Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

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.

    1. 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.