Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Subscribe to Comments:


  1. Rod, Since the Spring of 2007, when I first mentioned Molten Salt Reactors to David Roberts of “Grist” till today, the MSR concept has come a long way. In 2007, 30 people were talking about MSRs on the comment form of Energy from Thorium. In this account you mention 4 groups that are planning to build either a MSR prototype, or commercial Molten Salt products. Just one of the people mentioned, Leslie Dewan was talking about creating enough energy to produce high leveles of energy for everyone in the world, using nothing more than what is usually carigorized as “nuclear waste.” Leslie Dewan says that the goal of Transatomic Power is to save the world. More power too her, and more power too the Molten Salt Reactor.

  2. I appreciate the work you do so I sent a $30 donation your way. Its not a lot, but every little bit helps. Having a dedicated and knowledgeable pro-nuke voice out there is important to the long game of changing minds, leading to an eventual cultural shift that can change the politics of nuclear energy.

    Shifting conventional wisdom and changing the conversation on energy matters is a monumental task, but somebody’s gotta do it. For everyone else who believes as I do, i.e. that getting this right is vital to our collective future, we need to step up and get involved. If you can’t spend the time, then send some dollars to help move the needle a bit more in the right direction. If thousands of people each do a little, it will add up to a lot.

    1. @Steve

      There are times when I wish I knew how to implement a like button here. 🙂

      Thank you for both the contribution and the supporting comment.

  3. Tell us about John C Dvorak (where the ‘C’ stands for Celebrity NY meetup). I saw the selfie pic on your twitter…

  4. “……….and the need for continuing the shift of regulations from prescriptive to risk informed rules focused on outcomes.”

    I have a problem with the wording of this statement. And it gets to the heart of the problem with our current regulatory structure.

    Try it this way… and the need for continuing the shift of regulations from prescriptive RULES to risk informed JUDGEMENTS focused on outcome CONSEQUENCES.

    In another place I read where you (Rod) asked the NRC exactly why Pilgrim was placed in the Penalty Box. That answer is easy… an NRC procedure checklist requires it. My real heartburn with the original statement is the idea of “risk informed rules”; it’s a simple oxymoron. All you are doing is changing one form of decision making by checklist, to another (driven by a PRA checklist). PRA is a TOOL, for enhancing judgement decisions.

    If risk informed JUDGEMENTS are viewed as RULES, nothing has changed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts