This is a great speech and a good start. But glaringly absent from his speech is elimination of renewable (and all) energy subsidies. And why is that? My guess, and it is a guess, is that this would put the administration and Republican Party at odds with the powerful RINO agricultural sector and its swamp soaked lobby, who are benefiting grossly and unfairly from these subsidies. Robert Bryce, do you agree with my assertion? With my guess? And what is the best way ordinary conservative Americans can push this issue specifically? Thank you.
First, thank you Robert for opening this article / speech for comments. Next, I heard Chris say we must build Nuclear in the next 4 years or we will never do it. I agree. Some suggestions by a total outsider.
1. We need a standard for radiation exposure and protection that is not a research study, but an engineering standard that says "anything below this level is safe." DOE can sponsor immediate research on the effect of low level radiation on biological systems. This study would under-gird an immediate standard that can be engineered to. Enough is known now to support the suggestion by Jack Devanney.
Jack Devanney developed a replacement for Linear No Threshold. The Sigmoid No Threshold Radiation Harm Model, (SNT). SNT allows radiation to be engineered. It is important that Radiation be treated as safe if we engineer it correctly. LNT cannot be engineered because by its definition - even our natural background radiation is dangerous. SNT can be engineered and leave the study of exact danger to biologists. At the least, we should use background radiation levels as a level below which regulation is not needed. This needs a change at the EPA.
2. We need the ability to rapidly license and deploy reactors like Last Energy is making. 20 MW built on existing parts. This idea is very conservative and frankly should be able to be licensed in the same way that Oklo originally attempted to get their license through the NRC.
The DOE can sponsor a study similar to the State of the Art Reactor safety report by the NRC back in 2012. The DOE study would characterize the COMPARATIVE public impact of a Micro / Mini reactor failure to the failure of other energy sources, an oil well fire, a natural gas pipeline explosion, a train wreck with chemical products involved, etc., and characterize the comparative impact of the events on public health. This study would under-gird my next suggestion as well as changes at the EPA.
3. DOE can help by using national labs as a place to build full scale, fully operational test reactors, (especially Micro / Mini). The restrictions on selling the power from test reactors needs to be lifted so they can generate income even at the beginning stages. I understand the history why test reactors lost the ability to sell power, since that was abused, but there needs to be some kind of incentive program that allows both rapid improvements to test reactors and the ability to sell power into a true needy market. These reactors NEED to be tested to failure and radiation release - so we can see the actual effects of those releases and the actual failure paths. In other words, stop treating radiation release as a special danger, and treat it like an ordinary one. A hazard we WILL experience, but that is not more dangerous in its effects than other hazards we face daily.
My FIL, was one of the first to enter TMI after the meltdown. I spent many hours picking his brain about what happened. He was a brilliant man who spent nearly 50 years in the Nuclear industry.
We truly do need nuclear, rather than the "green" inefficient and ineffective programs. The destruction of the rural landscape and our oceans, is despicable IMO.
David - I'd modify your recommendations to include the search, recovery and promotion of studies that have already been completed and either purposely dispersed or essentially covered up by failing to invest in any communications effort.
The DOE already sponsored a 10-year study called Low Dose Radiation Research Program (LDRRP). That effort produced lots of reports that could have been considered as conclusive as we will ever get when trying to measure angels on the head of a pin.
But the study was abruptly defunded, ostensibly to allow DOE to reprogram the few $10s of millions remaining to be spent to increase the funding for a multi-hundred million effort to improve biomass fuel research. The papers produced were scattered when the site was removed, but they still exist in distributed locations. Some of the researchers have retired or passed away, but not all of them.
We also have the existing State of the Art Reactor Consequences report that was quietly issued under the reign of Greg Jaczko as Chair of the NRC.
I watched the whole confirmation hearing for Chris. I noted the deep concern over the Hanford clean up - that it might be done FASTER and would COST LESS if we changed our standard for how dangerous radiation is. The senator was very concerned that the amount we are spending on this stay the same and that the project take a LONG time still.
Rod, I remember reading your article on the Low Dose study being shut down. I didn't realize how much was already done over 10 years. Just getting access to those documents would be a great resource! Perhaps someone who knows how to use FOIA requests. I love the search you have linked to. I did not see all those articles.
I have been an avid supporter of Trump since the 1980's; his no-nonsense approach and third-level chess games remind me of all of the developers I work with. His appointee Wright has hit the ball out of the park; stop the unicorn fantasies of the liberals that only harm and handicap their impoverished victims. Too bad not a single media will print this; instead they will recoil in horror. Thanks, Robert, for sharing this. It made me tear up with joy (I'm not a crier).
