“Hi I would like to talk to you about Thorium”
I am passionate- I want to fight global climate change and stop the in situ destruction of our planet, break the dependence on foreign oil which dictates policy in Europe and the world in favor of despot dictators and religious fanatics. I want to work on something meaningful, physical and real that will further mankind to greater heights- heights such as leaving this rock and expanding to the edges of the universe. All of these can be addressed by nuclear power, specifically thorium molten salt reactors.
Talking with friends over the past few weeks, I have found both hope and struggle. Universally all the things I have talked about are equally desirable- only those motivated by other agendas such as power would even try to argue the opposite. However, the way forward in communicating vision and generating support for real courses of action is the current battle field. Everyone is informed one way or another, and have each their own proposed solution of varying thoroughness and efficacy. But at heart, these are ideas and when people come together for dinner or anime conventions- these things are not the top thing on their mind, not even remotely the top 20 things they want to talk about.
My background is from the military. The foundation of military thought is “decisiveness” ie making critical and broad reaching decisions in a timely matter- a good plan now is better than the perfect plan never. So having researched and committed to this nuclear track I feel a sort of “militancy”- it is at its core a revolution. We are upending the world order dominated by petroleum politics. But the opposition we are fighting are not the “anti nuclear” rabble who are mostly ignorant and fear mongerers. By psychological functions, despite having common aims we sometimes create walls between us that fracture the movement and it’s important to realize that we are all in this together and we all desire the same thing.
In two separate instances, I am talking to new and old friends and we have reached this part of the conversation- how to go forward. One friend insisted that solar was the way ahead, and the other was not convinced that specifically molten salt reactors were worth the effort. In the context of the social setting, the temptation is to throw down and begin tearing down their argument’s. But it’s important to note that the original sources are not handy even in this digital age, the time amount and setting are not appropriate or conducive to even review it if they were, and that the more ardent and militant you hold a position the more repulsive you come across. I bite my tongue and just nod and propose to “agree to disagree” which while not bad in itself denies me some of the chains of ideas and discussions that I wanted to reach. There must be a balance, there is a world order to overthrow but to do so requires arriving at knowledge sometimes controversially.
My focus at this time is not the technological side of nuclear engineering but rather formulating the social and messaging side. There are different messages and themes that have to be tailored for each audience- be it friends, family, academics, professionals, and political personalities all hear different things in different ways and have to be tailored for the message to resonate just right. Some of the ideas that help me shape this messaging is having a BLUF- the bottom line up front. This is the elevator pitch that what you want and what you need from the person you are telling it to. The temptation for me is to go into the minutiae that’s where I feel comfortable and passionate but that’s not where others are at. At the end of the day, 99% of people either don’t care [as much as you do] or don’t have any power or sway to affect the outcome anyways. As for navigating some of these conversational pitfalls, there are some techniques I have pondered on.
When a point comes to a conflict, know that a decision will not be created there.
Look and talk about the problem, not the other person, talk about it as if it were chess- poking from different angles, entertaining possibilities and different paths and at the end resolving “we will see”.
Read up on different discussions and be generally read on the different arguments.
Anti nuclear- this is generally shooting down arguments. WHO report demonstrated that More people die every [day]from cancer and other diseases from fossil fuels than all the people who have ever died in nuclear accidents. Radiation is not magic or evil spell.
Costs and nuclear waste. There is no nuclear waste problem, it’s a policy problem declaring it as nuclear waste and restricting its use. Only 4% of the energy potential of fuel is used in a reactor before it becomes “waste” which is a label to prevent it from being refined into plutonium bomb material.
Solar/“renewable energy”- nuclear is renewable energy. Thorium is so abundant we wouldn’t even need to open a new mine to extract it- it’s a byproduct of other mining processes. Solar has 3 problems- heat efficiency (30% lost to heat), real estate competition and maintenance costs, and lack of storage options for the limited window. The problem with solar is that there’s not enough to meet the demand required, it does have a place.
The movement for nuclear energy is still growing, the conditions are ripe and the public is willing to entertain. It’s all about offering the good news as informatively and as engaging as possible so that one day, if it ever came to a ballot or something they could actually influence, they remember your face and your smart and kind words. The view point to push are the good talking points that I want to discuss, but at the end of the day for this conversation, we are all on the same team with the same goal in mind. Let the chains up and let the technology be built at scale, and they will all speak for themselves.
jacobvanloon
snowghoul
dailybridgerton
ellievsbear
theartofmadeline
discoholicmusic
vaporwave
