Island hopping or hitting them where they ain't

Island hopping was a World War II naval strategy employed against the Japanese Imperial Navy. It was meant to complement the overall strategy of defeating the Nazis first because they were judged to be the more difficult opponent.  Jeff Greason mentioned the need for a strategy in a talk with respect to our approach to space. America sort of has a goal with respect to space, but there is no strategy- nothing like Island hopping strategy of World War II.

The goal is softly spoken if at all and that goal with respect to space is to settle it. But this post isn't about war, or about space, but about nuclear energy. In particular, LFTRs and how it may be possible to overcome the resistance to the idea, and how these may be implemented as soon as possible.  To do that requires a strategy.

A strategy may exist for implementing the LFTR.  The main player here is Kirk Sorensen, and his new company called Flibe Energy. From what I can gather, his idea is to go to the military and get some contracts there. He's going where the anti-nukes have the least power to oppose him. He's hitting them where they ain't. And that may be the path of least resistance.  Perhaps it is akin to the Island hopping strategy.

Overall, this is a good idea. Trying to go against an established industry is like taking on the Imperial Navy with all your ships sunk and at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. But how to implement this strategy in the nuclear context in a broader "front"? Military applications provide rather narrow opportunities.

And persuasion is a hard job.  Education takes a long time.

You may have a lot of trouble trying to persuade people who are hostile to you from the get go. It would be like going to enemy and trying to make a treaty while the war is raging on. The enemy may be in no mood to parley if they are doing really well. If they start losing, they may be more inclined to begin negotiations.

The "enemy" has the high ground as of the moment due to the Fukushima disaster. They may be believe that their position is so strong that there is little reason to discuss the matter any further. But there is a saying that you should quit while you are ahead. If the anti-nukes press their advantage too hard, they may end up with only a won battle, but a lost war.

On the other hand, it would be foolhardy not to recognize the issues. The anti-nukes have won a point. Nuclear energy is not to be taken lightly. Yet they are pressing the issue too far if they attempt to go for all out victory and a total ban on nuclear energy. It may wise of them to consider a negotiation with their concerns being fully addressed to their satisfaction. If that is not possible, then perhaps a reasonable compromise. That's the rub, because reasonable is one of those slippery words that seem to get defined according to
ones own satisfaction- but not your adversary's.

Sorensen has done a great job showing all the advantages of LFTRs.  But there may not be enough discussion dedicated to the downside of this technology.  That's because nothing made by man is perfect.  Every technology will have a downside of some kind.  Every energy strategy will incur a certain risk. Although the risks are small with LFTRs, it cannot be said that the risks are zero. There is some risk.  But as best as I can determine, the risks are small and manageable.  The rewards far exceed the risks which makes this a worthwhile project.

But the risks associated with solar and wind seem to be relatively mild. This looks like a risk free option. But is it? One risk that has to be faced is that wind and solar just aren't going to be as cheap as fossil fuels. Even if you get the prices down to where they are competitive, you are going to need more installed capacity because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. This will add to costs. So, the actual cost of wind and solar have to be superior to fossil fuels and that doesn't seem to be likely soon, if at all. Those who choose wind and solar will have the added costs of that option tacked onto the usual costs of doing business. This will give them a competitive disadvantage.

You can argue that risks for wind and solar don't exist or can be managed. But you can say the same with nuclear energy. But the LFTRs are even cheaper than coal, so the economic advantage shifts to LFTRs. This is how the anti-nukes can lose the war. In a world that is hungry for energy, an energy strategy that is too economically limiting is going to have to face those difficult and stubborn facts.  Another one of these facts is that solar and wind take up too much land area.  This can conflict with certain other environmental goals, such as preserving habitat.  The disadvantages of solar and wind can start to appear rather daunting when it doesn't even meet all the goals of green policy- and even conflicts with it at times.

The anti-nukes have won a battle.  But not the war.  One way or another, the world's energy needs will have to be met.  If they insist upon a total ban on nuclear energy, their victory will be short lived.  Their concerns will be better served if they listen to what Sorensen has to say.  His ideas can be very useful for implementing significant portions of green policies- while limiting the downside.  He has reasonably addressed most, if not all of their concerns.  If the anti-nukes will admit this and get with the LFTR program, they'll be doing themselves a favor.  They should quit while they are ahead.

There should be those who support green policies who can also agree that LFTRs are a good choice and should be implemented.  They should not let themselves go down with the extremist's ship.   Those who are not onboard the LFTR ship should get on now.  LFTR can do everything that solar and wind can do and do it even better.  The risk is that the will get outflanked and their "ship" will be sunk.  Therefore, they should convince their friends to get onboard too assuming that they care about the environment.  If that happens, you can have a broader front to take on the fossil fuel industry and to beat it.

Joining the anti-nuke extremists may actually play into the hands of the fossil fuel industry.  One thing that the oil industry doesn't want is a viable competitor.  One thing that they really like is to be able to charge as much as they can for their products.  You want them to have to compete.  You want to have choices so they don't have you over the energy barrel.  You want an alternative that's really an alternative.  You should want the LFTR.  It's good economics.  It's good for the environment.  The risks are small and manageable.  The risks of the status quo are getting worse all the time.