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

  • Is Bill McKibben really serious about climate change?

    Andy Revkin recently published a post on his Dot Earth blog titled A Communications Scholar Analyzes Bill McKibben’s Path on Climate. In one of the videos that is embedded in the article, Matthew Nisbet describes Bill McKibben as a public intellectual and compares his activism on climate to that of Rachel Carson on the effects…

  • Cooper’s criticism may awaken nuclear competitive spirit

    Dr. Mark Cooper is strongly opposed to the use of nuclear energy, but on July 18, 2013, he issued a report sponsored by the Vermont Law School titled Renaissance in Reverse: Competition Pushes Aging U.S. Nuclear Reactors to the Brink of Economic Abandonment that may inadvertently spur action to create a more competitive industry. If…

  • Discussing nuclear energy in Australia

    On August 5, 2014, Professor Barry Brook, Ian Hore-Lacy and Professor Ken Balwin chatted with ABC [Australian Broadcast Corporation] 666 morning host Genevieve Jacobs about nuclear energy. Each member of the panel provided a brief statement and then there was a lengthy question and answer period lasting nearly an hour. You really should watch the…

  • Atomic Show #190 – Nuclear plant performance during Hurricane Sandy

    There are 34 nuclear reactors located in areas affected by Hurricane Sandy. Of those, 7 were shutdown for planned maintenance. Three units tripped due to disturbances on the grid or issues with one of their redundant cooling systems. The other 24 remained operational and supplied as much power as the grid could accept. On Sunday,…

  • Bernie Sanders’s message is more than media caricature portrays

    We had a wide ranging discussion here on Atomic Insights after I posted an article titled Bernie Sanders is listening to the wrong people about energy. Quite a few of the comments led me to believe that the author has developed a slanted or one dimensional understanding of Bernie Sanders’s campaign message. That distorted view…