Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

38 Comments

  1. This seems like a decent place to restate my comment from last week about a Steve Jobs quote that really stuck out to me in regards to the necessary death of presently existing energy business models that will one day NECESSARILY die off: “Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent.”
    http://onforb.es/ok8Do1

  2. I have nothing against thorium, but the supporters of this fuel have been writing too many checks with their mouths that they won’t be able to cash over the waste and proliferation issues. The problem with holding out promises like this is that it gives those sitting on the fence a reason to stay there and not support new builds because something better is coming down the pipe.

    However the fact is that the thorium cycle still produces high-level waste that needs to be dealt with, and can also be perverted to make fuel for nuclear weapons. There is nothing intrinsic about thorium or its fuel cycle that makes it immune to these issues, as many supporters imply. You can also be sure that the hard-core antinuclear forces will know this too, with predictable consequences.

    These are the issues I have with the belief that thorium will have a place in the short term.

    1. I think the Thorium proponents have the same arguments as the fast-neutron Uranium proponents: 1) the ‘waste’ problem is not a problem, and 2) there are easier ways to make a bomb.

      I’m sympathetic to the idea that this gives people an excuse not to build now. Personally I would like very much to see thorium reactors developed (they seem to have some real advantages), but I’m also in favor of building reactors like crazy right now. I like the Chinese and Indian plans to build 6 EPRs at a site (10 GWe, now you are talking).

      There is some good back and forth on the proliferation issues regarding thorium here.

      http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/10/02/lftr-discourages-weapons-proliferation/

      1. What proliferation issue? Any country that has wanted nuclear weapons bad enough has made them from scratch, and without inputs from any power reactors they might have had.

      2. Civil nuclear power plants are really not the way to go to get weapon grade materials…. They teach you that at terrorist 101.

    2. DV8,
      OK, we get it. You don’t think Thorium is the way to go in the “short term”.

      However, this post is Kirk in his “long term” mode talking about sustaining USA levels of energy consumption for the entire world population for the next 30 million years.

    3. “I have nothing against thorium, but the supporters of this fuel have been writing too many checks with their mouths that they won’t be able to cash over the waste and proliferation issues.”
      DV82XL – You have on multiple occasions suggested that supporters of Thorium LFTRs do not adequately address the waste and proliferation issues. As a Thorium LFTR advocate, I would like to make a friendly response, but my difficulty is that but on no occasion have you gone any further to define what you think are Thorium LFTRs waste and proliferation liabilities, and because of this, I find it difficult to address your objections.
      How about giving all of us a little better idea why you think Thorium LFTRs have waste and proliferation vulnerabilities (specifics please), and maybe that will lead to answers to your concerns?

      1. You know if it wouldn’t be a total abandonment of my personal ethics, and if the situation wasn’t so dire, I would be tempted to join the other side just to illustrate just how pointless and dangerous this type of thing can be.

        Yes, thorium itself cannot be used to make nuclear weapons – that is hardly the point. But the fact is that there is nothing intrinsic about thorium itself that makes its potential fuel-cycles any more proliferation resistant that those of uranium.

        Furthermore, proliferation should not even be an element in this conversation, because the path any nation would take to construct a nuclear arsenal would not take it through its power reactor sector. Nor does nuclear energy need protection from amateurs seeking to make a nuclear bomb – the whole idea is so patently ridiculous that it hardly needs to be addressed let alone taken seriously. The bottom line is that the decision to embark on a nuclear weapons program is one made at the highest levels, and done in the full knowledge that the creation of a militarily significant number of weapons (a nuclear weapon being an explosive nuclear device and a delivery system) will be extremely expensive, and have profound geopolitical consequences. It is not something that a country is ‘tempted’ to do just because they can.

        Nor does thorium have any great advantages in the area of nuclear waste. Used the only way it practically can be now, in standard reactors, it needs reprocessing with all its attendant wastes, and leaves left over material to be dealt with. Claims by MSR supporters are not proven as the back-end process that they envision has not yet passed from theory and the wastes produced have not yet been established as any less of a hazard than those from current reactors.

        As well like proliferation, nuclear waste ‘problems’ are artificial constructions created to inhibit the growth of nuclear energy, and nothing is going to stop those still opposed from simply telling a new set of lies about thorium. Lies that are going to be just as difficult to fight as the current ones, exacerbated by the fact that they will be seen as exposing the ‘truth’ that current supporters of thorium tried to hide.

