Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:


  1. Wonderful to hear, Rod, and thanks for the post. Talking about technology (what) obviously wasn’t working. Doing the jawboning, making connections and getting the feel of the group will pay many dividends. Maybe next year you could talk about ‘why’ and outline the possibilities of applying high power density energy systems in many many ways.

    Keep those ears open.

  2. Rod,
    I remember back around 1980 when “OTEC” (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, I think) power plants were envisioned. They would use the temperature differential between warm surface water and cold water from the deep to generate electricity. A byproduct of the electrical generation was the nutrient rich water from the ocean’s depths. That water was used for aquaculture. What if the concept was modified: A floating nuclear power plant brings up coolant from the deep (and lots of it), thus providing nutrients for a fishery.

  3. (to the tune of “Promises. Promises”…)

    Nuclear lip service, glib and gushing and garbage.

    That’s ALL that really comes out of all these types of energy and environmental conferences. Really, does nuclear EVER get any shovel-in-the-ground traction from them? Ever notice how gas and oil ads NEVER consider THEMSELVES as part of the “energy mix”, but rather wind and solar and tides (and once a blue moon nuclear) are part of THEIR “energy mix,” like raisins added to a gas/oil vanilla cake mix. Hate “mix.” You need any “mix” to make floating-city nuclear aircraft carriers go? I see a severe lack of commitment and a severer lack of spine getting nuclear up to speed, unlike China and Russia maybe India who don’t kowtow to shrieking fright groups. Yea, to admire China so…

    I also have SEVERE reservations of the U.S. delving into floating nuclear plants. They are indeed ingenious and doable solutions but they come with one bad P.R. boomerang that’s ultra-fodder for anti-nukers: “See, nukes are SO dangerous that you have to park them on boats that can beat a hasty retreat over the horizon when trouble starts!” No joke, that’s how the public here will perceive floating nukes — also to the detriment of extending or even building new ground-based plants here. Look all ways before you leap!

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

    1. I’m with you on the “mix” gibberish. If you have something good that works, why “mix” it with anything? That only leads to dilution. The only time it seems to come up is in the discussion of nuclear energy, as if it’s some kind of sop to throw a little nuclear into the “mix”. If we’re going to mix anything, make the “mix” much more concentrated with things we know how to do, that are proven to work, and are beneficial to the environment and the economy. Can’t think of anything much better than nuclear by that reckoning.

      As James says, none of the other competitors want to just be a part of the “mix”, they want the whole enchilada. Look at the latest version of the Vermont “plan”. They want 90% unreliables. They’ve said to h*ll with any “mix”, especially not nuclear in their “mix”.

  4. “One of my longest, and potentially most fruitful conversations was with a professor at a small liberal arts college in Southern California. He’s been teaching for more than 30 years in a wide variety of courses on the boundary between biology and chemistry. He operates a rooftop solar system, no longer uses a clothes dryer, drives an electric car and is deeply interested in breeder reactors.”

    Any chance you could put him in touch with me, Rod? If he’s on Twitter, I’d be eager to follow him (and I assume he’d want to follow me). Thanks, if yes, but no worries if you didn’t get his contact info and don’t run into him again.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts