Female Vs Male Problem Solving On The Energy Crisis

The world today is facing many problems: financial, political, and environmental.  Many people in the manosphere are suggesting that we learn to Enjoy The Decline.  However, there are some within and outside of the manosphere who believe that these problems have solutions and have not yet given up on civilization.  One must admit, while progress has come with quite a few problems there are some things that I would not be willing to give up.

toilet paper

One of the problems that the world faces is energy.  Whether to power our houses, run our businesses, or move our cars the world needs energy.  This problem covers all of the three categories mentioned above and our ability or inability to solve it will be a major factor in what the future of our species will hold.  Many people are working on it from every angle imaginable.  I am going to focus on two people, one man and one woman, and compare how they approached this problem and what it says about them.

The woman is Jennifer Granholm.  According to Wikipedia she is the former Governor of Michigan, a beauty pageant winner, unsuccessful Hollywood actress, and graduated with a B. A. in political science and French.  This is her speech at TedTalk about her plan to fix the energy problem.

The first five minutes is a sad story about a factory that closed in a small town in her state.  After that at about 6:45 she gets to her plan, which is to put a $4.5 billion dollar reward from taxpayers to states that succeed at making 80% of their electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar, or biofuels.  At 10:50 she mentions that it would be hard to get Congress to agree to this so she suggests that the rich people in the audience voluntarily pony up the money to pay for it.

There are three things to take from this video.

1) She doesn’t actually come up with an idea.  She just came up with a way of spending other people’s money to pay for other people to solve the problem.

2) She is unbelievably happy with herself for her ability to come up with this idea of getting other people to solve a problem.  Although I must point out that sometimes men do this too.

3) She is missing the point that the reason people are not moving to renewable energy is because at the moment it is more expensive.  Moving to having 80% of a state’s energy from renewable energy at this time would increase the cost to companies that hire people.  Blue collar manufacturing plants that use a lot of energy would be even more likely to outsource to other countries just like the refrigerator company in the beginning of her video that she seemed so sad about.  Thumbs up for government interference in the free market.

Now compare her “solution” to a solution made by a real scientist, not a political scientist (in her own words).

Introducing Kirk Sorensen.  According to Wikipedia he has a master’s degree in aerospace engineering.  He worked as an engineer at NASA for ten years followed by a year at Teledyne Brown Engineering as Chief Nuclear Technologist before leaving to start his own company, Flibe Energy.  Those are real credentials. His solution is an improved nuclear reactor called Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors which are explained in the video below.  This video is much longer, but at least view the first five minutes and I will outline the other important points below.  The point I believe are most important are in bold.

  • 0:00-5:00 Short attention grabbing Intro to Thorium power
  • 6:00 – 6:10  Gender demographic on Facebook
  • 6:15-7:40, 9:50-11:50, 1:25:00-1:27:10, 1:32:10-1:35:20  Kirk talks respectfully with a hippie couple
  • 16:35 – 19:00, 36:50-40:15, 56:00-57:20,  History of Thorium energy
  • 19:10-21:40, 24:50-29:30, 31:20-34:20, 40:20-45:30,1:10:00-1:11:30  Technical talk about nuclear power
  • 21:40-23:00, 52:25-52:55, 1:25:30-1:29:30  Explanation of dangers of radioactivity in easy to understand terms
  • 29:00 – 31:20  Explanation of nuclear weapons and thorium
  • 34:30-35:00, 1:37:30-1:39:30, 1:53:00-1:54:00 Why we didn’t use Thorium before
  • 45:30-48:30, 1:51:00-1:52:00 Safety in nuclear reactors
  • 49:15-52:20 Explanation of accident in Japan’s nuclear reactor, Fukushima
  • 1:00:15-1:03:50 Kirk disses other nuclear reactor ideas
  • 1:07:30-1:08:50 People talk about LFTR’s use in military and third world countries
  • 1:12:30-1:15:35 Using LFTR waste for NASA’s projects and medical isotopes for cancer
  • 1:15:35-1:18:15 Cost of developing the technology
  • 1:19:00-1:25:00, 1:37:00-1:37:30 Kirk disses on the MSM for fearmongering over nuclear power
  • 1:30:30-1:31:00 Kirk gives a neat trick for confusing ignorant environmentalists
  • 1:41:10-1:42:00 China is doing it
  • 1:42:30-1:46:30 Thorium and rare earth elements
  • 1:50:00-1:50:30- Using waste heat to make ammonia or desalinate seawater
  • 35:20-35:45 Kirk complains about being in a basement

I included the last one because it shows how Kirk who has already done orders of magnitude more than Jennifer is able to remain orders of magnitude more humble about it.

I will break down Jennifer and Kirk’s solutions by the three categories I mentioned in the beginning.

Financial

Jennifer’s solution would obviously cost taxpayers or TED’s rich and gullible audience members 4.5 billion with little chance of seeing a return on investment.  It would create jobs in clean energy production, but the jobs made in wind farms and solar would be at the expense of taxes that could be used elsewhere and would also raise the cost of electricity on both businesses and consumers hurting the economy much more.

Kirk’s solution would lower the cost of energy dramatically for both consumers and businesses which would help the economy.  There would also a very good chance of getting a substantial ROI for investors.  Kirk does admit that since it is a new technology there would be some risk for investors and he can not put down an exact percentage on the investor’s ROI, but it is better than Jennifer’s “just give 4.5 B because it is the right thing to do.”

Thorium energy adoption would hurt the coal and gas industries which do create jobs, but there would be new jobs in the rare earth mining as thorium regulations disappeared.  I would imagine rare earth mining is nicer than coal mining (although I have never worked at either).  Having a guaranteed source for rare earths would also prevent manufacturing jobs from outsourcing to China and perhaps bring a few back.  No company will spend billions on a manufacturing plant in the US if there is a chance that US/China relations will go down to the point that China embargoes the US and they have to close their factory because they can not get their necessary raw materials.

Political

Jennifer’s proposal would cause more bipartisanship as electricity costs went up.  Kirk’s idea would get rid of the global warming and environment debate because the most environmentally friendly option would also be the most cost-effective.

We could also sell this technology to other countries to pay off our debt.  Not to China anymore, that ship has sailed because we gave this tech to them for free already.  However, we owe lots of money to other countries who probably aren’t expecting anything more than hyperinflated fiat currency by now anyway so they would love to trade debt for a few hundred thorium reactors.

As companies moved out of China because they weren’t the only source of rare earth metals then manufacturing in China would drop and they wouldn’t have to trade with North Korea for materials anymore and North Korea would have to stop their nuclear program.

We could offer this cost-effective proliferation resistant nuclear technology to Iran in return for them stopping their uranium enrichment program and they would have to say yes.

Environmental

Jennifer’s proposal would involve building massive number of wind farms, solar panel farms, all over the country with high voltage power lines connecting all of them.  That wouldn’t be environmentally damaging at all (/sarcasm).  Also the amount of energy needed to build, transport, and set up this renewable energy infrastructure would take many years to pay off the carbon credit anyway.

