Faith in our leadership misplaced

With respect to the issue of energy, it appears that people have too much faith in our leadership in making the best possible choices.  Why too much faith?  Because the assumption seems to be this:  if it is so good, why isn't it being done?  The assumption is that very thing---faith that the leadership will do the right thing.  If the faith is misplaced, the wrong thing will be done because of the blind followership will not adequately question the decisions of the leadership.

The use of thorium in a molten salt reactor was the right thing to do 40 years ago, yet it wasn't done.  Not because of a flaw in the concept, but a flaw in the decision making that led to its being lost and forgotten.  We have been lost in this wilderness of  failure for these past 40 years and that will have to change if we are going to get ourselves out of these troubling times.

It's time to question the leadership if they are not going to wake up and pursue this course that should have been pursued long ago.

Nuclear fission energy from a LFTR doesn't even have to be our sole source of energy.  It could exist as only a backup plan in case other plans that are being funded-- fail.  If solar and wind fail, this can succeed.  If nuclear fusion fails, this can succeed.  If fossil fuels are too polluting, this can be cleaner.

Is this type of nuclear energy cleaner than fossil?  Yes.  Both from the radioactive issue and from the carbon issue.  Radioactivity in fossil fuels?  Yes!  There's more radioactivity in the fossil fuels than the radioactivity in this type of nuclear reactor.  Impossible you say?  No, not impossible at all.  The idea that a nuclear reactor  releases more radioactivity overlooks the fact that nuclear energy is much more powerful than fossil fuels.  It can produce more energy, yet send less (if not zero) radioactivity into the environment.  If you don't like radioactivity in the environment, you should love nuclear reactors-- particularly the molten salt reactor.  It is safe and it is clean.  Fossil fuels are not free from radioactivity.  That too is being overlooked.

You may object to the very notion of radioactivity.  But it is in the environment already.  There's nothing that can be done about this.  If you hate radioactivity, then you should still love nuclear reactors of this kind because after 300 years of the fission product in storage, there will be less radioactivity than what existed prior to their utilization in making energy.  It actually reduces the amount of radioactivity in the environment.  No other form of energy can do this.  Not even solar and wind can do this.  The molten salt reactor which utilizes the thorium fuel cycle can actually improve upon nature, and is better in virtually all aspects.

But not all.  There are some risks.  But the risks can be managed.  Besides, there are also risks in failing to do this because of the risk of failure to produce the quantity of energy necessary.  And that quantity is vast.  Wind and solar can't provide it all.  Fusion may be too hard to achieve.  The reliance upon nature alone isn't going to be enough.  We may need more energy than we anticipate.  We had better at least have a backup plan.  If the risk is deemed to be too great for now, it may not be deemed to be too great later.  By that time, it may be too late.

So there you have it.  Some of the leadership believes all too often that nature is perfect and risk free.  Humans cannot improve upon it.  But what if that's wrong?  Others believe that another form of energy will be found that's better.  But what if that is wrong too?  Finally, too many may believe that we will have enough time.  But what if we run out of time?

Forty years ago, the thorium molten salt reactor was set aside in favor of the fast breeder reactor. The fast breeder failed.  But if that decision had included a backup plan which included thorium, we'd have had a backup plan which could have succeeded which could have substituted for the one that failed.  That failure should not be repeated.

Update:

By the way, I should mention that these arguments in favor of LFTRs are not mine.  They are Kirk Sorensen's, but they are well worth repeating.   That's because those arguments are true and correct, in my opinion.  If truth matters, this should matter.  If truth doesn't matter, then no arguments will be necessary.