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

  • Important public events related to nuclear energy scheduled for week of April 23

    Meredith Angwin, the energetic and caring pronuclear blogger at Yes Vermont Yankee shared the following message. It deserves wider notice so that the individual events attract the kinds of audiences that can make a difference in direction that the discussions take. Three upcoming events need your attention and support. The local (New England) grid depends…

  • Helping people understand the power grid

    Yesterday, the Institute for Energy Research launched a project to help people gain a better understanding of the electric power grid, a marvel of modern society that most people take for granted — unless its product delivery is interrupted for more than a few minutes. This information project is timely, especially considering all of the…

  • John Rowe wants everyone (else) to buy natural gas

    The Philadelphia Inquirer recently ran a story titled Exelon’s Rowe an unlikely booster for shale gas. The headline writer was wrong; John Rowe is one of the most motivated natural gas salesmen in the United States right now. Though he will not receive any commission checks for his efforts, he stands to profit immensely if…

  • Smoking gun: Robert Anderson provided initial funds to form Friends of the Earth

    In 1969, Robert O. Anderson, an oil man whose long career included a stint as the Chief Executive Officer of Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) (now part of BP, the company formerly known as British Petroleum), gave David Brower $200,000 to start Friends of the Earth (FOE). Here is a quote from that organization’s page about nuclear…

  • Atomic Show #215 – Armond Cohen, CATF, describes need for nuclear

    Armond Cohen is the Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force. We spoke in January 2008 on episode #78 of the Atomic Show. At that time, Armond and his organization did not take a position on nuclear energy. On March 28 of this year, I heard Armond give a talk at the commemoration of…