2) Edward Dowd said in an interview that the jab discussion is off limits in the new administration - no surprise here - but keeping a lid on it can only work for so long, mass formation or not, and you can see that they're not just trying to paper it over, they're doubling down: https://drkevinstillwagon.substack.com/p/if-you-think-lipid-nanoparticles
3) And let's not forget THX-1138, another piece of predictive programming from another major spook in Hollywood.
Sure, Wright sounds perfectly legit on the surface - he's just articulating what people who know what they're talking about have been yelling for years - but come on, more energy for *AI*? My point (see my Notes) is that while the system badly needs an overhaul that should have happened decades ago, this is not it. AI is just a tool, but they're prioritising it over human contribution to society through work and innovation - because they love their tools as much as they really don't like to deal with messy humans. In their hands, it's a loaded gun in the hands of a three-year-old. It's not about making something great again, it's about keeping their place on top of the food chain.
[NITPICK] "Over two million people today cook their daily meals and heat their homes burning wood. The indoor air pollution from this activity alone is estimated to kill over two million people annually."
I think the first instance of "million" should be "billion". But maybe that's what Wright said, in which case the nitpick should go to him...
All I can say about his speech is this little icon and it also makes me feel hopeful the world will be better off in 4 years and beyond with more hydrocarbons and nuclear power. 🗽🗽🗽
That is an outstanding speech. Thank you for publishing it, so that far more people can be exposed to it.
This should be required reading for any Canadian thinking of voting for Mark Carney.
This is a great speech and a good start. But glaringly absent from his speech is elimination of renewable (and all) energy subsidies. And why is that? My guess, and it is a guess, is that this would put the administration and Republican Party at odds with the powerful RINO agricultural sector and its swamp soaked lobby, who are benefiting grossly and unfairly from these subsidies. Robert Bryce, do you agree with my assertion? With my guess? And what is the best way ordinary conservative Americans can push this issue specifically? Thank you.
Robert Bryce, thank you so very much for this.
I knew very little about Mr. Wright, when he was appointed, I'm liking everything I see/hear.
I can't wait to share with all the many groups fighting utility solar and wind. ❤️
Mr. Wright is a law abiding man. The Laws of Thermodynamics, The Laws of Physics, The Laws of Economics…
I like that. Is there a Law of Simple Math?
Awesome!! Robert, thanks for doing this and making it available to everyone. What a great reality speech.
Thanks, John.
He is an inspiration in this role.
First, thank you Robert for opening this article / speech for comments. Next, I heard Chris say we must build Nuclear in the next 4 years or we will never do it. I agree. Some suggestions by a total outsider.
1. We need a standard for radiation exposure and protection that is not a research study, but an engineering standard that says "anything below this level is safe." DOE can sponsor immediate research on the effect of low level radiation on biological systems. This study would under-gird an immediate standard that can be engineered to. Enough is known now to support the suggestion by Jack Devanney.
Jack Devanney developed a replacement for Linear No Threshold. The Sigmoid No Threshold Radiation Harm Model, (SNT). SNT allows radiation to be engineered. It is important that Radiation be treated as safe if we engineer it correctly. LNT cannot be engineered because by its definition - even our natural background radiation is dangerous. SNT can be engineered and leave the study of exact danger to biologists. At the least, we should use background radiation levels as a level below which regulation is not needed. This needs a change at the EPA.
2. We need the ability to rapidly license and deploy reactors like Last Energy is making. 20 MW built on existing parts. This idea is very conservative and frankly should be able to be licensed in the same way that Oklo originally attempted to get their license through the NRC.
The DOE can sponsor a study similar to the State of the Art Reactor safety report by the NRC back in 2012. The DOE study would characterize the COMPARATIVE public impact of a Micro / Mini reactor failure to the failure of other energy sources, an oil well fire, a natural gas pipeline explosion, a train wreck with chemical products involved, etc., and characterize the comparative impact of the events on public health. This study would under-gird my next suggestion as well as changes at the EPA.
3. DOE can help by using national labs as a place to build full scale, fully operational test reactors, (especially Micro / Mini). The restrictions on selling the power from test reactors needs to be lifted so they can generate income even at the beginning stages. I understand the history why test reactors lost the ability to sell power, since that was abused, but there needs to be some kind of incentive program that allows both rapid improvements to test reactors and the ability to sell power into a true needy market. These reactors NEED to be tested to failure and radiation release - so we can see the actual effects of those releases and the actual failure paths. In other words, stop treating radiation release as a special danger, and treat it like an ordinary one. A hazard we WILL experience, but that is not more dangerous in its effects than other hazards we face daily.
My FIL, was one of the first to enter TMI after the meltdown. I spent many hours picking his brain about what happened. He was a brilliant man who spent nearly 50 years in the Nuclear industry.
