Quote from: myrkul on July 24, 2012, 08:13:02 PM

Quote from: niemivh on July 24, 2012, 04:50:00 PM

Problem: you took that tiny snippet of the video and deemed that that information was enough for you to conclude anything really intelligent or wise regarding what happened to cancel the program. Of course, when one's world-view is so simplistic as to have to only keep an eye out for "the gov'ment" to knee-jerk a conclusion regarding something so complex, then one's "lookout" and "watch patrol" will never go far without being satiated on this superficial (and ultimately meaningless) level.

I watched the entire video, but the only part that was relevant, really, to the question asked was that 5-6 minute segment where he speaks about the AEC and the Wash report. There's an earlier segment where he mentions another factor, I don't remember the time stamp, so I'll just paraphrase it here: "It's not the money, it's the risk attached to that money. I can go to a bank and say I need X million dollars to build an oil rig, and I'll get it, because I can say it will take this long to build, this long to pay itself off."

So, all the factors that I can see as to why LFTR isn't being built in the private sector in the US right now:
1. The DOE puts massive barriers to entry in any atomic project, above and beyond those naturally there such as development costs.
2. Because those barriers may change, or become completely impassable, on a bureaucrat's whim, no private bank will fund such a risky project.
3. Government invested heavily in "traditional" nuclear power during the war. Shifting gears would be seen as a waste, or simply make them look bad, and is thus avoided.
4. Because of the DOE's massive barriers to building a new nuke plant, It's not very profitable to do so, when you can at all. So most of the effort and money goes into supplying the existing plants with fuel, which is quite profitable, especially since each reactor can really only take one kind of fuel.
5. As was pointed out numerous times throughout the video, LFTR is no good for making a bomb. The entire fuel chain is useless for blowing shit up. And we all know how much government loves to blow shit up. There's no incentive to get out of LFTR's way.
6. Another factor was mentioned later: Thorium is considered a radioactive contaminant by the EPA, and so mining sites which contain Thorium are avoided due to the harsh regulations.

So, to sum up, LFTR isn't being done in the US, because neither government nor the private sector has much incentive to change. Despite how profitable many of the waste products of LFTR would be, it's much more profitable to supply the current generation of reactors with fuel, because it's real hard to beat a monopoly for profits.

Quote from: niemivh on July 24, 2012, 04:50:00 PM

I'm glad I started this line of conversation, I've got Libertarians actually discussing real historical events rather than their unimaginative thought-experiments.

Here's some obvious problems with your shoe-horning of this situation in regard to this real historical event:

* FACT: The Technology happened solely due to government funding. QUESTION YOU SHOULD HAVE: Why did the Private Sector not beat them to the punch?

Nuclear technology was developed during a WAR. It was heavily wrapped in tape labeled "OFFICIAL SECRET" and kept from prying eyes. There's no way the private sector could have "beaten them to the punch", because the government had already tested their first nuke before anyone in the private sector knew there was even research being done. Had it not been for that war, private sector nuclear research would have been focused on efficiency, rather than bomb-making potential, and guess which reactor has efficiency?

Quote from: niemivh on July 24, 2012, 04:50:00 PM

* FACT: After the traditional nuclear power industry realized that they could monetize the nuclear fuel industry these events happened and LFTR was shut down. QYSH: How much money would all these energy industries have lost, had LFTR's potential been realized? ANSWER: It's in the TRILLONS of dollars.

LFTR was shot down long before the current situation with GE et al supplying the remaining reactors with platinum to burn (that's the analogy he uses, since the fuel used in modern reactors is roughly as scarce as platinum). LFTR was shot down by the AEC because they had invested too heavily in "traditional" nuclear already, and were not prepared to make the change.

You also seem to be conflating "unrealized profits" with "loss". They would not have "lost" that money, they would simply not have made the huge monopoly-level profits that they are making now.

Quote from: niemivh on July 24, 2012, 04:58:48 PM

Also, just because your world-view is completely polarized on this childish level of "gov'ment" vs. "Free-Market Utopia" doesn't mean that mine is. It doesn't mean that I'm going to worship the inverse of what you worship simply because I disagree with what you worship.

If you didn't, you'd be able to remove your blinders, and see how much government is distorting the current energy market.

Once again, you think you live in the United States of Earth. Any other country could have taken this up by now. Why have they not?

Rather than pick your post apart, I'll just ask the main question: do you think that the government acts of it's own accord in regards to these issues? Why is the government a monolithic entity in your mind?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7AfnQ8BN6E

Does this video matter to you?