American physicists John Holdren, Thomas Cochran, Frank von Hippel, and others have worked tirelessly for sixty years to stop used fuel recycling and advanced nuclear power technologies. These technologies are essential for plentiful energy for the modern world. These alarmist scientists are serious threats to peace and prosperity with their unfounded claims of this being a path to nuclear proliferation. I've discussed these topics with Holdren since 1970 and von Hippel since 2010. They do not appreciate me.
Steven, I look forward to your articles and ideas being posted on the Substack website: Energy And The Modern World (johnshanahan.substack.com). Send articles and ideas to my email: acorncreek2006@gmail.com.
I have a rare library of articles and videos from pioneers in nuclear power and nuclear medicine, etc. from the early days to the present that I can share.
At 85, I have picked a 72 year old successor for my website, with some health problems. He is not a scientist or engineer, but an excellent thinker and writer. I am looking for a few more people to continue my website sometime in the future. If you know of some candidates, including yourself, please let me know.
Meanwhile, I am hanging in there. STILL doing a lot more! It is interesting, rewarding and fun. My connections are in 124 countries. That is a good starting base for my successors.
The argument that reprocessing "sets a bad example" because the plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons can be applied to many technologies: artificial fertilizer should be forbidden because a truckload of fertilizer doused with diesel fuel makes a car bomb; no one should be allowed to handle cellulose because it can be mixed with nitric acid to make explosives; steel should be banned because it can be used to make rifle barrels and bayonets. Everything will be safe once we get back to hunting and gathering.
Fast reactor recycling is the answer. Confusion between "reprocessing" (less than 10% recovery of electricity) vs. recycling in fast reactors (greater than 90% recovery of electricity) is a big difference. Most proposals these days confuse "recycling" with "reprocessing". If we throw away the 30X electricity recovery sitting in the slightly used nuclear fuel, we are very remiss. But, the longer others look down the wrong path, the longer it will take to create a "solution" to slightly used nuclear fuel and the better our idea will work. Pay no attention to the propagandists and nay-sayers. They go into the trash bin of history and, though they can delay the process, innovation and the "better mouse trap" always prevail. Unleash free enterprise and level the safety playing field and nuclear power, especially recycling slightly used nuclear fuel, will prevail over all other methods (available commercially today) in all categories. Your choice is penny per kWh (fast reactor recycling) or dollar per kWh (data center bidding on the current supply). But hard lessons take hard knocks. So, keep working for the solution, but let's do so on a levelized playing field in the market and regulatory space. The safest machine the world has ever produced does not deserve to be the most regulated to stop it from competing. We will figure it out, but probably not in my lifetime. I am glad the next two generations are waking up to the possibilities.
American physicists John Holdren, Thomas Cochran, Frank von Hippel, and others have worked tirelessly for sixty years to stop used fuel recycling and advanced nuclear power technologies. These technologies are essential for plentiful energy for the modern world. These alarmist scientists are serious threats to peace and prosperity with their unfounded claims of this being a path to nuclear proliferation. I've discussed these topics with Holdren since 1970 and von Hippel since 2010. They do not appreciate me.
There are many misguided people out there, but that should not distract us from doing the right thing. Hang in there, John.
Steven, I look forward to your articles and ideas being posted on the Substack website: Energy And The Modern World (johnshanahan.substack.com). Send articles and ideas to my email: acorncreek2006@gmail.com.
I have a rare library of articles and videos from pioneers in nuclear power and nuclear medicine, etc. from the early days to the present that I can share.
At 85, I have picked a 72 year old successor for my website, with some health problems. He is not a scientist or engineer, but an excellent thinker and writer. I am looking for a few more people to continue my website sometime in the future. If you know of some candidates, including yourself, please let me know.
Meanwhile, I am hanging in there. STILL doing a lot more! It is interesting, rewarding and fun. My connections are in 124 countries. That is a good starting base for my successors.
Best wishes.
John
The argument that reprocessing "sets a bad example" because the plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons can be applied to many technologies: artificial fertilizer should be forbidden because a truckload of fertilizer doused with diesel fuel makes a car bomb; no one should be allowed to handle cellulose because it can be mixed with nitric acid to make explosives; steel should be banned because it can be used to make rifle barrels and bayonets. Everything will be safe once we get back to hunting and gathering.
Fast reactor recycling is the answer. Confusion between "reprocessing" (less than 10% recovery of electricity) vs. recycling in fast reactors (greater than 90% recovery of electricity) is a big difference. Most proposals these days confuse "recycling" with "reprocessing". If we throw away the 30X electricity recovery sitting in the slightly used nuclear fuel, we are very remiss. But, the longer others look down the wrong path, the longer it will take to create a "solution" to slightly used nuclear fuel and the better our idea will work. Pay no attention to the propagandists and nay-sayers. They go into the trash bin of history and, though they can delay the process, innovation and the "better mouse trap" always prevail. Unleash free enterprise and level the safety playing field and nuclear power, especially recycling slightly used nuclear fuel, will prevail over all other methods (available commercially today) in all categories. Your choice is penny per kWh (fast reactor recycling) or dollar per kWh (data center bidding on the current supply). But hard lessons take hard knocks. So, keep working for the solution, but let's do so on a levelized playing field in the market and regulatory space. The safest machine the world has ever produced does not deserve to be the most regulated to stop it from competing. We will figure it out, but probably not in my lifetime. I am glad the next two generations are waking up to the possibilities.