Month: January 2011

Thorium nuclear power: Let’s do this

It never ceases to amaze me how our political systems and the power of giant corporations consistently holds us back as a species.

Watch this fast-moving video to learn more about thorium-based nuclear power. It’s safe to operate, has a small environmental footprint, could be cheaply developed at large or small scales (including transportation platforms), and we could use it for millions of years at current energy consumption rates.

Imagine: all-electric transportation vehicles and systems driven by battery and/or hydrogen storage + fuel cells, with the power for hydrogen separation or battery recharges coming from thorium-based nuclear plants setup in highly distributed smart grids. Imagine a world without coal-fired power plants.

A final quote from the video:

In conclusion, this gives us options for inherently safe, proliferation-resistant, economic nuclear power that can last thousands if not millions of years. This really could be the silver bullet that enables us to power our industrial society. And this also offers real options for solving the long-term issues surrounding our existing spent nuclear fuel and ultimately preventing the formation of new transuranic waste.

Comment on “How sticky is Android?”

If you’re not reading Horace Dediu’s asymco, you’re missing out on the best mobile systems analysis and numbers in the business. I took the time to comment on his recent How sticky is Android article and I’m reprinting here for the record.

I appreciate the “sunk cost” notion [of smartphone stickiness], but I think for most users in most cases, that’s a non-issue beyond any given 2-year period. When the phone costs $100 to $300 subsidized but your monthly cost is already $75+, the hardware cost is not a barrier to switching. In fact, anyone that doesn’t upgrade their phone — and posisbly switch platforms — at the turn of their contract is leaving money on the table, based on the way carrier contracts work today. I routinely talk with friends whose contracts are coming up and they usually consider their options. Some are loyal to a platform, but most aren’t.

What seems to create loyalty or stickiness are only a few factors, and rarely are all at play for any single user:

  1. some number of platform-specific apps that the user considers critical to smartphone value
  2. a large number of platform-specific apps or media on which the user spent a lot of money and wants to retain that value
  3. direct ownership experience with both iOS and Android, after which the user has made a choice and plans to stick with it (so far, iOS is winning in this category amongst my peers)
  4. irrational love of or hatred of either iOS or Android based on emotional criteria (generally Android wins in this category because that torch burns particularly bright, similar to the way some people support Linux)

By the way, on #3, there hasn’t been enough time for most people to have owned both platforms yet. The first true smartphone was the iPhone in mid-2007. Android with comparable features didn’t come until much later. We’re only at the opening of 2011 — only 3.5 years into the iPhone and 2.5 or less into Android. Even if you bought an iPhone in July 2007 and bought an Android in July 2009, only this year would you be eligible to switch back. That’s not enough competitive time to draw conclusions yet on stickiness.