Kirk’s idea would replace 5 billion tonnes of coal, 31 billion barrels of oil, 5 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, and 65,000 tonnes of uranium with only 5,000 tonnes of thorium because of thorium reactors high efficiency.  However, I am personally very doubtful about his claims of creating carbon neutral gasoline from atmospheric CO2 even with nearly free electricity, but I would love to be wrong on that.

Even discounting the coal and natural gas the 5000 tonnes of thorium to 65000 tonnes of uranium difference would already reduce nuclear waste produced.  Also the isotopes made from the decay of U233 created in the thorium reactor (Bismuth 213) can be used in cancer radiotherapy for leukemia so it would actually save lives.

So, which person would you choose to lead the country in solving the energy crisis?

Read More: How Liberal Arts Hurts Our Economy

135 thoughts on “Female Vs Male Problem Solving On The Energy Crisis”

  1. I recently heard a FORD commercial on the radio with some delusional chick endorsing her own decision to purchase a “green” automobile. She said (and I QUOTE):”I actually FEEL smarter.”
    Fuck you, eco-cunts.
    Let a MAN break it down for you.
    It takes 113,000,000 BTUs of energy to build one of those futuristic pussy-mobiles called a “Toyota Prius”; which is not only a loss of Man Points to own and drive, but also a loss of Man Points to rent, ride in, fuck in, or even see rolling down the street. 113,000,000 BTU’s equals 1,000 gallons of gasoline. You could drive a 98 Toyota Tercel on that amount of gasoline for like 7 years. That means by purchasing an “eco-friendly” car, you are pissing away 7 years of driving in one fucking purchase. If you don’t get 7 years of driving out of that hybrid piece of shit (which the warantee guarantees you won’t) you just fucked Mother Earth — and kicked her cat across the lawn on the way out.
    Women really LOVE to pretend they “care about the environment”. That’s called a cunt Button. If you hit it, said girl will act like a total bitch because you left the faucet running for thirty seconds while you brushed your fucking teeth. Big deal. If saving Mother Earth is so important, why don’t you turn your car off at stop lights?
    Because women are never cunts to themselves.
    Old cars are better for the environment than new hybrid cars. So why don’t we promote old cars as the “eco-friendly” alternative to hybrids?
    Men have better environmental solutions than women.
    That’s why one of my cars is a +30 year old classic exotic. Better for the environment than that piece of shit a woman would drive…… while having no goddam idea why she bought one — except it makes her “FEEL smarter”. Women will spend $25,000 just because it makes them “feel smarter”.
    So just make a handbag out of Ostrich. Paint it green. Slap a Hermes label on it, and sell it to her for $4000. Same bitch thinks she’s just saved the environment.
    http://cdn.stylefrizz.com/img/hermes-birkin-green-ostrich-bag.jpg

    1. Damn good stuff, thanks.. I didnt know that about the prius. I’m going to use for my thermodynamics class essay.
      Not to mention, the majority of the electricity that charges those undisposable batteries comes from fossil fuels anyway. Go figure.
      To environmentalist ford chick, ignorance is bliss.

      1. My pleasure. I wish i had a copy of the Ford commercial. I was at a red light and threw my head back laughing.
        But you don’t need the little stats and facts to humiliate them . Just step back and consider that my 33+ year old classic burns oil and tires like they are made of WAX & rumbles by like in a Transformers movie. But it’s “GREENER” than any piece of shit hybrid..
        —> because in order to buy a hybrid… you’re getting RID of a perfectly good car! I saved the planet AT LEAST 6 cars by keeping the old one – just because I’m not going out and getting a new one every 3-5 years.
        These environmentalists would toss a 3 year old BMW and run out to buy a “hybrid” and think they are doing the planet a favor. I can’t even fucking imagine how dense that is.,

      2. But what will suprise you is that I was slightly mistaken in my research (above). A Hermes Berkin Ostrich bag doesn’t cost $4,000. This item can be any lucky & “smart” eco-friendly female’s for the bargain basement price of $33,000.
        http://www.ebay.com/itm/Auth-Hermes-Blue-Ostrich-BIRKIN-30-cm-GoldHW-shopper-bag-handbag-purse-3304-/331069743589?pt=US_CSA_WH_Handbags&hash=item4d154b61e5
        ( Does it qualify as “eco-friendly” because it’s used? )
        That’s right fellas. You could buy your sweetheart a $1000 Fendi and she will still be wishing you gave her a $33,000 Berkin underneath all that joy…. and then give you shit because you haven’t switched to hybrid car.
        I – for one – am TOTALLY guilty of this. Last Valentine’s Day, I bought my sweetheart a new bag and belt.
        The vacuum runs like new now.

      3. It is true that the electricity for charging them comes from fossil fuels. However, most electric plants (coal, nuclear) take a long time to turn off so they run at full capacity even at night. Therefore there is a surplus of wasted energy at non peak hours. These cars are normally plugged in at night when the grid is not at capacity so it is actually a good use of energy that normally gets wasted. However, the carbon credit for the batteries and the car itself often still doesn’t make it worth it.

    2. > Old cars are better for the environment than new hybrid cars.
      Another reason “Cash for Clunkers” was a huge waste of resources, a job killer (for auto mechanics), and just plain dumb.

    3. Have a 1987 W124 300TD Mercedes Benz thing is built like a tank. Has 138k miles and that is considered just being broken in, have seen them used being sold still running original motor with 385k miles easy. Had a 1978 W123 Mercedes Benz non-turbo another bullet proof engine, slow as hell tho, but again a tank. Hybrid is an interesting car, but considering its not a small displacement turbo-diesel makes it a failure if you ask me. Like the smart-car for instance, the gas version barely gets 43MPG if you are lucky but the small displacement 799cc turbo-diesel 3cylinder gets upward 74MPG. They aren’t as smart of a car as you think sporting that horrible numbers in regards to efficiency. People are clueless, they should demand turbo-diesel hybrids than maybe they would see higher gains on MPG.

    4. Have a 1987 W124 300TD Mercedes Benz thing is built like a tank. Has 138k miles and that is considered just being broken in, have seen them used being sold still running original motor with 385k miles easy. Had a 1978 W123 Mercedes Benz non-turbo another bullet proof engine, slow as hell tho, but again a tank. Hybrid is an interesting car, but considering its not a small displacement turbo-diesel makes it a failure if you ask me. Like the smart-car for instance, the gas version barely gets 43MPG if you are lucky but the small displacement 799cc turbo-diesel 3cylinder gets upward 74MPG. They aren’t as smart of a car as you think sporting that horrible numbers in regards to efficiency. People are clueless, they should demand turbo-diesel hybrids than maybe they would see higher gains on MPG.

    5. Thomas Sowell said something along the lines of that he does not want to teach anymore because he cannot bear students who say “I feel” instead of “I think.”
      I just wonder if this “I feel” is a woman thing or just a liberal thing, SWPL thing? Is SWPL/liberal thinking somehow created of formed by women?

      1. Oh it’s DEFINITELY a female thing.
        I 100% agree with Thomas Sowell. Was a teacher myself. I “feel” is not an answer.
        1+1 = 2.
        It’s not an “opinion”.
        “I feel” is an opinion.
        You can prove it yourself in everyday conversations. Ask a man “what do you THINK?” and he appreciates it and the reply will be concise…. but ask a woman “how do you FEEL about X?” and the answer is more passionate, enthusiastic, and well, emotional.
        When conversing with females, change it to “how does that make you FEEL?” then sit back and let her blab. She will think you’re the most interesting guy in the world – because you “care about how she FEELS”. This is how she perceives it. “He cares/asks about my FEELINGS.” It makes a very big difference when getting “in” with her. Try it! It’s remarkable.