        The situation with the climate and other impacts of the pollution caused by fossil-fuels are the only things that should be on the minds of nuclear supporters, because nuclear is the only way out of the mess that doesn’t involve a collapse in our standard of living or worse, and time is running out. There is no time for this sort of debate.

        In a world where nations like Germany intend to do away with nuclear, where many others are reconsidering a commitment to nuclear power, and where there are still nations like Australia where nuclear technology was stillborn, the focus now needs to be on promoting builds with what we have. Nerdy arguments over which GenIV designs are best and hollow promises about thorium do not advance that agenda, and may well do harm to it.

        1. I don’t get it.

          you say that the thorium supporters are making, quote “the supporters of this fuel have been writing too many checks with their mouths that they won’t be able to cash over the waste and proliferation issues”.

          Yet you go on to state that even current fuel cycles a) don’t have proliferation issues, and b) don’t have a serious waste problem.

          How, then do you come to the conclusion that thorium won’t be able to live up to its supporters dreams?

          On proliferation, I agree with you. The two streams are both proliferation resistant, but thorium has the edge because you can a) denature the fuel and b) because in the long run, after thousands of years, what’s left in the uranium-235 decay chain is Pu-239.

          On waste, there really is no contest in 4th gen fuels. Thorium wins hands down in bulk-of-waste * number of reactor years where waste is radioactive.

          So I put it to you that YES, thorium COULD deliver on the promises that it mentions.

          As for the argument that promoting thorium can delay current build, well, I put it to you that there are a large group of people who can and do support thorium, but as it stands wouldn’t be caught DEAD supporting current technology.

          These people just may come round though, once thorium gets them to give up the ‘all nuclear is bad’ dogma that they hold, and that in the short run support for an alternative technology is the best that we can hope for. And who knows, once they come round that far, they just may go all the way.

          So – again – I don’t think they *are* ‘hollow promises’ and haven’t seen anything but baseless claims from you about the technology. It may just succeed in being scaled up to the TW range where the current breed of reactors have failed to do so.

        2. I know that my English is poor, I especially have problems with English idiom, but re-reading my post above, I cannot see where I wrote what you seem to have understood from it.

          To clarify, I assumed that it was common knowledge among those that support nuclear energy that the issues of proliferation and waste were fraudulent. As such, thorium is no less vulnerable to to the lies of antinuclear forces than uranium is. Thus the slight technical advantages that are claimed for thorium are practically meaningless for public relation purposes.

          Take for example the plan to denature the fuel, which in essence renders it too radioactive to handle. Yes this would make it difficult to use as a feedstock for the production of nuclear explosives. However it would, also by design make the resulting waste much more of a danger than today’s discharged fuel. I think it’s obvious what aspect of this scheme is going to be leveraged by antinuclear propagandists.

          The salient point being that for all intents and purposes one lie is as good as another as far as the enemies of nuclear energy are concerned. In promoting a scheme to denature the fuel we would be handing them two points: one that this type of reactor is a potential proliferation risk, (otherwise why denature)and proof positive that the spent fuel is a major radiation hazard.

          This is diametrically the opposite that MSR supporters have been saying. In what world does anyone think that they won’t leverage this to their own ends?

          However the bottom line is that none of these GenIV designs are close to being at the point where they can be deployed, and they will not be for decades.

          I am sorry, but I spent too much time sitting on committees evaluating new technology in the course of my career to have any illusions of where things stand here. I know that one way or the other, promoters of these designs are going to have to convince a tablefull of people that think the way I do, that will be charged with determining if the organization the work for should invest, and the ramifications of being wrong.

          I also know from now forty years in industry, just how long it takes the good ideas to reach maturity, and just how much money needs to be invested.

          Look, if I didn’t think our backs were against the wall, I wouldn’t bother with this. These types of VHS vs,Beta, big-endian /little-endian debates are as exhausting as they are generally pointless. In my opinion at this stage of the game people like Kirk Sorensen should be applying his apparently great oratorical skills to the promotion of nuclear energy as it is currently deployed, not selling a dream.

        3. I believe you have mis-understood the denaturing aspect. Flooding the mostly U-233 with U-238 wouldn’t make the fuel more radioactive, but would rather ruin it’s proportion of fissile material, rendering it ineffective for being a readily detonatable nuclear material without subsequent enrichment.

