Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: *A development approach that may be more compatible with the way things are > today are to orient the reactor design to the needs of the grid and the > various utility companies.* >
This strategy makes no sense to me. None at all! Plus it would not work because as Christensen says, established industry has no interest in disruptive technology. Imagine how this might have played out in the history of commerce: Edison invents the lightbulb and waits for the gas lighting industry to buy it. They have pipes under the streets already and they see no point to laying electric cables. The technology languishes. Alex Bell invents the telephone and offers it to Western Union for a pittance. They say no. (That really happened!) So Mr. Bell decides it is not worth pursuing. In the late 19th century, small gasoline motors are developed. They are too small for locomotives or street cars, which is the only motorized transport at the time. People cannot think of any use for them, and development is put aside. Jobs and Woz develop the Apple computer. Hewlett Packard and IBM express no interest in the product so they drop the idea. - Jed
