4 Comments

  1. I mean no offense to Kirk Sorensen, and he does deserve a great deal of credit for helping get the MSR/Thorium story out to a much wider audience, but I think the potential future benefits of the technology are what has been influencing people a lot moreso than Kirk himself. I am pretty sure I have heard Kirk himself say that too.

  2. In my opinion Kirk’s advocacy has been very important. He got a new narrative into wide circulation: the discovery of long-lost knowledge with the potential to change the world, knowledge that was buried long ago because the technology and its main proponent (A. Weinberg) became inconvenient to powerful interests.

    This story roughly fits the narrative of the rise of good, death at the hands of dark forces followed by a resurrection leading to the potential salvation of mankind.

    Using narratives roughly following universal, age-old archetypes is a very powerful way to sell a message.

    I believe his message resonates well and as a result he got many people to think differently about nuclear power. He got people to realize that what Al Gore said was wrong: nuclear power DOES NOT come in only one size (BIG). It can come in small sizes and in different forms that can radically affect safety, sustainability and cost (for the better); and, because of this it IS possible to engage a vision of energy abundance for the world with a new generation of nuclear technologies.

  3. I believe this quote here from Mr. Rosenthal is at the root of current opposition to nuclear power,

    “But that doesn’t matter. I own a farm near North Anna. If the plant has an accident, no one would ever buy my land. It would be worthless.”

    I think that in our relatively (compared to the rest of the world) wealthy society, the baby boomers have become more risk adverse in terms of their long-term investments and they see a nuclear accident as a threat to their financial security approaching retirement. I’m not saying it’s rational, just that it’s the current state of things.

  4. Mr. Rosenthal doesn’t see that if there is an accident he has a legal right to have the utility purchase his land at FMV and compensate him for his lost work.

    Yes he looses his land but the value is not a sunk cost, which is what is argument is centered around.

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • Knee jerk reactions lead to costly regulations without benefit

    Representative Ed Markey, a man who is quicker with antinuclear press releases than almost anyone, is once again trying to ratchet up the cost of licensing, owning and operating nuclear power plants. This time, he is using the recent Mineral, VA earthquake as his reason for reacting. Here is a quote from a recent story…

  • John Tjostem – GMOs & Atomic Fission Enable a Sustainable Future

    During a discussion on Atomic Insights, I encountered a man whose recipes for a sustainable future need greater distribution. John Tjostem is an advocate of technologies that enable disruptive abundance and a more rewarding life for a growing portion of the world’s population. After growing up on South Dakota farm in the 1930s and 1940s,…

  • As the world turns at the NRC

    The latest episode in the distracting soap opera at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has provided more fodder for the political pundits in their efforts to turn nuclear energy deployment and regulation into a partisan issue. Fortunately, some of the players seem to understand that the subject is too important and has too many nuances…

  • Power In New England: Why are Prices Increasing so Rapidly?

    On October 20, IBM announced that it was spinning off its chip division by paying GlobalFoundries $1.5 billion. GlobalFoundaries appears to have won the deal with its geographic position of owning fabrication facilities in New York as well as in Germany and Malaysia. The move didn’t surprise many, as there have been rumors that IBM…

  • Paul Wilson & Bret Bennington vs Arnie Gundersen & Heidi Hutner on Nuclear Sustainability

    On Nov 20, 2014, Hofstra University hosted its annual Pride and Purpose Debate. This year’s proposition was the following – “Should nuclear energy be expanded to help create a more sustainable future?” The debate included the following panelists: For – J Bret Bennington, professor of geology, Department of Geology, Environment and Sustainability at Hofstra University.Against…