anonymous999
It is not me who you have to convince! :) It's the general public (and fighting decades of propaganda).
Maybe a YouTube viral video or something, I don't know :)
I wouldn't go showing the plutonium dust article. Reminds me too much of Alexander Litvinenko.
And your point about reprocessing in France actually reinforces my point: it required multiple inter-governmental agreements at the highest diplomatic levels, and complying with EURATOM, very especially (as it applies to you) the 2001 Joint Convention, OSPAR (?) and I'm sure plenty more of red tape (source: IAEA publications).
Being U.S. based is obviously a benefit to you, since they're the most likely to shrug international oversight (and you say you're not reprocessing anyways).
Plus, France is the most pro-nuclear country in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Convention_on_the_Safety_...
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/1997/inf...
I saw the diagrams on your website, it does look like a very unlikely target for being blown up, but the likelihood doesn't enter the equation when irrational fears are bandied around (they might say you're lying, etc..).
I just want you to be very aware of the stigma and irrationa l fears, and the regulatory hazards, because I very much want you to succeed.
I've talked to politicians (outside the U.S.), and they tell me that pushing a nuclear agenda, while economically sound, is political suicide. Some countries have a "stealth" approach (simply by not calling attention to media and quietly "expanding" current facilities), while others, like Germany, caved in to public pressure.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/waisberg1/
"However, the project was hampered in 1994 after a series of controversies involving safety issues and nuclear non-proliferation policies."
However, I'm related to a nuclear engineer (who is currently in a senior position at IAEA, thus the anonymous account), and I understood that both steps you're currently undertaking were commonly know to be viable and efficient, BUT contravened most non-proliferation agreements (note: I'm not a nuclear engineer or physicist. Just interested).
So, you're "disrupting" an industry in dire need of disruption (due to the massive amounts of red tape), but you're also walking a tightrope.
I believe what you're doing is safe and needed, but if public opinion or perception turns against you (any article hinting at terrorist use, for example, or concerns over breaking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), it might end your company.
You probably have taken all of this into account, and I hope you have a strategy in place on how to deal with this :) .
Once again, I wish you best of luck and I hope to use your generators in the future !! :)
EDIT: I haven't talked with my relative yet, all what I wrote above is my (probably misinformed) opinion.
Second edit: It seems several others have already raised most of my concerns, and better than I have. I've also
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195589 (regulatory concerns)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195642 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8196075(the tech being commonly known)
and, most important, the "dirty bomb" factor