Nearly as Simple as the Sun

An ideal reactor can be all but authenticated using computer simulation, probably within a day. Our engineering and computing capabilities are clearly sufficient. And all it would take to prove it is the decision to challenge the assertion. So why does this assertion matter to you? Because Germany pays upwards of 25 cents a Kw-hr for electricity when it could be produced for one-tenth that. But if no one in the working class can be bothered to agitate on this issue, then perhaps, the peasants really don't need air conditioning. The sad thing about astronomical electricity costs is that it always hurts the people who are just barely scraping by, the most.

The truth about nuclear energy is that an ideal reactor can be built that is nearly as simple as nature's perfect reactor, the Sun. And the fact that the Sun exists negates the attitude that anyone can discount, out of hand, the claim that a man-made reactor can be nearly as simple. The existence of the Sun means that anyone who claims that simple, safe, and cheap reactors cannot be built must present factual rebuttals to any claim that they can. Long before the Russia hoax, and now the corona virus hoax, there was the nuclear hoax. The claim that any level of radiation is horrendous and that tremendous inherent risk and cost are just the limitations of nuclear science and technology.

So here are the two facts about conventional nuclear plants that should tip off even the least attentive ratepayer. A conventional nuke can be used as a fantastic weapon against the population in the event of war and it can only utilize 1% of its fuel. All it takes to cause a Chernobyl level release is to rupture the primary coolant system. Who would even build a 1% efficient, national Achilles' heel?

In contrast, an ideal reactor will contain it's waste even in the event of bombing, it can utilize 100% of its fuel, and is nearly 100 times cheaper, and 10 times faster to build. Now these claims are beyond the pale, but they are even more reason why discounting them out-of-hand is irresponsible. The advantage of any of these three claims are potentially so great that ignoring them is arguably criminal. If the day comes that an enemy bombs a conventional reactor and sends an extremely radioactive plume over a city, everyone who ignored these claims will share in the blame.

In the early '60s, Alvin Weinberg built and operated a slightly less ideal variant of an ideal reactor that consisted of the circulation of liquid Thorium Fluoride. The demonstration reactor proved the feasibility of building a reactor that effectively could not result, by any means, in a massive release of radioactive material while producing electricity at a minimum cost. In his memoirs, he recalls being threatened with careeracide if he proceeded to advocate for its promotion. Instead of building a nuclear industry based on the best reactor design, someone made the decision to base an entire nuclear industry on what might credibly be labeled one of the worst reactor designs ever conceived. The 'system' took a reactor designed to fit in a submarine and scaled it up, with complete disregard for common sense or public safety.

To corroborate some of what I claim in this article, the reader is encouraged to search, using an uncensored search engine, the terms 'Taiwan' and 'Cobalt 60'. A real life radiation exposure event involving thousands of individuals showed that casually exposed individuals demonstrated a 90% reduction in cancer mortality rates. In contrast, the narrative promoted by our power structure is that any exposure is so dire, we casually spend tens of millions of dollars to prevent even the most insignificant exposures. If the truth were told, hundreds of millions of cancer deaths over the last 60 years could have been either prevented or delayed by the scientific application of low-exposures to radiation. Instead, a false narrative was promoted to justify the complete destruction of an inherent economic advantage of nuclear energy.

Throughout my life I have seen the system lie about nuclear energy while promoting the primitive energies of wind and solar and fossil fuel, presumably because nuclear energy threatened the economic value of the reserves owned by our real masters. Not only have they been willing to kill the economic benefit of nuclear energy, they have willing to do it in a way that is amazingly hazardous  and vulnerable and may one day result in horrendous plumes being sent across our cities and country sides. I no longer hold much hope that reason will prevail and can only hope that I don't live to see the day that an enemy blows open an operating core just upwind of a major population center.