          The aspect of the thorium/U-233 fuel cycle that provides an ever-so-marginally improved proliferation resistance over LWRs (although it should be noted that Gen II plants are already proliferation resistant enough) that is related to being “more radioactive” is due to the presence of some U-232 mixed in with the U-233 fuel. The thinking is that the presence of the gamma-emitting U-232 would both render handling of the fuel by anything other than remote means a no-go (making weapons fabrication extremely, extremely difficult) and would render any weapons controls systems useless on a would-be weapon using U-233 (with U-232 contamination) as its fissile material.

        4. Joel – If you mix the U-233 with U-238 and then burn it, you’ll end up producing plutonium the same way that the uranium-plutonium cycle does. Thus, you’ve eliminated one of the much-touted advantages of the thorium fuel cycle: reduced plutonium and actinide production.

          DV8’s main point is still sound: you can’t have it both ways.

        5. Hi DV82XL

          I will give you some argument about nuclear and peace.

          First I must say that you cant have been study thorium molten salt reactors so many hour as you should, or?

          Thorium is for sure more environment friendly than energy from Uranium.

          The world have an extreme hunger for energy, several billion people risk there life for the opportunity to use at least half the energy we in OECD does.

          The only way to create a global sustainable society is to give human at least five times as mush energy as to day. The only way to do that before 2050 or WWIII is nuclear power GenIV, (and Thorium have some grate advance to Uranium).

          Civil nuclear power has never been the way to nuclear weapons as you wright.
          None of the countries that acquired nuclear weapons after the 70 century, restrictions on civil nuclear power has done so with the help of civilian nuclear power. After they created their own nuclear weapons, most of them have expanded their civilian nuclear power.

          Plutonium Bomb is not the easiest for a terrorist group, however, U235.
          To enrich uranium with centrifuges require so much energy that it’s hard to hide but now enriched with lasers developed so that soon a small terrorist cell could build a U235 bomb.

          GE seeking to build an enrichment plant in the U.S. for fuel production to 60 large reactors of today’s type, just with laser enrichment as a method.

          The conclusion you should draw from this is that any peace arguments against the civilian nuclear power is counter-productive.
          Civilian nuclear power creates wealth, which is the prerequisite for welfare, which in turn preserves the peace.

          Civilian nuclear power is arguably humanity’s greatest peace project and also the only way to create a global environment.

          So they against nuclear power GenIII GenIV (especially LFTR) are against peace and a sustainable global civilization.

          The scientific rejected CO2 threat rests only on a fear that coal, oil and gas will not be able to increase as soon as purchasing power in the new fast-growing countries with large populations require. We in OECD is not more than China or India, we three together is only half of the world’s population. 20 years ago was only we in the OECD counted in terms of consumption power and ability to pay, that’s what the climate war is really about.

          We live in an ice age since millions of years ago only 2.5 C above the earth’s lowest temperature 7.5 C below the earth’s normal.
          Take a look at the last 600M years:
          http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
          Go down a bit and see how stupid it is to go out with a warming threat.

          It’s all about energy, and the solution is nuclear power.

          Look at India’s three steps program (step two start now with a 500MWe fbr that burn todays waste and create new fuel at the same time of Thorium and U238.

          India plan to have 40GWe of todays most common nuclear reactor’s, they feed 400GWe fbr as the one they start now, the 400GWe fbr create fuel to many more less expensive reactors.

          The only way to create a peaceful world is nuclear power as we know today.

          Thats why Greenpeace in act are against peace and as a consequence of that act against the environment.

          The grounder has now understand that, have you?

        6. Brian,

          I was referring to the idea of having U-238 on hand to flood a “purely” Th-U-233 fueled reactor as a non-proliferation measure in the event of an a take-over of a plant. I think this idea would render the reactor inoperable from that point forward, at least until it could be re-taken by “good guys” and the fuel salt changed out.

          This probably isn’t the best idea overall, but it is one idea that I at least somewhat recall reading about.

          The Denatured MSR would obviously not possess all the claimed benefits of a “pure” Th-U-233 fuel cycle, but it might provide an interim step on the development path to a “purely thorium” (other than the fissile start charge) fuel cycle reactor.

        7. Joel – At least one scheme envisioned rendering the fuel too hot to handle, or at the very least that is how it was advertised.