        1. nice one Tom… now extrapolate your results a little further and you will see the net result is that women act more like animals… birds don’t know why they all fly in a flock, they just feel like it… wolves don’t know why they hunt the deer in a pack, they just feel like it… ants don’t know why they build that massive nest, it just feels like the thing to do..

        2. Well of course its ALL my “opinion” based on my own meandering experience. But if it’s data you want, just look for it and experience yourself.
          Opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one.
          I already said when you interact with women.. TRY IT… appeal to their “feelings” instead of their “thoughts”, and the difference is remarkable.

        3. Man: “I think therefore I am.”
          Female: “I feel, therefore i’m right.”

      2. Yes and yes! The plebs do NOT socialize in a masculine way = by masculine social rules of brotherhood transparency and social cost avoidance and problem solving. No, since 2nd wave we socialize like women according to natural female rules, which is why Game works, and why we still need Patriarchy, not a dirty word, a glorious word! We need to conquer culture and social standards. Every ‘business’ is a feelings industry business. You guys might, and I think many of you, believe you are entirely red-pill and masculine. You are NOT. If you found feminist/feminine indoctrination inside you before after being unaware of it, if I find feminine conditioning memes inside of me with reflection on the ramifications of red-pill pussy relations, then why would anyone else thing they are entirely cured or healed or red-pill? Pussy conquest is the gateway to political re-conquest, gentlemen. If you are not a conquerer at heart, you are not civilized. That is how we lost to feminism in the first place. Women simply please superlative authority, which is why that irrationally go green and buy a fucking handbag, or play some lucky omega to sell a kidney (h/t Cappy Cap -> Roosh forum):
        http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2013/11/123_146204.html

      3. Yes and yes! The plebs do NOT socialize in a masculine way = by masculine social rules of brotherhood transparency and social cost avoidance and problem solving. No, since 2nd wave we socialize like women according to natural female rules, which is why Game works, and why we still need Patriarchy, not a dirty word, a glorious word! We need to conquer culture and social standards. Every ‘business’ is a feelings industry business. You guys might, and I think many of you, believe you are entirely red-pill and masculine. You are NOT. If you found feminist/feminine indoctrination inside you before after being unaware of it, if I find feminine conditioning memes inside of me with reflection on the ramifications of red-pill pussy relations, then why would anyone else thing they are entirely cured or healed or red-pill? Pussy conquest is the gateway to political re-conquest, gentlemen. If you are not a conquerer at heart, you are not civilized. That is how we lost to feminism in the first place. Women simply please superlative authority, which is why that irrationally go green and buy a fucking handbag, or play some lucky omega to sell a kidney (h/t Cappy Cap -> Roosh forum):
        http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2013/11/123_146204.html

      4. No. Liberal thinking was created by lawyers, politicians, and economists in the early part of the last Century. The liberal heyday was from FDR through Carter — Big Government liberalism was the most successful economic and political ideology in history. The real question is, why since 1980 have we abandoned it?
        Also, Sowell is very shallow.

  2. I recently heard a FORD commercial on the radio with some delusional chick endorsing her own decision to purchase a “green” automobile. She said (and I QUOTE):”I actually FEEL smarter.”
    Fuck you, eco-cunts.
    Let a MAN break it down for you.
    It takes 113,000,000 BTUs of energy to build one of those futuristic pussy-mobiles called a “Toyota Prius”; which is not only a loss of Man Points to own and drive, but also a loss of Man Points to rent, ride in, fuck in, or even see rolling down the street. 113,000,000 BTU’s equals 1,000 gallons of gasoline. You could drive a 98 Toyota Tercel on that amount of gasoline for like 7 years. That means by purchasing an “eco-friendly” car, you are pissing away 7 years of driving in one fucking purchase. If you don’t get 7 years of driving out of that hybrid piece of shit (which the warantee guarantees you won’t) you just fucked Mother Earth — and kicked her cat across the lawn on the way out.
    Women really LOVE to pretend they “care about the environment”. That’s called a cunt Button. If you hit it, said girl will act like a total bitch because you left the faucet running for thirty seconds while you brushed your fucking teeth. Big deal. If saving Mother Earth is so important, why don’t you turn your car off at stop lights?
    Because women are never cunts to themselves.
    Old cars are better for the environment than new hybrid cars. So why don’t we promote old cars as the “eco-friendly” alternative to hybrids?
    Men have better environmental solutions than women.
    That’s why one of my cars is a +30 year old classic exotic. Better for the environment than that piece of shit a woman would drive…… while having no goddam idea why she bought one — except it makes her “FEEL smarter”. Women will spend $25,000 just because it makes them “feel smarter”.
    So just make a handbag out of Ostrich. Paint it green. Slap a Hermes label on it, and sell it to her for $4000. Same bitch thinks she’s just saved the environment.
    http://cdn.stylefrizz.com/img/hermes-birkin-green-ostrich-bag.jpg

  3. I’ve met Jennifer Granholm several times in Michigan. She is the definition of an “Empty Suit.” She has a nice smile and is reasonably personable. She also has no real ideas and her time as Governor nearly crippled Michigan’s economy.
    One of her largest energy “ideas” is wind turbines. Several of them are literally bordering my extended family’s property in Michigan. Guess what? They have a NEGATIVE impact in both money and energy. They cost more than they’re worth and are subsidized by taxes. Ridiculously, they also barely produce enough electricity to justify their existence.
    So spend other people’s money on a project that doesn’t work in order to make people “feel better.” People like her are just professional busybodies with fancy titles.

    1. well said, As far as the above article goes, it seems rather vapid, it is purely
      about POLITICS (you think this selfish green coat woman knows anything
      scientific, let alone, gives a damn about the environment, no, it is
      purely about her political carreer… and using the whole carbon
      emission, “global warming/greenie commie reference i, the article is useless, there are
      plenty of environmental problems, but CO2 isn’t one of them, if
      anything it would increase yields, and crop resistance, however, the
      world still needs a supply of fossil fuels for the future. i hate to say this, but this isn’t a man vs woman issue, plenty of articles on this website have value, but ones like this, risks making us look like the male equivalent of feminists, there are plenty male greenie/commie lil bitches running loose also, that should also be kept on a leash.
      as far as the fields of science, maths go, i have meat girls(a few), in those fields that surpass many of their male counterparts (on a sidenote: the most successful don’t look like feminists, and are not fat…
      like the ones studying marxist “equality” studies (i don’t want to imagine how quickly the ones you get in the US will make me want to puke because of their appearance.

  4. I’ve met Jennifer Granholm several times in Michigan. She is the definition of an “Empty Suit.” She has a nice smile and is reasonably personable. She also has no real ideas and her time as Governor nearly crippled Michigan’s economy.
    One of her largest energy “ideas” is wind turbines. Several of them are literally bordering my extended family’s property in Michigan. Guess what? They have a NEGATIVE impact in both money and energy. They cost more than they’re worth and are subsidized by taxes. Ridiculously, they also barely produce enough electricity to justify their existence.
    So spend other people’s money on a project that doesn’t work in order to make people “feel better.” People like her are just professional busybodies with fancy titles.

