Recently, four of the world’s leading climate scientists released an open letter to world environmental policy makers urging the development and dep...
Recently, four of the world’s leading climate scientists r...524 days 2 hours 51 minutes ago
Coal is a much nastier power source than the one we have chosen to fear in a deadly form of displacement activity. Most of the afflictions wrongly ...
Coal is a much nastier power source than the one we have cho...527 days 1 hour 4 minutes ago
Here's a remarkable fact: For the past two decades, 10 percent of all the electricity consumed in the United States has come from Russian nuclear warh...
Here's a remarkable fact: For the past two decades, 10 perce...533 days 58 minutes ago
On December 10th, Pandora's Promise will be available on iTunes. Mark it in your calendars today!...
On December 10th, Pandora's Promise will be available on iTu...552 days 2 hours 46 minutes ago
How Economic Arguments Against Nuclear Highlight Environmentalist Delusions Two weeks ago, four of the world’s most respected climate scientists to...
How Economic Arguments Against Nuclear Highlight Environment...559 days 1 hour 48 minutes ago
Robert Stone's fascinating documentary makes a convincing case for a nuclear future. Bored by the tranche of lefty-liberal journalistic documentarie...
Robert Stone's fascinating documentary makes a convincing ca...559 days 2 hours 3 minutes ago
(CNN) -- Four top environmental scientists raised the stakes Sunday in their fight to reverse climate change and save the planet. Climate and energ...
(CNN) -- Four top environmental scientists raised the stakes...566 days 1 hour 58 minutes ago
What would happen if you discovered that everything you knew about nuclear energy was wrong? Watch Pandora's Promise on CNN on November 7 at 9:00 p.m....
What would happen if you discovered that everything you knew...570 days 28 minutes ago
Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won't be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they're asking environmen...
Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and sola...573 days 1 hour 34 minutes ago
The government has given the green light to building the first new nuclear power plant in a generation. But while many have welcomed the move away fro...
The government has given the green light to building the fir...573 days 1 hour 36 minutes ago
The opening of the film “Pandora’s Promise,” a new documentary by director Robert Stone, provides familiar coverage of a spirited protest agains...
The opening of the film “Pandora’s Promise,” a new doc...574 days 1 hour 38 minutes ago
As George Osborne hails a renaissance for nuclear power in Britain, Alex Macbeth reviews Pandora's Promise, a new documentary film that asks whether w...
As George Osborne hails a renaissance for nuclear power in B...574 days 1 hour 39 minutes ago
What would happen if you discovered that everything you knew about nuclear energy was wrong? Watch Pandora's Promise on CNN on November 7 at 9:00 p.m....
What would happen if you discovered that everything you knew...574 days 1 hour 44 minutes ago
Usually, when documentary directors make a film about the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, it becomes a call to end all forms of nuclear powe...
Usually, when documentary directors make a film about the cr...583 days 2 hours 37 minutes ago
The latest documentary from the provocative Oscar-nominee embraces a controversial stance on nuclear energy. "Everyone wants that perfect source of e...
The latest documentary from the provocative Oscar-nominee em...594 days 3 hours 33 minutes ago
The IPCC fifth climate change report lays out a carbon budget that we must follow if we’re to keep the world under a temperature rise of 2C over pre...
The IPCC fifth climate change report lays out a carbon budge...598 days 4 hours 41 minutes ago
Click here for an interview with Robert Stone on Sydney's radio Fantastic....
Click here for an interview with Robert Stone on Sydney's ra...598 days 4 hours 43 minutes ago
Academy Award nominated director Robert Stone is coming to Sydney to present special screenings of his new documentary feature Pandora’s Promise....
Academy Award nominated director Robert Stone is coming to S...603 days 4 hours 47 minutes ago
FilmInk grills Oscar-nominated documentarian, Robert Stone, about ‘Pandora’s Promise’, which makes the controversial argument that nuclear energ...
FilmInk grills Oscar-nominated documentarian, Robert Stone, ...604 days 4 hours 45 minutes ago
Oscar nominated director Robert Stone’s latest documentary is stirring up debate wherever it is shown. Stone’s controversial Pandora’s Promise t...
Oscar nominated director Robert Stone’s latest documentary...604 days 4 hours 50 minutes ago
Oscar nominated director Robert Stone's latest documentary is stirring up debate wherever it is shown. Stone's controversial Pandora's Promise tells t...