          Please don’t lose sight of the fact that this is not a technical argument, but one of public relations. The truth – whatever it might be – is of secondary importance.

        8. DV8,

          I will do my best when in any discussions with “the general public” to emphasize that present Gen II LWRs (such as the one I am presently working towards completing) pose virtually zero proliferation threat when compared to the preferred paths for nuclear weapons production (enrichment of natural U, plutonium production, or theft of vulnerable fissile material).

    4. DV8, you seem to have some disagreement with the following quote from Edward Teller (inventor of the hydrogen bomb).

      ”He was an outstanding nuclear engineer working successfully on an important and timely topic,” said Dr. Edward Teller, who was Dr. Radkowsky’s master’s thesis adviser at George Washington University before World War II. ”I believe his argument for thorium, that it cannot be easily used for military purposes, is valid.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/05/world/alvin-radkowsky-86-developer-of-a-safer-nuclear-reactor-fuel.html

  3. A while back I said that we had Uranium supplies for 6 billion years according to Cohen. This article says that we have thorium for 30 billion years.

    I was quoted as ‘hyberboling’ then.

    Anyway, the sun turns the lights off in 4 billion years.

    1. If Cohen was close with his calculation of 6 billion years, then Weinberg’s 30 billion years also makes sense. There is 4 times as much thorium in earth’s crust than uranium.

      The point is not being guilty of hyperbole – the point is that fission energy is unlimited on any kind of time scale. In other words, it is sustainable even if the unreliables crowd has a virtual copyright on the word “renewable.”

      1. “Unlimited on any kind of time scale” is fine, implying that one type of fuel for a fission reactor is superior to another because the later will run out sooner is hyperbole.

        At any rate with 909,064 million tons of proven coal reserves worldwide, or 147 years RPR left, we’ll all be dead before that runs out too. In other words, it’s a non-issue.

        1. There you go again!

          If your point is that other reactors can compete with the LFTR in their ability to consume over 99% of the fuel, why not extol their virtues rather than keep repeating your sourpuss rants against the Thorium cycle?

        2. I have answered above why I think pushing Th is premature. LFTRs do not compete with current reactors because they are not a product – they are a concept.

        3. And since they aren’t competing with current reactors, your whole point seems to be a waste of breath.

          The time-scale that LFTRs win on is a rather long one.

        4. Joel, if LFTR supporters were honest enough to make that point clear, I wouldn’t have an argument with them. But by implying that these designs are close enough to be taken seriously, they have the potential of undermining efforts to build current proven designs, particularly with the questionable promise of less waste.

        5. I fail to see the following being the case:

          “But by implying that these designs are close enough to be taken seriously, they have the potential of undermining efforts to build current proven designs.”

          I don’t think that potential is there, especially not now. There are only a few U.S. utilities that could hope to build a plant at this point in time, and LFTRs aren’t even a consideration to those utilities at the present state of their design.

          I believe Flibe is first targeting the military for their reactor design(s) as a means of better navigating the regulatory landscape. Targeting that market is not going to undermine the building of present “proven” designs.

          On the point of being far enough along to be taken seriously, I think there are two primary points to consider.

          1. Right or wrong, a great deal of optimism is gleaned by thorium advocates by looking at just how small the MSBR budget was back when it was first worked on and by considering the reasons its development was canceled. See the graph on the next to last slide of this presentation for the historical development funding compared to other reactor concepts: http://www.flibe-energy.com/ppt/FlibeEnergy_20111010_ThEC2011.ppt

          2. China began their thorium MSR program this past January. If I am not mistaken, this action by China was the direct driving force behind Kirk Sorensen leaving Teledyne Brown Engineering and founding Flibe. China’s project is being led by a son of a former Chinese Prime Minister, if I remember correctly, so it is politically well-backed by the world’s 2nd largest (and growing fast) economy. (Reference: http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/01/30/china-initiates-tmsr/)

  4. The US has lost the ability to produce the heavy forgings needed to build commercial Light Water Reactors without help from other nations (Japan or Russia) and the que for reactor pressure vessels is currently very long (approaching a decade) [1]. LFTRs operate at very low near atmospheric pressure and do not require a heavy forged reactor pressure vessel, and so could be mass produced and deployed widely today using current US manufacturing infrastructure.
    That fact that potentially better nuclear technology is being developed for future application is not keeping existing design certified reactors from being built. An obstructive and cumbersome NRC licensing that causes US nuclear to be priced-up in cost is causing new UN nuclear not to be built[2].
    [1] – Japan Steel – industrial Infrastructure for LWR Reactor Containment Vessel
    http://bit.ly/dyEaMG
    [2] – Dr. Bernard Cohen, “Cost of Nuclear Power Plants – What went wrong?” –
    http://bit.ly/eb9Y7M
    (Regulatory ratcheting, quite aside from the effects of inflation, quadrupled the cost of a nuclear power plant).

