they shopped around VCs, but they have said that they aim to sell to the US army. The army has a well-publicised and pressing need for portable compact power sources in places like Iraq. They have also indicated that they would like to produce medical isotopes as a first step. However, the destruction of the US U 233 reserves by the US government may put a stop to that (if it isn't halted -- which seems unlikely, due to lack of interest). The civilian nuclear industry has regulatory lead times measured in decades, and has a mindset heavily tied to the risks posed by solid-fueled reactors. For that reason, the military may in fact be the only opportunity for a company to develop liquid fueled reactors.

by pkrein 14y ago

krschultz 14y ago

SpaceX had a lot of the same challenges but the first money making contract - flights to ISS - was only about 5-10 years out. NASA also paid them when they hit certain design milestones toward that contract. I would think that the best path forward on this would be for the DOE to setup similar milestones w/ large cash rewards. Private companies compete on getting to those milestones with oversight by the appropriate regulatory bodies. Then once through the initial milestones the company could actually build a small scale reactor, make money on it, then build a large scale and really make some money. Not saying it is going to happen, but that is MORE likely to happen than the DOE building this kind of reactor themselves.

apendleton 14y ago
SpaceX also had the advantage of a very wealthy founder willing to pour lots of his own money into the project. This certainly wasn't enough to finance the entire development up until the first ISS flight, but it did allow him to hire a bunch of hotshot engineers right from the get-go, and probably establish a degree of legitimacy that made attracting more funds, government contracts, etc., somewhat easier. I'd wager that if Elon Musk had decided to fund LFTRs instead of rockets, we'd already have a prototype.

thingification 14y ago

I don't know whether they shopped around VCs, but they have said that they aim to sell to the US army. The army has a well-publicised and pressing need for portable compact power sources in places like Iraq. They have also indicated that they would like to produce medical isotopes as a first step. However, the destruction of the US U 233 reserves by the US government may put a stop to that (if it isn't halted -- which seems unlikely, due to lack of interest). The civilian nuclear industry has regulatory lead times measured in decades, and has a mindset heavily tied to the risks posed by solid-fueled reactors. For that reason, the military may in fact be the only opportunity for a company to develop liquid fueled reactors.