  5. Molten salt reactors are a proven technology. The US did a successful experiment in the 60’s in Oak Ridge (the same place where Uranium was refined for use in the Manhattan project). There were some technical issues, like the breaking down of pipes used to transport the hot, radioactive molten salt. To date this remains the only major problem with molten-salt technology, but new materials tech could solve this problem. In fact this is what Kirk Sorensen’s company is looking at right now.

    1. No, not “proven” technology, just demonstrated. They have some nice features but so does the Prius – you buy the WHOLE car, not some nice features.
      To get where existing light water reactors are in commercial development and refinement will take decades and billions of dollars. And for what?
      I’m open to continued development of the molten salt reactor and maybe a demonstration plant or two, but we’d be better off spending the money on taking care of existing nuclear waste.

      1. The benefits are too enormous to ignore. Uranium is expensive, thorium is cheap. Uranium reactors are dangerous and need huge containment buildings, thorium reactors can be small and you can have several in any city. Thorium has far fewer problems with waste, etc.
        Boiling-water and pressurized-water reactors have kind of hit ‘limits’ in what the technology can do. It’s time to investigate new technologies. People spend billions on fusion, why not spend the money on something that can actually give returns in the next few decades?

        1. Uranium is cheap although thorium is cheaper but not enough to make a difference. The planet has lots and lots of both.
          For current reactors the price of yellowcake is trivial. Some plants spend more on random drug testing than on yellowcake.

        2. You’re confusing U-238 with U-235. U-238 is cheaper than dirt. It’s so cheap it’s used as ammunition. U-235 is the stuff that produces electricity, and it is both expensive and rare. It’s so rare that, for instance, Iran only has enough minable U-235 to supply its power plants for 30 years (which is one of the reasons the IAEA is suspicious of Iran’s intentions).
          Few reactors burn yellowcake so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Nuclear power plants purchase fuel rods, inside of which there is no yellowcake, and the fuel rods are quite expensive (although as palladin pointed out above it’s mostly markup). The uranium in fuel rods is, depending on the type of reactor, anywhere from 2% to 20% U-235 with the rest being U-238.

        3. You’re confusing U-238 with U-235. U-238 is cheaper than dirt. It’s so cheap it’s used as ammunition. U-235 is the stuff that produces electricity, and it is both expensive and rare. It’s so rare that, for instance, Iran only has enough minable U-235 to supply its power plants for 30 years (which is one of the reasons the IAEA is suspicious of Iran’s intentions).
          Few reactors burn yellowcake so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Nuclear power plants purchase fuel rods, inside of which there is no yellowcake, and the fuel rods are quite expensive (although as palladin pointed out above it’s mostly markup). The uranium in fuel rods is, depending on the type of reactor, anywhere from 2% to 20% U-235 with the rest being U-238.

        4. Allow me to explain.
          All reactor fuel starts as yellowcake, or processed uranium concentrate, U3O8. It goes from the mine to a mill and yellowcake is the material sold in commercial markets. Natural uranium has <1% U-235 with the balance almost all U-238.,,,but that’s enough.
          Yellowcake is then converted into UF6, uranium hexafluoride, the only gaseous compound of uranium. It is then enriched in U-235 to about 3% and excess U-238 is surplused. Both are converted back into a solid ceramic form, UO2 with the enriched ceramic pellets being used for reactor fuel in light water reactors. Enrichment accounts for about half the costs of nuclear fuel in the reactor. Depleted uranium ammunition is the the U-235 depleted U-238 and is converted to metal. It still as a smidge of U-235 in it, called “tail assay.”
          The Canadians offer their CANDU reactor which can burn natural, unenriched uranium although nowadays, it pays even them to do a touch of enrichment.
          U-238 does indeed fission and produce energy but it is not quite able to sustain a chain reaction. By the end of a fuel cycle, half of the energy being produced is either from U-238 or from plutonium produced from U-238 while in the reactor.

    2. The alloy problems were fixed by modern manufacturing technology. The pipes carrying the thorium salt mix need to be made of a special exotic alloy that was expensive to make back then, not so much now. Thorium is a HUGE benefit for the fission folks, it’s prime benefit is that once started it’ll burn 99% of the material present vs the 1% of conventional uranium. Most of the radioactive waste from current nuke plants isn’t from the fuel but from the graphite rods that housed the fuel. Get rid of those and have the moderator also be the fuel mixture and you’ve reduced your waste output by a factor of 10.
      Only problem is a political one. Nuke companies don’t make much money by building plants, it takes too long due to regulation and EPA folks. Instead they make money selling specialized fuel rods to whomever is running the plant at an exorbitant markup. Thorium cycle is too cheap fuel wise as the reactor can run for a decade without refueling by using reprocessing. There is no economic incentive to build a thorium reactor.

      1. I think the competition between nations can replace competition between businesses when and if their political influence prevents it. So I am not worried about that.
        Example: I don’t believe in conspiracy theories of the kind that oil or automotive companies were buying plans from inventors that described more fuel-efficient cars and just buried them. If it was true, some anti-Western country would steal it and build it. Come on how hard is for the Spetznaz to kidnap the kids of some oil company exec and blackmail him for them plans? Not that hard at all.
        So, if the US does not build this, someone else will, and then the US and other Western nations will have to, just too, to keep up.
        Without nationalisms, anti-competitive business special interests could indeed put an end to technological progress.

        1. you assume that the ‘anti’ western countries are in fact anti western and not just ‘enemies’ conveniently put in place to give the military industrial complex an excuse to exist… they’d be screwed with out the war and terror and north korea.. NK looks awefully like something from a george orwell book and is oh so convenient if you happen to sell cruise missiles and such to the US Govt..

  6. Molten salt reactors are a proven technology. The US did a successful experiment in the 60’s in Oak Ridge (the same place where Uranium was refined for use in the Manhattan project). There were some technical issues, like the breaking down of pipes used to transport the hot, radioactive molten salt. To date this remains the only major problem with molten-salt technology, but new materials tech could solve this problem. In fact this is what Kirk Sorensen’s company is looking at right now.

  7. I don’t like TED anymore. Before, it used to be an annual summit of the best and brightest minds and cutting edge figures in science and technology.
    But now they are starting to let in a slick talkers who try to persuade you with theatre instead of hard facts. In other words, rather than bring in wonks, they put wankers up there like Al Gore who’s been a politician his whole career, not a scientist.

    1. I don’t know, I saw a guy that said in order to repair our plant ecosystem and stop desertification we need to get a bunch of cows in massive herds of several thousand and move them around at a reasonably brisk pace letting them trample grassland and poop.
      HIs logic seems sound to me and the price of beef would plummet while simultaneously increasing the quality of the beef. Could probably even find a way to program that army robot dog to do the actual herding.

      1. Exactly my point. That guy you mentioned are the type of people that made TED a platform for introducing SPECIFIC scientific ideas to improve society.
        My arguement is that TED is moving away from that by giving “Save the whales,” guy time at the expense of “let’s save the whales by cloning whale meat for the Japanese” guy.

