Jed wrote."You are missing the point. We have to build these things here
and now if we want to reduce the cost and play a future role in this
technology. We cannot let China and other countries do all of R&D now
and then later expect to be in this business. We cannot expect the first
units to compete with established technology such as coal and wind."
That is false logic.You might as well claim Tokamaks are the answer, and
we should do the research here, no matter what the cost, or be left
behind.The problem is of course that if the system is fundamentally
uneconomic no amount of research is going to fix it.It looks to me that
thermal solar is in that category.I don't care who recommends
it.Remember, MIT dismissed cold fusion in an unethical way.Group think
at its best.
Maybe the numbers are available.I haven't seen them.I suspect that
Brightsource is a huge boondoggle.Perhaps you can prove me wrong.
There are a number of more promising avenues for research. Possibly half
a dozen more economical fusion and fission projects are essentially
unsupported because of ITER's drain on funds.
I think moving pebble bed reactors are a more promising interim
solution.China is developing and building those.There is no possibility
of a meltdown with them being passively fail safe. Disposal of
radwaste is only a problem because of the bureaucracy handling it.
I would prefer to see LFTRs developed.I remain optimistic about the
E-Cat HT.
- Re: [Vo]:BrightSource a.ashfield
-
