= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jsbennett86 comments on Rationality Quotes March 2013 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (341)
On the presentation of science in the news:
David Wong — 5 Easy Ways to Spot a BS News Story on the Internet
I don't understand why we can't simply build an LFTR. I can't find anything online about why we can't just build an LFTR. I get the serious impression that what we need here is like 0.1 wild-haired scientists, 3 wild-haired nuclear engineers, 40 normal nuclear engineers, and sane politicians. And that China has sane politicians but for some reason can't produce, find, or hire the sort of wild-haired engineers who just went ahead and built a molten-salt thorium reactor at Oak Ridge in the 1960s.
I think looking at politicians as insane is entirely the wrong approach. Most of them are sane enough, they just operate under some perverse incentives (and I wouldn't bet on China's being too reasonable either). That said, allegedly China does have plans for thorium, although I'm not too familiar with the details. (Also, recent article suggesting plans are still going.)
Well, that very same Cracked article has this to say:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR#Disadvantages" Interestingly, that same wiki page possible solutions to most of the disadvantages Personally, I think the biggest reason is that Carter stopped the research decades ago, so there are no actual examples of the technology to evaluate. People thereby assume that because no-one is doing it, it must not be worthwhile.
Those are not very impressive disadvantages.
So far as I can tell, the only insurmountable disadvantage is that you can't use a Thorium reactor to make nuclear bombs. Wait, did I say disadvantage? I meant advantage. Or, well ... are you a politician or an average person? That'll make the difference between advantage and disadvantage.
Considering that politicians get ahead by gaining the approval of their constituents, I'd think that now that America is no longer in an arms race, a politician could probably get ahead by proclaiming support for sustainable nuclear energy which does not have a chance of producing weapons.
Except for where that would mean announcing support for nuclear energy.
"Or, well..."
Was that subtle framing intentional?
According to Wikipedia, there are at least 4 groups currently working on LFTRs, one of which is China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR#Recent_developments
Right. They're hiring 150 PhD students and it's still supposed to take 20 years. This seems like a prime instance of the We Can't Do Anything Effect.
A working LFTR is worth a lot of money. If this is so easy, everyone is missing out on an easy way to get rich.
No, the economy is missing out on an easy way to get rich. No one person is missing out on an easy way to get rich. China wants to build LFTRs but can't solve some sort of hiring problem (I have friends who've been offered positions in China, and the Chinese definitely think their academic culture is inferior to Western academic culture, and they appear to be correct).
Also I am generally quite willing to believe people are crazy.
"Coordination problems are hard."
Yes, I agree. I don't understand the surprise, though.
If you are familiar with and agree with the obvious answer then I don't understand why you asked the question.
I don't understand why you don't understand. Here's the conversation:
EY: "I don't understand why we don't do X."
me: "If it was so easy, people could make $$$."
EY: "Well, it's not easy for individuals."
me: "Well, I agree, so why are you wondering why we don't do X?"
That does make more sense to me, reading the context with a slightly different emphasis here and there. Retracted.
In nearly all countries you need a permit to build a nuclear reactor, and said permits are frequently denied for political reasons. Not to mention that the biggest risk of building a nuclear power plant is probably having it shutdown by anti-nuclear activists before you can recoup the cost of building it.
That second point is particularly important. Since present governments cannot reliably bind future governments, credibility is a big issue with any politically-sensitive project with a long time horizon.
No patents on nuclear physics - If someone proves that LFTR is commercially viable, every reactor vendor will have a model out the year after. Heck players that are currently not in the reactor game at all would likely pile in. This would be a very good thing for the economy and the environment, but it means the incentives are ass-backwards for actually doing this for any actors other than national governments.
.. No, lets be honest here: "France, China, India". With a dark horse bet on the Czechs. Those are the only four players likely to cast steel and pour concrete. If you want it done quickly, sell François Hollande on the idea as a way out of the economic mess.
Why shouldn't there be anything patentable? If Apple can patent the edges of the iPad why shouldn't there be anything patentable in a LFTR?
The technology is 50 + years old, and all the materials engineering and chemistry work since is in the public literature, because almost all of it has been done on the dime of various publics. If someone implements a MSR and it proves cheap to build and a reliable machine in practice, that is going to involve good engineering and design practice, but absolutely nothing any patent board that is not utterly corrupt would class as a breakthrough. Not to mention that putting up legal barriers to implementation would violate both common practice, and at a minimum the spirit of the NPT.
If that's true, what's the core of the uncertainity about whether it's cheap to build and a reliable machine?
If all the leg work is done, why do the Chinese think they need 20 years of work to build one?
Noone has built one since the initial prototype - or at least, no one outside black initiatives. That's it. It really should /not/ take 20 years. 20 months, is more like it, if you set sensible design goals.
IE: I want an electricity making machine. Anyone who utters the words "High temperature" "Hydrogen Production" or "enhanced proliferation resistance" will be summarily fired. "Reliability" "Safety" and "Simplicity" are our watchwords. .
Most research on advanced reactor types turn into exercises in extremely advanced materials science due to goals creep - Trying to make a reactor that can safely operate at a temperature of over 900 degrees celcius genuinely is a 20 year project. It is also fracking pointless - the supply of fuel for a thorium breeder is effectively infinite, maximizing thermodynamic efficiency at the cost of engineering difficulty and complexity is the kind of very special stupid that only ever infests smart people.
<seriousness level="low"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RaptorHunter/FunFacts#Thorium_reactor </seriousness>