Why solar is not the solution to the energy crisis
Next gen nuclear power is clean, efficient, and environmentally friendly. Most of the waste products can be recycled over and over and the remaining part is short lived. Why was it killed?
Read this tweet thread about solar power from my friend Michael Shellenberger:
The best alternative for generating massive amount of clean power: next gen nuclear (fast reactors)
The best alternative for energy generation is next generation nuclear power (fast-reactors). They combine safety, efficiency, and a small land footprint into an ideal power system.
These next generation reactors, such as the sodium-cooled integral fast reactor (IFR), are extremely safe because if the cooling goes bad, the reactor safely shuts down based on the laws of physics. These reactors also recycle their own waste on site so the nuclear material can be used over and over again (a method known as pyroprocessing). There is a very small amount of “waste” product but it can be safely stored and becomes “safe” after less than 100 years (and we know how to store things safely on those time frames vs. thousands of years required for traditional nuclear waste).
President Bill Clinton killed the next gen nuclear power program
Sadly, Bill Clinton killed the program (which was supported by both Democratic and Republican Presidents) for political reasons (the oil companies didn’t like the competition).
President Clinton never talked directly to any of the scientists involved in the program to learn their side of the story before he stopped the program. It would be nice if he made a statement regretting his decision, but people never like to admit they were wrong.
In America, before making important decisions, the decision makers often hear only one side of the story. People with differing views are silenced or not consulted.
This has been going on for decades. Collectively, we are all paying the price for such poor decision-making.
Some of the people who created the IFR are still alive
Chuck Till and Yoon Chang are the two people most knowledgeable about this work. It is world-class thinking and it is very sad that it is likely they will die before seeing their work adopted.
My readership is worldwide and perhaps the leader of some nation will pursue this idea with the funds it deserves.
Yoon Chang and I did meet with Bill Gates, but instead of funding the slam dunk solution, he decided to fund scientists working on a “better” design. At least he listened to the pitch (but did so well after he started funding TerraPower). I give him credit for that.
But he should have funded both… the bird in the hand (IFR) and the bird in the bush (TerraPower).
In my opinion, had Elon Musk invested in building next gen nuclear power instead of Twitter, we’d be in a better position for our future than we are today.
For more information about next generation nuclear
Read the description and the critiques and the response to the critiques
Read the book Plentiful Energy (Amazon link): the single best source of reliable information
Watch the movie I funded, Pandora’s Promise. It features Michael Shellenberger among many others.
Read my writeup on the IFR which I did many years ago
Prescription for the planet (a highly rated book by Tom Blees).
You can use the Contact me link if you would like to get in touch with Dr. Chang to pursue this.
Wouldn’t it be great if a large enlightened oil company realized we have passed peak oil and looked to diversify their revenue stream and developed the technology in a supportive country?
A final note on getting people to change their belief systems
It’s ridiculously hard to get people to change their belief system no matter how strong the arguments are.
For example, Tom Blees has been an advocate for the IFR for many years. He wrote a highly rated book, Prescription for the Planet about the IFR. Clearly, he was able to overcome the mainstream programming that nuclear power is “unsafe” and listen to the underlying data.
So I decided to use Tom as a test case about the vaccines. I called him up and asked him if he would do me a favor and read just the first two chapters of Turtles All the Way Down which I sent to him electronically.
He called me up 5 minutes later saying, “This book is anti-vaccine. I’m not going to read it! Vaccines are safe. Everyone knows that.”
So there you go. It tells you everything you need to know, doesn’t it?
This is fundamentally why none of the authorities in the world (including ACIP Chair Professor Grace Lee who called the cops on me for asking a question) want to look at the Israeli safety data that proves that the vaccines are dangerous. They are simply unwilling to consider anything that goes against their belief system, just like Tom Blees won’t read Turtles.
If you enjoyed reading this article…
Please consider becoming a paying subscriber for $5 a month (or $50/year). It helps to support our work to get the word out about the safety of the vaccines and exploding other myths as well. Thanks!
People who rail about climate change but ignore nuclear aren't serious, end of story.
The physics of climatology is wrong. That's what you need to attack.
http://climate-change-theory.com (may be down for maintenance)
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A.(econ), Dip.Bus.Admin et al