    2. TED was designed to deliver NWO indoctrination from the start! It’s like goverment-funded academia distilled into social media candy for intellectuals. IQ is nothing without red-pill EQ. Great quote from Bathsazar Gracian: “Knowledge without courage is sterile.”

      31 Pieces Of Wisdom From Balthasar Gracian


      The ruling class of Keirsey-type Rationals understands they can domesticate strong IQ not strong EQ, so they redefine EQ into feminine-centric terms (dumb down) and inflation (to exclude price drop that would have occured) and courage (to being PC and having status with Big G) and on and on and…
      How do you think TED is so well-funded and popular? Fiat money is seignoirage is sovereignty. No one else will ever have the cast to compete within the system. They own the playing field in the large granularity, everything like TED, obviously to me.

    3. TED was designed to deliver NWO indoctrination from the start! It’s like goverment-funded academia distilled into social media candy for intellectuals. IQ is nothing without red-pill EQ. Great quote from Bathsazar Gracian: “Knowledge without courage is sterile.”

      31 Pieces Of Wisdom From Balthasar Gracian


      The ruling class of Keirsey-type Rationals understands they can domesticate strong IQ not strong EQ, so they redefine EQ into feminine-centric terms (dumb down) and inflation (to exclude price drop that would have occured) and courage (to being PC and having status with Big G) and on and on and…
      How do you think TED is so well-funded and popular? Fiat money is seignoirage is sovereignty. No one else will ever have the cast to compete within the system. They own the playing field in the large granularity, everything like TED, obviously to me.

  8. How this works;
    Women) Lets solve this problem. Everyone come help me do it and spend time and money that you have no obligation to do and absolutely no reason to do. Also don’t get anything back, just do it cause it is the right thing to do… You know, the right thing where you give your money to me for no reason other than that I said please.
    Men) Lets figure out how I can solve this problem or test ways that have a high chance of fixing it and then get investors that will see a solid return in investments if this method works, in which I have already verified that it will work in some cases but have yet to put it on a major scale. Still risky but you can’t make money without spending it, and what better way to spend money than to spend it in something that everybody needs forever. So guys, don’t give men money. Invest your money and make more of it if this works out. Also you will be helping people, so you get the good bubbly feeling in your heart if you’re into that kind of thing.
    So which should be do? Upvote for men and downvote for women as your answer. Lol.

  9. Do a little research.. “the energy crisis” was solved by Tesla and a bunch of other 19th century scientists before it even began…
    JP Morgan, Edison, Rockefeller and others shut down ALL OTHER alternatives outside coal and oil
    Some smatterings of solar, wind etc. are allowed because guess what, building solar panels and wind turbines, actually uses more oil and coal than the energy you get back out of them….. perfect.! so much for green energy…. it’s just marketing…. that power cable coming out of your laptop is another con job… wifi electricity was perfected by telsa in the 19th century !!!! and TED did a demo of it recently….
    nuclear is / was popular because you need power plants to make the plutonium for nukes.. it’s also hell expensive to build a plant which makes for some great pork laden spending projects…. (thanks tax payer… here’s your power bill…. and a healthy dose of leukemia for your kid.)
    we are led to believe that we live in a 4 dimensional universe, and this causes us to believe that there is an energy crisis, but infact once you factor in a couple of extra dimensions, which quantum mechanics demands… energy is literally pouring in one ear and out the other as you read this… the only question is catching some of it….
    LOOK : here is one that actually exists… the swiss kept it under wraps…
    http://www.rexresearch.com/testatik/testart.htm

      1. so explain to me why we don’t have wifi electrical transmission, when it’s been known about and proven, for more than 100 years… with the right gear radio stations are basically power stations operating at 0.1% capacity… wires are unnecessary… what a waste of copper..
        every try holding a fluorescent tube under a main power line ?

      1. It appears someone posted an article on tumblr from here and pissed the feminists off. I don’t agree with probably about 50% of what’s written here, but it’s all strangely alluring where there are quite a few things being said that I: do agree with. Why these feminists can’t move on instead of pitching a bitch about stuff they don’t agree with that happens to be true, I don’t know.

        1. The fact that angry feminists got this site shut down over the eating disorder article (which I disagreed with), but not over the far worse “convince a girl to get an abortion” article shows true majority female nature/priorities. Convince a girl to kill a human being? No prob. You should date a girl with eating disorder? OMG SHUT DOWN IMMEDIATELY.
          To feminists: Women > Innocent children.
          /repeat, but it must be said again

        2. No offense, you’re fucking retarded. A fetus only becomes a child when it fucking acquires emotions. There’s a very specific time. If someone doesn’t want to do deal with your shit baby, let it be. Humans are the only species advanced enough to intervene with nature. Also, you wanna know why men are so sexually aggressive? It all goes back to science. Women gained an idea of time/consequences so they stopped having sex and developed discrete ovulation. Men at the same time, developed an increased sex drive so that they would be more horny to have sex more often to ensure children because with discrete ovulation, women could choose when they felt like fucking or not and the man couldn’t just have sex with the woman because he knew she was ovulating (like it happens in other species). You are all suck fucktards. Women are what gave society. Because of menstruation, we, men gained an idea of time and therefore society, but you’re all just too busy measuring dicks. “The past 150,000 years of history can be written as men trying to regain the power they lost to women.” This is all coming from a man. The difference is education. Why don’t you spend some time on fucking learning rather than sharping your blunt heads……

        3. “No offense, you’re fucking retarded.”
          None taken, I know projection when I see it.
          ” A fetus only becomes a child when it fucking acquires emotions.”
          Yeah that’s… yep, projection. I wonder how many times you’ve accused somebody of being “anti-science.” I love when people stay stupid shit off the bat so I don’t have to feel remorse for a quick tl;dr
          Except in your case, it’s more like “too stupid, didn’t bother.”

        4. Haha, so now you’re a psychologist “projection.” Look at you. A bit more educated than expected, but I guess you ought to do better than minimal, sir. And I don’t accuse anyone being “anti-science” since I agree with things that only sound logical and reasonable, not solely because they came out of a science book. But if you’re so mighty and moral and religious… Let it be. That makes you no bigger or better in any context than the one that lies in your underdeveloped brain. Next time, you should try to actually back your argument with some valid evidence, but no you’d rather just give some shitty response because ehhh “too stupid, didn’t bother.”

        5. Actually the most widely accepted theory as to why women hide their ovulation is that it’s to create uncertainty about paternity and therefor extract resources from the greatest number of men as well as reducing rates of infanticide.

        6. yeah, it sure did slow this site down. btw, if you guys in the US have to deal with a lot of these 20 points at once on many girls on a daily basis, i have empathy for you and other ROK readers here. i have to live with some, but at least around where i live there aren’t many whales (i remember seeing 2 cool decent dudes, exchange students, accompanied by other female exchange students, from seattle, both their attitude and their physical appearance made me want to puke, they were so fat, it was so disgusting, i’m not used to seeing many obese girls). i have seen kids with like tourrettes which don’t curse nearly as much as any in the “20 signs… comments here. i never have to deal with girls like this in my daily life, it must be a nightmare, if you guys have to in the US…

        7. This post is obviously written by someone with a seventh grade intellect.
          Women created society because they bleed out of their cunt once a month?
          If society is based on menstrual blood then what do we hold responsible for our declining society? Diarrhea form a woman’s asshole?
          Enjoying your 20’s? This was one of the dumbest gen Y comments I have ever read.