Oscar nominated director Robert Stone's latest documentary i...604 days 5 hours 54 minutes ago
Robert Stone, réalisateur du film Pandora's Promise déplore qu'aucun distributeur européen -même ARTE- n'a souhaité diffuser son film. Une sortie...
Robert Stone, réalisateur du film Pandora's Promise déplor...608 days 4 hours 49 minutes ago
In the new, critically acclaimed documentary Pandora’s Promise former anti-nuclear activist turned pro-nuclear advocate Richard Rhodes makes the fol...
In the new, critically acclaimed documentary Pandora’s Pro...610 days 4 hours 55 minutes ago
I know this isn’t exactly astronomical in nature, but it is a matter that I feel strongly about. Anyone who knows me knows that I am pro-logic and p...
I know this isn’t exactly astronomical in nature, but it i...619 days 4 hours 52 minutes ago
I’m staring over the edge of a cliff into a seam of coal some 80 feet thick running along a chasm cut deep into the earth. A gargantuan claw rips a ...
I’m staring over the edge of a cliff into a seam of coal s...646 days 4 hours 54 minutes ago
The recently released Robert Stone film, “Pandora’s Promise,” has created a stir among environmentalists and the nuclear industry. But two longt...
The recently released Robert Stone film, “Pandora’s Prom...706 days 4 hours 48 minutes ago
Today's environmental left has its roots in radical right wing beliefs of the 19th century, says Michael Lind. Ecomodernism and it's embrace of high technology, has its roots in Rooseveltian progressivism:1 day 23 hours 13 minutes ago
France regarded the transformation of its energy sector in the 1970's as a matter of national security. As Obama aims to similarly recast America's transition to clean energy, will he mention nuclear?8 days 4 hours 54 minutes ago
The GOP's willful ignorance is similar to the shenanigans that took place in the 1990s regarding the IFR program. I suggest that you post a clipping from the portion of the documentary which shows statements from senators and representatives when they were trying to close down the IFR program and then tie it to the New Yorker article. The government then, tried to bury the scientific work of the IFR program and now the GOP is trying to bury scientific work again but in a different but related subject.14 days 6 hours 47 minutes ago
Bill McKibben's OpEd in the NY Times is so naive it's mind boggling. Does he really expect that the solution to climate change will come from governments outlawing the drilling for fossil fuels? Please! We'll stop burning fossil fuels when better, cheaper, cleaner energy alternatives emerge. Yet McKibben and his allies are simultaneously engaged in a campaign to abandon nuclear energy and dismiss the promise of next gen reactor technology. Doing so betrays the very same level of DENIAL about both the magnitude of our energy dilemma and the inherent limitations of wind and solar as that which he attacks here. Bill McKibben is as much a part of the problem as are his fiercest enemies.14 days 15 hours 52 minutes ago
Tom Friedman commits a whopper! Claims today that Germany gets 30% of its electricity from wind and solar. Totally untrue! Only 13% comes from wind and solar. To get to 30% you need to add hydro and biomass. Send comments to NY Times today!22 days 4 hours 3 minutes ago
San Onofre nuclear plant COULD have supplied San Diego County with 80% of its water needs for 20 years at a cost of just 1 cent for every 17 gallons!!! But Californians chose instead to shut it down for no good reason.31 days 2 hours 33 minutes ago
Bill Nye and President Obama on science and R&D.... Both the left and the right cherry pick the science that conforms to their ideology. The right denies the science of anthropogenic climate change and the left denies the science surrounding GMO's and nuclear energy.33 days 5 hours 11 minutes ago
Yesterday, APR 16, solar output hovered around 6 GW during mid-day (11a to 3p) in the CAL ISO area. That's about 2 GW more than one year ago (a GW is 1000 megawatts or about as much as one nuclear reactor produces). Here is a chart that shows how rapidly solar is growing globally.40 days 22 hours 23 minutes ago
Wednesday night sold out screening of Pandora's Promise (1,500 seats) was a stunning success. At the end of the Q&A, moderator Andy Revkin asked the audience if the film has changed their mind about nuclear energy. Nearly every hand in the house went up.48 days 5 hours 22 minutes ago
Pandora's Promise has been invited to screen at a festival of anti-nuclear films in Quebec. Debating whether to attend for a raucous Q&A. Tempted. http://uraniumfilmfestival.org/en/quebec-uranium-festival63 days 16 hours 57 minutes ago
WHAT'S BECOME OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT THAT - sees mountain ridges and shorelines as locations for wind farms? - sees pristine deserts as locations for solar energy development? - sees fertile land as a source of biofuels? - sees forests as a source of (responsibly harvested) biomass? - sees free-flowing rivers as sources of hydro-electric power?64 days 5 hours 51 minutes ago