    1. Joel & Robert

      I too doubt that the distant possibly of an MSR will delay a decision by a utility to build a NPP, that is not my contention. My concern is that those who are opposed to nuclear energy will leverage hope of one as an element in a campaign to delay new builds, by using the questionable promises of less waste and higher proliferation resistance. I have been trying to make this clear from the beginning that my argument is not against the technology but the way it is being promoted.

      I know I am going to be accused of promoting CANDUs for writing this, nevertheless:

      Considering the issue with heavy forgings I cannot help but point out that AECL solved that problem several decades ago with the CANDU design. It also appears that this design has been presented to the NRC on several occasions, only to find no traction yet several instances of this reactor are proving both reliable and economic in several countries.

      1. DV8, the US has probably exhibited a bit too much protectionism in regards to atomic power technologies. It’s ironic considering the relative lack of domestic development of reactor designs and fuel cycle options, along with the reprocessing/recycling moratorium that was in place for so long.

    2. Robert – Maybe you can answer this question for me, and I am not at all being snarky here, in regard to Thorium cycle proliferation resistance.

      How do we explain the ability of the USA, using 1955 technology, to produce a successful 22KT U-233 device in the Teapot MET shot?

      Right now Thorium in the public mind is an energy innocent, not at all associated with bombs or meltdowns like its heavier cousin Uranium. So if Th makes it into the media spotlight, some historically-savvy anti is going to throw this flag on the non-polif claims. What is the answer?

      1. I’m glad that someone is paying attention. That is exactly the sort of thing I am worried about if proliferation resistance is used to push Th reactors.

      2. Atomikrabbit & DV82XL –
        I am the wrong guy to ask about U-233 weaponization (Kirk Sorensen deserves to get the first crack at that answer). Most reactors, including Thorium reactors, really burn Uranium, and in the case of a LFTR, the Uranium is just the slightly different U-233 instead of more conventional U-235. The MET test, in my opinion, does not conclusively prove very much one way or the other regarding the potential of U-233 to be weaponized (the result of the MET test was that the device was successful [it went off] but was very low yeild). I believe that U-233 was not used more extensively in weapons manufacture, not because it is somehow unsuitable, but because U-233 has always been very rare, with no more than about 2000 kilograms of U-233 ever existing on the planet at any time in history.
        U-233 does have some problems as a weapons material – specifically, U-233 is very difficult to produce without significant U-232 contamination. U-232 has a decay daughter in its decay chain (Tl-208) that produces a dangerous hard gamma at 2.6 Mev that is hazardous to weapons workers and potentially to military personnel who would handle and store a U-233 weapon. U-233, such as could be obtained from an operating epi-thermal LFTR, would have high levels of U-232 contamination (typically on the order of 400 ppm), and this level of U-232 contamination, unshielded, would produce lethal levels of exposure in less than an hour at a short distance. Hanford Site was able to produce U-233 with very low levels of U-232 contamination (< 2 ppm) in their production reactors, and it was this very pure low U-232 contamination material (and not something taken from an early Thorium reactor) that was used by LASL weapons program to provide the material for the MET test shot in the mid 1950s.
        U-233 is the natural fissile fuel of a Thorium reactor. In my opinion, about the safest place to store any holdings of U-233 is inside an operating molten salt reactor.
        I personally do not think that the emphasis put on proliferation resistance pays off or ultimately proves rewarding. Small changes in technology (like making cheap and effective isotopic separations by improved forms of Laser Isotope Separation) completely change proliferation strategies that have had decades of NNSA care put into them – and almost overnight. All nuclear technologies, including Thorium LFTRs and highly touted Nuclear Fusion, which is promised to be clean and peaceful, can in fact be turned to weapons application by a sufficiently motivated and technically sophisticated group. My friend Bruce Hoglund has prepared a nice paper which does a very good job clearly presenting the practical proliferation strengths of Thorium Molten Salt Reactors (LFTRs) and my beliefs closely follow his. I feel the Denatured Molten Salt Reactor, pioneered at ORNL, is the strongest Molten Salt Reactor variant, from a proliferation standpoint [1].
        "The Multi-Mission Molten Salt Reactor (MSR):
        Versatility in Achieving Excess Fissile Destruction, Resource Extension, & Proliferation Resistance Mission Requirements"
        by, Bruce N. Hoglund, 1995
        http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/multiMissionMSR.html
        [1] – ORNL-TM-7207: 1980-07 "Conceptual Design Characteristics of a Denatured Molten-Salt Reactor with Once-Through Fueling"
        http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/ORNL-TM-7207.pdf

