There are obvious deals to be negotiated on the IP sharing – e.g., China, India, GE Hitachi, Toshiba, etc.

A useful up-to-date discussion was just released by Brookings.

One of the several advantages of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is that it would be easier to manufacture that type of reactor in a factory. The fact that it does not require a pressure vessel and can be considerably smaller would make factory production more practical. Perhaps the containment vessel could not be factory manufactured, but because the containment vessel could be considerably smaller and of lighter construction, it would cost far less.

I still believe that we should be putting considerable effort into developing LFTR technology but considering the time required to do so and the fact that we cannot be TOTALLY certain that the LFTR is the best way to go, it seems that we should continue uranium technology for the present. And, China is believed to be working on LFTR technology. Surely it would be best not to risk being left behind.

What is often considered nuclear waste is actually unused fuel. Our current nuclear technology is incapable of burning the unused fuel which is wrongly considered to be waste. In fact, our current reactors get less than one percent of the available energy from the fuel; therein lies the problem.

The solution is to use the “waste” as fuel by implementing a nuclear technology that can use the “waste” as fuel. If we continue to use uranium in such an inefficient manner, we will soon run out of it but, if we use it more efficiently, it will last for centuries.

Better yet, don’t use uranium for nuclear fuel. Instead, use thorium, in the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR).

Although our government was in theory democratic during that era (1864 – 1900), it tended to be a plutocracy. The Barons of Industry often got their way by spending huge amounts of money on political campaigns, owning newspapers to control what was published, and outright bribery of politicians and judges; they had the money to do it. And, from a number of standpoints, Andrew Carnegie’s performance was mixed. He was heavily involved in politics in both the U.S. and in England not by running for office, but by publishing articles and supporting extremely expensive political campaigns. For a while, he had controlling interest in several newspapers in England and Scotland. In England, he was referred to as “a star-spangled Scotsman.”

Despite his faults, Andrew Carnegie probably significantly accelerated the industrialization of the U.S. Much of what he did has modern parallels, but of course history never repeats itself exactly. His approach to using the most modern and efficient machinery and production methods and his understanding that sunk costs often should be ignored when making investment decisions paid off. What he did was all done via private equity, with the highly beneficial significant exceptions to him of causing the U.S. to erect protective trade barriers to protect the domestic steel industry and using his influence to get favorable national and state legislation.

Back to the private equity topic. Why did you connect Andrew Carnegie to current-day private equity?

On the other hand, he worked his employees for 12 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week, and treated them as disposable; obviously that would not be acceptable. The employees who wanted to improve their educational stati were unable to do so and the Carnegie libraries were of no use to them since they had time only to work, eat, and sleep. Because they were fatigued, that resulted in higher error and accident rates.

One example is the NYC pilot, School of One, which is testing several modalities. This search will find three Seekerblog posts on the project.

Yet, I understand that good students might have a different way to explain things, and I don’t mind about that, actually it makes me happy. I don’t get mad if I see two students talking in class that are obviously explaining the subject. Sometimes I even thank them for helping me to explain it, specially since, as you said learned “the idea such a long time ago that I can no longer understand why somebody has difficulty grasping it”, no matter how hard I try to do new things.

Probably a better approach would be the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR). It too can be used to “burn” existing nuclear waste as fuel and should be safer and much less expensive.