Political correctness on college campuses reaches new heights. Sadly, this often precludes questioning the received wisdom of the environmental movement on the issue of nuclear energy and a host of other issues.67 days 5 hours 31 minutes ago
Wow, the very people who've denounced Pandora's Promise as "propaganda" have hired Madison Avenue to fight back. Ouch! Message: windmills are new and cutting edge whereas nuclear energy is from the Stone Age. Really? http://makenuclearhistory.org82 days 20 hours 49 minutes ago
If you are in favor of nuclear energy and are frustrated by the lack of progress in having your voice heard, we strongly encourage you to read this. As we said in Pandora's Promise, this IS the beginning of a movement!84 days 23 hours 30 minutes ago
New legislation may make Illinois a leader in putting nuclear energy on an even playing field with renewables as a low-carbon source of energy. It's unfortunate, however, to see this effort tied so directly to the fortunes of single energy company.87 days 3 hours 50 minutes ago
A big shout out to Pandora's Promise editor Don Kleszy who attended the Oscars last night as part of the team that made the Oscar-nominated feature-documentary Last Days in Vietnam. A shout out also goes to Pandora's Promise original score composer Gary Lionelli who also worked on Last Days...93 days 18 hours 40 minutes ago
Please share and show support for the great climate hero (and a friend), former Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed, arrested again today by the regime on "terrorism" charges (you heard that right). http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-3157527994 days 23 hours 40 minutes ago
Helen Caldicott jumps the shark! Listen to her cozying up to Putin and embracing his rationale for invading Ukraine. ~At 11 minutes listen to her defense of Putin. ~At 24 minutes she complains that nobody pays attention to her anymore. ~At 27:30 she credits herself with ending the Cold War. ~At 32:30 she begins her rant about nuclear power plants, claims that nuclear power is proof that America is actually a socialist, or even a communist country. ~At 41:00 she begins long talk of a diabolical cover-up at Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island. ~At 56:00 Harvey Wasserman claims the Koch Brothers are financing the building of nuclear power plants - huh?95 days 4 hours 11 minutes ago
I have always been against the use of nuclear power but not necessarily because of the technology or the waste issue. The problems with the use of nuclear power is politics and greed. If the most robust technology is implemented in the safest locations, built with no short cuts, operated by the best technicians available and held to the highest operational safety standards nuclear power could give us the time to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels and attempt to develop new energy sources. As long as the politicians continue to bend to the will of corporate giants and the ultra rich we are doomed. The average person needs to realize that the economy is a man made entity that is currently being used by Wall Street to turn the middle class into serfs to serve the people at the top of the corporate world. Politicians need to lead by taking control of the basic energy needs of their constituents and make sensible decisions for the future.99 days 22 hours 29 minutes ago
If you're a journalist seeking an informed opinion from the Union of Concerned Scientists about the latest advances in nuclear reactor design, this is the cover page of what they send you. What's wrong with this picture?110 days 3 hours 34 minutes ago
Freakonomics takes on the sacred cow of ENERGY EFFICIENCY. Did you know that California predicted an 80% reduction in home energy use when it's strict energy efficient building codes were put into effect in the 1970's? Turns out that California homes consume about the same amount of energy today as they did 40 years ago. How come?110 days 23 hours 26 minutes ago
How many people know that the most recent comprehensive analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists on advanced nuclear reactor designs came out in 1990? 25 years ago! And they are the primary source of information for the media in providing "balanced" reporting on the issue.111 days 1 hour 2 minutes ago
It's great and better opportunity to invest on hydropower sector at Nepal. The assumed power production is about 200,000.00 MW by recent study. On another side the world best station for sharing opportunity in trade of hydropower due to huge demand of neighbour country India. Great option for investors to invest in hydropower at Nepal113 days 17 hours 35 minutes ago