We truly do need nuclear, rather than the "green" inefficient and ineffective programs. The destruction of the rural landscape and our oceans, is despicable IMO.
David - I'd modify your recommendations to include the search, recovery and promotion of studies that have already been completed and either purposely dispersed or essentially covered up by failing to invest in any communications effort.
The DOE already sponsored a 10-year study called Low Dose Radiation Research Program (LDRRP). That effort produced lots of reports that could have been considered as conclusive as we will ever get when trying to measure angels on the head of a pin.
https://atomicinsights.com/ldrrp-saga/
But the study was abruptly defunded, ostensibly to allow DOE to reprogram the few $10s of millions remaining to be spent to increase the funding for a multi-hundred million effort to improve biomass fuel research. The papers produced were scattered when the site was removed, but they still exist in distributed locations. Some of the researchers have retired or passed away, but not all of them.
We also have the existing State of the Art Reactor Consequences report that was quietly issued under the reign of Greg Jaczko as Chair of the NRC.
https://atomicinsights.com/nrc-releases-draft-of-reactor-accident-consequences-study-for-public-comment/
New studies take a lot of time to organize and to conduct. Let's invest in a more immediately impactful effort to share what we have already learned .
I watched the whole confirmation hearing for Chris. I noted the deep concern over the Hanford clean up - that it might be done FASTER and would COST LESS if we changed our standard for how dangerous radiation is. The senator was very concerned that the amount we are spending on this stay the same and that the project take a LONG time still.
Rod, I remember reading your article on the Low Dose study being shut down. I didn't realize how much was already done over 10 years. Just getting access to those documents would be a great resource! Perhaps someone who knows how to use FOIA requests. I love the search you have linked to. I did not see all those articles.
Thank you Rod, perfect!
I have been an avid supporter of Trump since the 1980's; his no-nonsense approach and third-level chess games remind me of all of the developers I work with. His appointee Wright has hit the ball out of the park; stop the unicorn fantasies of the liberals that only harm and handicap their impoverished victims. Too bad not a single media will print this; instead they will recoil in horror. Thanks, Robert, for sharing this. It made me tear up with joy (I'm not a crier).
CO2 is our friend.
1) There is no such thing as "fusion energy" nor will there ever be.
2) Why does the phrase "at warp speed" make my skin crawl?
3) AI will "unleash the human spirit"? I naively assumed the opposite.
1) No need for fusion when fission is more than good enough.
2) Team Trump certainly messed up with "warp speed 1.0" - a disaster they or the legacy media don't want to discuss.
3) AI to unleash the cyborgs in 2029? (predictive programming from James Cameron back in 1984).
Apart from that, Chris Wright is a hero giving a speech like that.
1) The fusion hoax explained: https://milesmathis.com/fusion.pdf [Edit: and I forgot this one: https://milesmathis.com/fusion2.pdf] I tend to trust Miles, if only for his science papers.
2) Edward Dowd said in an interview that the jab discussion is off limits in the new administration - no surprise here - but keeping a lid on it can only work for so long, mass formation or not, and you can see that they're not just trying to paper it over, they're doubling down: https://drkevinstillwagon.substack.com/p/if-you-think-lipid-nanoparticles
3) And let's not forget THX-1138, another piece of predictive programming from another major spook in Hollywood.
Sure, Wright sounds perfectly legit on the surface - he's just articulating what people who know what they're talking about have been yelling for years - but come on, more energy for *AI*? My point (see my Notes) is that while the system badly needs an overhaul that should have happened decades ago, this is not it. AI is just a tool, but they're prioritising it over human contribution to society through work and innovation - because they love their tools as much as they really don't like to deal with messy humans. In their hands, it's a loaded gun in the hands of a three-year-old. It's not about making something great again, it's about keeping their place on top of the food chain.
Wow! Excellent talk. It feels like someone read my mind and created an energy policy out of all my wishes and dreams.
[NITPICK] "Over two million people today cook their daily meals and heat their homes burning wood. The indoor air pollution from this activity alone is estimated to kill over two million people annually."
I think the first instance of "million" should be "billion". But maybe that's what Wright said, in which case the nitpick should go to him...
[/NITPICK]
You're right. The transcription had an error. The correct figure is two billion. I added a note at the end to note the correction.
We need a brand new Texas and a brand new Saudi and we've been looking for one since the 1970's.
We need lots more energy alright, and we ain't gonna get it. Not on the terms we need to drive this model. Thank-god. Our model is autophagous.
And we wonder why we have wars and rumors of wars? The 7 billion want more of what we, the blessed and fortunate 1 billion, already have.
All I can say about his speech is this little icon and it also makes me feel hopeful the world will be better off in 4 years and beyond with more hydrocarbons and nuclear power. 🗽🗽🗽