Limited versus Unlimited Solutions
The left believes that CO2 production is a negative consequence of fossil fuel combustion and as such, assert that the solution to this problem is to increase the cost of fossil fuels, thereby leading to a reduction in their use. Accordingly, they advocate carbon taxes and non-nuclear 'green' energy. It could be argued that this is a 'limited' solution to the believed problem of climate change. It is limited in that is proscribes a limited energy production whereby the pie is smaller and everyone gets a smaller slice and the poorest of the poor gets none.
The principal unfortunate consequence of this approach is that billions of desperately poor people will simply not be able to afford the luxury of electricity or transportation. Of course, the more well off people will have to pay more and will naturally reduce their consumption. In the end however, the greatest negative impact will be on the already challenged, desperately poor.
As someone who actually cares about the poor, allow me to assert a much smarter 'unlimited' solution. Although nuclear energy to date has been a colossal failure, as it was designed to be, based on a prima facie comparison to an ideal reactor, its true potential is fantastic. It turns out that all it takes to make a perfect reactor is to salt a tank of molten Lead with Uranium and Thorium metal powder. This design has no accidental failure mode and even in the event of an intentional destruction of a reactor, as in the case of war, it will not result in a catastrophic release of radioactive material. This is because if the lead were ever to escape the reactor, it would simply congeal and encapsulate almost all of the radioactive material.
This design is not only inherently safe, it is at least 10 times cheaper than any green energy alternatives. Whereas a conventional reactor costs $5 billion to build and $5 billion to fuel, an ideal reactor could conceivably be built for $50 million with no fuel costs. It is not an exaggeration to say that an ideal nuclear plant can produce electricity for fully 10 times less than any current alternative. If the left truly cares about the poor as they claim, they will at least investigate this claim, before imposing on the world, energy that is too expensive for the developing world.
The world is currently being steered toward a 'limited' solution at horrendous harm to the hopes and dreams of the developing world. For reasons not yet clear, an ideal nuclear reactor is a topic whose name shall not be spoken. For all those who would benefit from a reduction in electricity costs and also seek to reduce CO2 production, I encourage a willingness to at least investigate this claim that unlimited, perfectly safe, and extremely cheap nuclear generated electricity is almost as simple as the sun.
The principal unfortunate consequence of this approach is that billions of desperately poor people will simply not be able to afford the luxury of electricity or transportation. Of course, the more well off people will have to pay more and will naturally reduce their consumption. In the end however, the greatest negative impact will be on the already challenged, desperately poor.
As someone who actually cares about the poor, allow me to assert a much smarter 'unlimited' solution. Although nuclear energy to date has been a colossal failure, as it was designed to be, based on a prima facie comparison to an ideal reactor, its true potential is fantastic. It turns out that all it takes to make a perfect reactor is to salt a tank of molten Lead with Uranium and Thorium metal powder. This design has no accidental failure mode and even in the event of an intentional destruction of a reactor, as in the case of war, it will not result in a catastrophic release of radioactive material. This is because if the lead were ever to escape the reactor, it would simply congeal and encapsulate almost all of the radioactive material.
This design is not only inherently safe, it is at least 10 times cheaper than any green energy alternatives. Whereas a conventional reactor costs $5 billion to build and $5 billion to fuel, an ideal reactor could conceivably be built for $50 million with no fuel costs. It is not an exaggeration to say that an ideal nuclear plant can produce electricity for fully 10 times less than any current alternative. If the left truly cares about the poor as they claim, they will at least investigate this claim, before imposing on the world, energy that is too expensive for the developing world.
The world is currently being steered toward a 'limited' solution at horrendous harm to the hopes and dreams of the developing world. For reasons not yet clear, an ideal nuclear reactor is a topic whose name shall not be spoken. For all those who would benefit from a reduction in electricity costs and also seek to reduce CO2 production, I encourage a willingness to at least investigate this claim that unlimited, perfectly safe, and extremely cheap nuclear generated electricity is almost as simple as the sun.
Comments
Post a Comment