        8. This post is obviously written by someone with a seventh grade intellect.
          Women created society because they bleed out of their cunt once a month?
          If society is based on menstrual blood then what do we hold responsible for our declining society? Diarrhea form a woman’s asshole?
          Enjoying your 20’s? This was one of the dumbest gen Y comments I have ever read.

        9. Actually, the reason why they hide ovulation is because birth killed and nobody wants to die because they fucked an imbecile.

        10. Why are you on a different account? And what’s not stupid about saying a baby isn’t a human until it has emotions? I’ve heard many anti-life arguments, but that’s a first. It probably is the dumbest one yet short of comparing a fetus to a seed.

        11. Why are you on a different account? And what’s not stupid about saying a baby isn’t a human until it has emotions? I’ve heard many anti-life arguments, but that’s a first. It probably is the dumbest one yet short of comparing a fetus to a seed.

        12. Why are you on a different account? And what’s not stupid about saying a baby isn’t a human until it has emotions? I’ve heard many anti-life arguments, but that’s a first. It probably is the dumbest one yet short of comparing a fetus to a seed.

        13. Why are you on a different account? And what’s not stupid about saying a baby isn’t a human until it has emotions? I’ve heard many anti-life arguments, but that’s a first. It probably is the dumbest one yet short of comparing a fetus to a seed.

        14. Why are you on a different account? And what’s not stupid about saying a baby isn’t a human until it has emotions? I’ve heard many anti-life arguments, but that’s a first. It probably is the dumbest one yet short of comparing a fetus to a seed.

        15. Why are you on a different account? And what’s not stupid about saying a baby isn’t a human until it has emotions? I’ve heard many anti-life arguments, but that’s a first. It probably is the dumbest one yet short of comparing a fetus to a seed.

        16. Why are you on a different account? And what’s not stupid about saying a baby isn’t a human until it has emotions? I’ve heard many anti-life arguments, but that’s a first. It probably is the dumbest one yet short of comparing a fetus to a seed.

        17. Why are you on a different account? And what’s not stupid about saying a baby isn’t a human until it has emotions? I’ve heard many anti-life arguments, but that’s a first. It probably is the dumbest one yet short of comparing a fetus to a seed.

        18. Yes Eric. This is explained very well in a book called Sperm Wars. I suggest every man that visits ROK read this book.
          This summary does not do the book justice, but I will give you a taste of the theory and the logic.
          A man’s sperm is actually designed to do warfare with other men’s sperm. The objective: Take over the uterus and wait for the egg.
          From an evolutionary perspective, women developed this way so that their egg would be fertilized by men with the strongest genes. There subconscious drive is to receive a sperm load from a variety of men, let those sperm duke it out, and let the strongest man’s sperm win and get the prize (fertilize her egg).
          This is quite apart from a woman’s strategy for raising her children. For that, a weaker man is better for her. She can control him and she can get him to raise the children of other, stronger men.
          Sperm Wars is a book that will force feed a red pill to any man that is brave enough to read it.

  10. I’ve been designing and modifying commercial nuclear power plants for decades. I still see no particular advantages to the thorium fuel cycle compared to uranium fuel. All of my colleagues who have looked at the problem agree,
    PLEASE – be more skeptical of the thorium guys. Their plans could work, but would they work BETTER than the designs we have now and on the drawing boards? My professional opinion is no.
    However, you nailed the gender differences in approaches – sob stories and OPM vs. hard thinking.

    1. If you didn’t watch the video, Sorensen makes it pretty clear that what’s special here isn’t the thorium per se, but it’s the LFTR reactor design. It’s just that the thorium->uranium fuel cycle happens to be a far better match for the LFTR design than the uranium or plutonium fuel cycles.

    2. It certainly sounds too good for us not to have been using it already. Which new reactor type seems the most promising?

      1. While I’ve long been a fan of pebble bed reactors, they seem to costly for wide adaptation being too small. All the “small modular reactors” suffer from too high capital costs for their output ($/kW).
        What I expect to happen is that the current advanced light water reactors will just get bigger and bigger since there are very strong economies of scale involved. I can see a 2,000 MW unit in the not distant future. Today, the biggest you can get is about 1450 MW or so.
        I worked on the “Advance Boiling Water Reactor” for many years and I was impressed. Plus, it has been built commercially. Westinghouse’s AP1000 is a good design but not really scalable to larger sizes

    3. Agreed. It’s the classic sucker problem that most people are falling for. They’re not looking at or bothering to understand what they don’t know.

  11. @Anton McDowell
    There is reason China is the worlds primary source of Rare Earth Elements. They are actually quite common but unlike other elements they don’t clump together and form ores. It means you can’t mine for them like you do other industrial elements, you gotta get them as a byproduct of existing mining operations. If you need them in vast quantities then your going to have to practically strip mine a mountain. As China lacks a strong government sponsored environmental agency they can actually run these mines. Every Hybrid care or Electric car on the market is chock full of metals that came from a Chinese strip mine.

  12. I find that anyone who gets a degree in political science is sort of running for office for the sake of it. There are not many other career options for such people. They bring nothing to the table but ask for ones vote anyway.

    1. I have a minor in political science. It doesn’t really prepare you for being a politician. I think you just have to naturally have an abundance of ego, arrogance, and charisma to go along with thick skin. Political science does qualify you to be a campaign consultant (if you are smart and have connections), legislative aid/staffer (anybody else).

  13. Let’s just hope someone has the common sense to give this man his funding. Points if they revisit some of Tesla’s ideas about transmitting electricity wirelessly.
    Much better legacy to leave your children than a cache of Facebook selfies and useless twitter posts.

  14. Nuclear Power is obviously the immediate way forward – but renewable energy technologies will be easy to sell to other countries in the future. Everyone in the science world knows this.
    However, if you’re claiming on the basis of these two case studies that males have better ideas than females, I want a decent sample size (minimum n>100) of randomly chosen subjects. Gotta be scientific about this.

  15. pffft this isn’t a gender thing. its a politician thing. Ed Miliband said the same thing. The UK collectively laughed. It just so happens that one was female the other was male in this case

  16. As a Michigan governor during the recession Granholm showed no leadership to solve anything, now understand why she didn’t perform, she was waiting for someone else to do it for her!

  17. As a Michigan governor during the recession Granholm showed no leadership to solve anything, now understand why she didn’t perform, she was waiting for someone else to do it for her!