        1. I agree that it is very unlikely that any nation looking to develop nuclear armaments would consider the U-233 path, anymore than they would consider any other path than the two that have proven the most practical, this is not the point.

          What we are saying is that the Teapot MET test would provide any group looking to challenge the assertion that Th technology is proliferation resistant with a verifiable, and to the general public, plausible, example to the contrary. At the very least anitnukes could put Th promoters on the defensive should the latter put too much weight on the subject of proliferation resistance.

          Again – it’s not a technical debate but one of perceptions.

        2. For me, as a Thorium LFTR advocate, it is important to put out before the public the best information we are in possession of (and marketing and strategy posturing is of less interest).
          The mild 1950s MET atomic test unfortunately proves nothing and does not help answer the question “Is U-233, the fissile element of the Thorium Fuel Cycle, a satisfactory weapons material”. The Teapot Dome MET test was “low yield” and significantly below the yield target of the nuclear designers at LASL. This was not that uncommon an event for this period in Test Program (many pure Pu-239 and U-235 devices of this era also did not meet their yield targets – this should not be taken by anyone as proving, on the basis of a few low yield tests, that pure Pu-239 or U-235 weapons are not possible. There has never been a U-233 weapon built (the MET test was actually originally pursued by LASL researchers as a pure Pu-239 weapon which was changed at a very late stage (close to last minute) to a combination weapon having a relatively standard Pu-239 core surrounded by a quantity of U-233). The combined material weapon did not perform well and was very low yield.
          I believe that there is no fission or fusion energy technology that cannot be diverted to weapons application and production by a motivated and technically sophisticated group. No technology (including Thorium LFTRs) is proliferation proof (but there are some significant differences in the susceptibility of nuclear technology to weapons application and Thorium fuel cycle technology is relatively hard to divert to production of weapons). A low yield 1950s nuclear test of mixed fissile materials should not be used by anyone as ground to draw any inference of proliferation qualities of Thorium/U-233.

        3. This is where these discussions usually break down. I’ve found it almost impossible to make nuclear supporters understand that the quality of your technical arguments will NEVER resonate with the general population no matter how hard you try, and no matter how much you want to believe that reason can prevail.

          Like it or not, we live in a culture that has been conditioned to respond to a very different set of categorical imperatives than pure logic. More importantly, few have the necessary background to evaluate technical arguments, and most are acutely aware of this lack. As a consequence they feel they are forced to seek out the advice of those that claim to be able to interpret these subjects for them. This is the wedge that antinuclear forces have used to their advantage, and what I believe we must start doing.

          The grim fact that good, logical ideas have never carried the day on merit alone. History is thick with examples of this and beating one’s head against that fact is a poor strategy.

  5. The pro-nukes have to be able to multi-task:

    Some have to keep the Gen IIs running safely and reliably for a few more decades;

    Some have to plan, build, and train for the Gen IIIs;

    And some visionaries and communicators like Kirk (LFTR) and Barry Brook (IFR) and Rod (SMR) need to blaze a multitude of trails towards an abundant energy future.

    Others, like most of us, just need to do what we can in the effort to keep pronuclear arguments on display as a balance to the FUD constantly being shoveled into the public consciousness.

  6. Exactly, Rabbit. Luckily, there are considerably more than one of us out there.

    I do think that a healthy situation would be for a large number of us to be aware of the benefits of presented by each of the Generations of reactors and fuel cycles. Possessing that breadth of knowledge is what can truly help overcome the FUD presented by the anti’s (who also seem to be anti-prosperity).

Comments are closed.