The format for the Long Now debates has a first speaker make his case, his opponent then gets to ask him questions, then finally the opponent has to provide a compelling summary of the first speakers case, to the satisfaction of the first speaker. Then they swap roles. Its a format that forces each protagonist to meaningfully engage the other, instead of the completely pointless “Crossfire” shouting match you so often see. Its a great set of ground rules for debates on contentious topics.

I can tell you, John, that I certainly tried to intelligently engage Wasserman in that Peter B. Collins “debate,” but one can’t have a meaningful discussion in that format with a person like him. He simply rattled off the anti-nuclear catechism and unless I was willing to go all Jerry Springer on him there was no way that there was going to be a real discussion. Given the reasoned discussion with Peter in the first half of the interview, I didn’t think that was the sort of thing he would appreciate, plus it wouldn’t have accomplished anything in terms of enlightening people about the subject. Unfortunately I hadn’t known just how unhinged Wasserman is when I engaged him.

Brand is a US environmental icon who came out as a pro-nuke some years ago. The discussion around nukes starts about 7 minutes in. Nothing new to listeners of KBNC, but a good discussion nonetheless. Quote of the piece from Brand,

“With climate, the more people know, the more frightened they are. With nuclear, the more people know, the less frightened they are.”

iTunes link or mp3 download.

{Barry, there seems to be something broken with comments on this page – I get an error whenever I submit here, and it seems to be something to do with the flickr image server.}

iTunes link or mp3 download.

Finally because of its semplisity, modest materials input and limited labor requirements, the LFTR can be factory produced at a fractionof the price of IFRs. I wrote in Nuclear Green this morning:

Thorium is a very abundant mineral in the earths crust. The LFTR has a liquid fluoride salt core instead of the usual solid core. The liquid salt type of reactor was developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory between 1950 and 1976. The LFTR would use thorium 232 rather than uranium as a basis of its fuel cycle. Thorium is subjected to neuron radiation inside the core of a reactor, an then undergoes a nuclear transformation that produces fissionable uranium 233. The LFTR is 200 to 300 times more fuel efficient than standard reactors. Givrn the abundance of Thorium and the efficiency of the LFTR, the combination offered abundant energy it as long as people will want a massive energy source. Calculations, based on ORNL estimates from the 1970′s, are that it will cost between $2.5 to $5 billion to develop LFTR technology to the point which where commercial prototypes can be built. Again based on ORNL cost estimates, plus known savings in the cost of labor, interest, and a standard calculation for the cost savings from the learning curve in serial production, the LFTRs will be between $1 and $2 per watt of generating capacity. The LFTR will be cheap enough to produce mid-load and peak power, And unlike the conventional reactors the LFTR can do dynamic load balancing for the grid. Why heck, the LFTR can even provide electrical backup for solar and wind, but why anyone would be so crazy as to install solar and wind generating facilities if they had LFTRs is beyond comprehension. The LFTR is very safe, can be designed to control itself without human intervention, produces little waste, and can destroy the waste from other reactors as it generates electricity. The LFTR can produce electricity for a cost that is lower than the cost of coal using carbon capture and storage, or the cost of wind and solar generated electricity.

I definitely think that audio is often the best way to get introduced to new ideas that might otherwise be overlooked or skimmed in our busy lives (one can follow up later with the text if interest is sparked).

This wonderful interview opened my eyes (ok ears) to both the advances in IFR technologies and plasma recycling and led me back to this blog post of yours. I had skimmed over the earlier posts you refer to here, but the significance of these two things was lost to me amidst the noise of a busy day. Being stuck in the car with the audio automagically fed to my ipod was just what I needed.

Thank you!

Mike