      1. And Michigan’s doing much better now. Lots of male faces in the governor’s office, the supreme court, the legislature, the senate…

  18. Another polititards willing things into existence against the laws of physics by sheer ignorance and arrogance.
    Give the average politician a light bulb, battery, wire sheet of paper, and a pen with the directions to light the light bulb and they’ll inevitably set aside the battery, wire and light bulb. They’ll pick up the pen and paper to write rules and regulations on how EVERYONE ELSE should stop wasting energy and pay more taxes to create an industry of college-educated STEM graduates to design a light bulb that operates 100% more efficiently that’s powered by magical pink unicorn farts converted to a new form of lossless “green” energy with zero carbon emissions.
    Add a female to the mix, and we should first have an endless DIALOG about how this is such a problem and that the first step toward solving anything is awareness, fund raising for awareness, and a ribbon to remind everyone what a fucking selfish bastard they are for living, breathing, and consuming energy in the first place.
    Where’s the damn ribbon for the 80% renewable energy initiative? Is it green? Unfortunately, the green ribbon has been co opted by at least 20 other awareness movements.
    Oh well, maybe if we have a GREEN AND PINK ribbon in honor of the FEMALE solution to the energy problem we may at least have a solution to the ribbon color conundrum.
    Unfortunately, this bi-colored ribbon may confuse many females into thinking they are supporting GREEN BREAST CANCER AWARENESS. In which case, Ms. Granhoim’s 80% green solution should start with a hamster-wheel powered flux-capacitor to generate the 40,000 Volts @ 5,000 Watts needed for the low-energy Spellman x-ray mammography machine. I mean common, we’re not talkin Doc Brown giggawatts here. I believe this is a reasonable starting point for this movement.
    If women had to run their lives with the type of thinking this blonde bubble head is proposing, just think of the whining we men would have to endure. “What? I can’t run my dryer, washing machine, dishwasher, hot water heater, hair dryer, trash compactor, laptop, home security system, plasma TV’s, lights, toaster, toaster oven, blender, magic bullet, ceiling fans, and vibrator on 80% renewable energy? WTF! Who came up with nonsense!” I can hear it now. “Oh, buy you say I can recharge my iPhone 5 on a solar panel the size of my car’s windshield if I leave the thing out in full sun for an hour? Well, then it’s all good!”
    Let this politi-tard and others disconnect from the grid and run 80% of their shit at home on these so-called green energy solutions. Then, and only then, will I lend an ear to hear what they’re doing.
    Where’s Scotty with those damn dilithium crystals? If they could provide the power to rocket the starship Enterprise across galaxy at warp speed, maybe they could provide enough energy to encapsulate and contain the black hole of solutions flowing from the female mind.

  19. Why do we entertain NWO propaganda with due diligency? That is playing into their argument strategy and victory by honoring the work load of Voluminously Denying the Antecedent. It works like shaming, from a presumption of superior authority over you. Sure, it’s great to walk newbies through the propaganda, but don’t stop just short of the first causes of Green Energy lies and all the others: Fiat money is seignoriage is sovereignty. I wish every political post in the Manosphere would include something along the lines of:
    Fiat money is seignoriage is sovereignty, or
    King’s bankers -> Democracies’ bankers -> Bankers’ democracies.
    The meme of what the real power is over our lives should be relentlessly championed. So should the solution:
    Patriarchy – Not a Dirty Word, a Glorious Word!

  20. I suspect America’s progressives feel the need to discredit nuclear power because its demographic reality conflicts with their diversity religion. Nuclear power requires high IQ’s and male cognitive strengths to make it work, and you can’t bluff your way past these meritocratic filters through quotas and affirmative action. So in practice white and East Asian men tend to dominate the field, exactly the sort of men who “don’t look like America” these days.
    But have you noticed how seldom America’s progressives denounce France’s use of nuclear power? The French get a pass on nukes because they have more of a social-democratic state, which somehow makes France’s white, male nuclear engineers politically acceptable.

  21. Nuclear power is a real solution to a basic need of human beings. With computerized controls and sophisticated control systems it is very safe. The two biggest problems are: human intervention and waste. One of those will be solved long before the other … Great video – engineers are the rock stars of our future.

  22. I look forward to your follow-up article that compares the proposed solutions of a female scientist and a male politician. You’re totally going to do that, right?

    1. This is based on the generalization that there are more male scientists and more female liberal arts majors. Yes it is a generalization, but one that is based on valid statistics.

  23. This could go down as one of the most underrated articles on this site. Of course nobody will be trying to get this site shutdown over the energy problem but mention a women with an eating disorder and the whole world goes to shit.

  24. First of all, neither of these ideas would be able to “solve” the world energy crisis: it’s way more complicated than that. Yes, you would have to build solar panels and wind farms, but you would obviously have to build thorium reactor plants. Thorium is still being researched as an energy source, and while idealistic, energy from thorium reactors is still being developed. Even though waste byproducts of thorium are radioactive for a shorter amount of time than those of uranium, disposing of them will still pose a significant problem. You have clearly overstated the potential benefits of thorium energy and neglected to discuss the major possible drawbacks. Even if Dr. Sorensen’s proposal was better, I don’t see how that has ANYTHING to do with men and women. Your argument might have had potential to be valid, but of course you had to somehow relate this to gender. You can’t just take two people and generalize them to be representative of the viewpoints of their respective genders. You’re implying that women aren’t able to come up with good solutions to problems, and that’s just plain sexist of you.

    1. “You’re implying that women aren’t able to come up with good solutions to problems”
      That isn’t implied anywhere. Maybe that’s just you projecting.

    2. We are implying that most women don’t come up with objective, outcomes-based solutions for major problems and instead focus on feelings.

    3. thank you, there are plenty greenie/commie men(if you can call them that), psychos running loose also. this article is clearly trying to ridicule the whole female gender(especially judging by some of the comments) by picking out the first greenie extremist political clown the authour could find.
      I hate to say it, but after seeing these responses, i know girls that could put a lot of men here to shame when it comes to mathematics, science… and even at sports, not doubt (some are really good looking, none are fat, and not feminists/rude either, so i’m NOT agreeing with the whole “strong and independent” feminist myth).
      Just because there are women looking like goblins in your neighbourhoods, who are retarded like the angry fems that posted comments on the previous articles, it doesn’t mean it is so across the world are that bad.
      i don’t think the above comment is exagerrated after all the article has the comment “man vs woman’s problem…. i don’t see a huge difference from the opposite of feminism here.
      Not impressive, forgive me for stating the obvious, but why isn’t there an article about a bigger issue “JANET YELLEN”, the first woman chair of the FEDERAL RESERVE, that the fed and gov is clearly using the whole “first woman” as PR

  25. First of all, neither of these ideas would be able to “solve” the world energy crisis: it’s way more complicated than that. Yes, you would have to build solar panels and wind farms, but you would obviously have to build thorium reactor plants. Thorium is still being researched as an energy source, and while idealistic, energy from thorium reactors is still being developed. Even though waste byproducts of thorium are radioactive for a shorter amount of time than those of uranium, disposing of them will still pose a significant problem. You have clearly overstated the potential benefits of thorium energy and neglected to discuss the major possible drawbacks. Even if Dr. Sorensen’s proposal was better, I don’t see how that has ANYTHING to do with men and women. Your argument might have had potential to be valid, but of course you had to somehow relate this to gender. You can’t just take two people and generalize them to be representative of the viewpoints of their respective genders. You’re implying that women aren’t able to come up with good solutions to problems, and that’s just plain sexist of you.

  26. First of all, neither of these ideas would be able to “solve” the world energy crisis: it’s way more complicated than that. Yes, you would have to build solar panels and wind farms, but you would obviously have to build thorium reactor plants. Thorium is still being researched as an energy source, and while idealistic, energy from thorium reactors is still being developed. Even though waste byproducts of thorium are radioactive for a shorter amount of time than those of uranium, disposing of them will still pose a significant problem. You have clearly overstated the potential benefits of thorium energy and neglected to discuss the major possible drawbacks. Even if Dr. Sorensen’s proposal was better, I don’t see how that has ANYTHING to do with men and women. Your argument might have had potential to be valid, but of course you had to somehow relate this to gender. You can’t just take two people and generalize them to be representative of the viewpoints of their respective genders. You’re implying that women aren’t able to come up with good solutions to problems, and that’s just plain sexist of you.

  27. This is an excellent article. It points out how “progressives” want to be the first to SAY it, while red pill men are interested in being the first to do it.
    Ever noticed how Barack Obama seems to think that if he SAYS IT, it will be done. By others of course. In his narcissistic mind, they just need to hear it from HIM. And then, notice the failures that result. Like Obamacare – The world has found that just having Obama talk about the nirvana of Obamacare was not enough. And they are actually shocked by this realization.
    In fact, the comparison you make in this article ought to be required in the curriculum of all political science departments in all universities. This type of comparison could be used in a variety of areas, including comparing Barack Obama and his aspirational talking (and doing nothing) to other presidents that talked less and accomplished a lot more. Having students think through this comparison would be painful for them, because it would go against years of childhood brainwashing. But the critical thinking would pay off in the long term, for them, and for the country.

  28. Nuclear is a stupid fucking idea. I’ve heard all the “safe” stuff on nuclear and it’s easily the most dangerous idea out there. If something goes slightly wrong (which is basically a guarantee), everything can go haywire very, very quickly.
    How’s the best way to fix the energy crisis? Send energy costs through the damn roof. It’s not rocket science. If the price is much higher, less people will use energy as alternatives become much more profitable.
    In other words, both ideas by both sides are stupid. The cure to the energy crisis is much higher energy costs. It’s the most obvious damn solution out there.

    1. Did you even watch the Thorium video? Just the first five minutes explains this in the drain plug example. Also, and this is really important, watch the part between 1:25:30 to 1:29:30 so you have some background on how dangerous radiation actually is.

      1. Okay, you clearly don’t understand what I’m saying. Just because these new things don’t have the exact same problems as the ones before them doesn’t mean they don’t have problems. All of the reasons that he gives of Thorium being “safe” doesn’t make it so because there are other aspects of it that we don’t know about. Guys like him will tell you everything they know, but they won’t tell you what we actually don’t know. It’s the classic sucker problem. In my opinion, if you actually listen to or believe the people in either one of the videos, you’re a sucker. Think about what he isn’t telling you or doesn’t even realize he doesn’t know. For a project like this, the risk/reward isn’t there.

  29. Are you seriously trying to tell us that this Liberal Arts major wanna-be actress couldn’t come up with a feasible plan because she was a WOMAN?? Go find a woman with equivalent educational credentials to the man you referenced (and don’t you DARE try to tell me that they don’t exist, I personally know female electrical and aerospace engineers) before you try to make such a foolish extrapolation.

  30. Very good article, thanks for sharing.
    I’ve noticed that most women want to maintain the status quo. That’s why we have all these policies benefiting women and forcing men to pay for them. Something like LFTR would be too risky for them. Yes, men have made serious blunders throughout history, but we are also enjoying what we have today because of risk taking. If women ruled the world, we would live in stagnation.
    And solving problems are not priorities for them, they would rather just bitch about it.

    Also, it’s been a year since I read ROK, looks like your comments section are being flooded by feminists.

  31. Eyy, Anthony McDowell! I can say it for you: YES, YOU AND OTHER MEN ARE BETTER THAN WOMEN! WEE! Statisfied now?( I am a female btw) Haha… Can we please continue from kiddengarden and talk about what matters the most, like, I donno… how to solve the energy crisis perhaps?

  32. I love that I’ve seen this on ROK! I saw this a year or two ago and it’s thanks to Kirk that I was inspired to do a PhD in nuclear engineering to work on molten salt reactors.
    The fuel production from carbon dioxide can be done in a number of ways, but the premise is coupling the reactor heat to chemical production plants to drive chemical reactions. This sort of technology is already proven: an example is that during the oil embargo on South Africa so many years ago, they developed methods of converting coal to synthetic oil. For CO2 conversion, one of the easiest examples to explain is using an electrochemical cell. This is essentially the opposite of a fuel cell, and it works more efficiently at high temperatures. Electricity and heat are used to split water to hydrogen and oxygen and carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide and oxygen as they pass through a reactive membrane. The resulting “synthesis gas” mixture can then undergo the same reactions used by companies like Sasol in South Africa to form synthetic fuels.
    Back to the topic at hand, I’d argue that you can’t really split it male and female based on just two case studies. An example of a woman who is working closely with Kirk is Baroness Bryony Worthington, who is working to change energy policy in the UK to make MSRs a reality.

  33. This would be a fantastic article except for one big problem. You picked the wrong guy.
    Kirk Sorensen is a total fail. Sorry. I’m work in the nuclear field and we basically hate this guy.
    Here’s why: his Thorium power solution is completely fucked up and he’s lying through his teeth about it. Various nuclear experts have tried to work with him to explain what’s so fucked-up about his design and he just blows them off.
    What’s wrong with Sorensen’s reactors is simply that, they are molten salt reactors and molten salt reactors are probably the most dangerous technology on the planet, bar none. Molten salt reactors are perfect for creating vast amounts of nuclear weapons grade nuclear material which you can use to build terrorist nuclear weapons. U-233 or Plutonium, it really doesn’t matter. They are both easy to make once you have MSRs. Once you start building MSRs the information will leak to the nuclear gray market and you’ll never get it back. Say hello to worldwide nuclear terror. No shit.
    This was all figured out 30 years ago by the nuclear non-proliferation world. It’s not something that amateurs can really get because they haven’t spent the requisite time understanding proliferation. Now there are like thousands of starry-eyed amatuers who all think that Thorium is some kind of miracle, without the slightest fucking idea what kind of trouble they are causing.
    Please, folks, don’t waste my time with Sorensen’s usual BS about how U-233 can’t be used to make bombs, can be prevented by the addition of U-238, etc. It’s all pure lies. He knows it also, he’s been told a hundred times and dodged the question. A very, very bad guy.
    Hopefully the various nuclear regulatory agencies and the DOE will step in and put a stop to this. They’ll outright ban MSRs and then Sorensen will have to pump solid core Thorium reactors, and that will go nowhere fast.
    Meanwhile he’s getting rich and famous pushing a myth. See Quora.com for an honest discussion on this. You won’t get it elsewhere.
    That being said, nuclear power is a great solution if you look at better designed products, like the Terra Power reactor being financed by Bill Gates. You won’t see the Terrapower guys on Ted making big speeches, because, they are serious nuclear designers who don’t want that kind of publicity. Nuclear power is seriously dangerous and the most qualified experts are the ones who avoid, not seek, publicity.

  34. Cheap and abundant energy is one of the main requirements for advanced civilizations.

Comments are closed.