The death-knell for biofuels finally hits the mainstream. Facing reality is the first step to solving our energy/climate problem. It appears that's finally starting to happen - and not a moment too soon.119 days 4 hours 20 minutes ago
At the risk of once again pissing off our pro-nuclear but climate skeptical friends, the bad news on human induced greenhouse gas emissions keeps getting more alarming. If you saw Pandora's Promise you'll know that Margaret Thatcher was among the very first political leaders to focus international attention on this issue - proof that this is most certainly NOT a left wing hoax.120 days 4 hours 58 minutes ago
The New Republic chimes in on nuclear energy with lots of inaccurate and misleading information. Comments section is open to anyone wanting to set the record straight for their readers. The more the better.120 days 17 hours 22 minutes ago
Just had a detailed briefing at Google on the most promising and ready-to-go advanced nuclear power plant design we've seen. This promises to be the game-changer we've all been waiting for. Massively scalable clean energy that's totally safe and cheaper than coal.125 days 17 hours 2 minutes ago
Eduardo Porter of The New York Times elaborates on the work done by Michael Shellenberger (of Pandora's Promise) and The Breakthrough Institute into how energy innovation comes about. The lessons of this fascinating history are profound.126 days 23 hours 44 minutes ago
CO2 emissions are pushing us to the brink of a mass extinction in the world's oceans. More reason to ramp up EVERY available alternative to burning fossil fuels, even ones that some people find objectionable.132 days 18 hours 42 minutes ago
Thank you Pandora's Promise for teaching me about radiation. Here's the highest radiation I've found so far with my Terra P dosimeter near Snowbird Ski Resort, Utah. (SLC, UT is on average around .13) Let's just say I'm much more afraid of the toxic pollution in the Salt Lake Valley than this tiny amount of radiation.137 days 18 hours 27 minutes ago
A couple years ago I took a chemistry course. In the reading was "described" the efficiency of nuclear power. They could only describe it because, I suspect, it would've been banned reading otherwise. I remember thinking how ludicrous carbon based power is with all of the pollution and greenhouse gasses when, if used correctly without cutting corners, nuclear power would solve sooo many problems. Pandora's Promise answered all of my questions. I am pro-nuclear and, yes, I am a tree hugger.138 days 5 hours 3 minutes ago
We've posted this before but as America continues shutting down its nuclear plants, it's worth reminding ourselves exactly where our carbon-free electricity comes from. The solutions to climate change are not easy.142 days 3 hours 40 minutes ago
A futuristic clean energy technology that has allowed France and Sweden to be carbon free in their electricity generation is being replaced in the US by cheap natural gas. Is this anything to celebrate?142 days 4 hours 7 minutes ago
Heard the one about how half of all children will be autistic in 10 years as a result of Roundup herbicide? A textbook example of scientific quackery that's all too common these days. Well worth a read on how easily seemingly credible pseudo-scientific claims catch fire and spread:145 days 2 hours 40 minutes ago
Most environmental leaders would have us believe that global energy use is set to decline due to increased efficiency and that renewable energy is poised to replace both fossil fuels and nuclear power. Both positions are contradicted by reality:150 days 21 hours 24 minutes ago
I saw "Pandora's Promise" at a film festival. We need nuclear power plants that are as near 'fail safe' as possible. I also highly recommend the film, "Thorium Remix 2011" available for viewing online.155 days 20 hours 8 minutes ago
CONSERVATIONISTS FOR NUCLEAR POWER: "Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. We conclude that large-scale nuclear power—as a route to an electrified, oil-, gas- and coal-free economy—offers a positive way forward because it provides a low-risk pathway to eliminating the fossil-fuel dependencies, global energy poverty, and wealth imbalances that rank among the major forces driving today’s biodiversity crisis. At the very least, nuclear power needs to be considered seriously, alongside renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar power, in any robust sustainable energy mix for the future."162 days 22 hours 32 minutes ago
In 1961 JFK committed America to landing a man on the moon by 1970. Imagine if America committed itself to developing a mass-producible, passively safe, advanced nuclear reactor by 2025 - something that could be rolling off assembly lines the way Boeing produces commercial jet aircraft? If we did, we would dominate the global clean energy industry in the 21st century the way Apollo allowed us to dominate today's tech industry. A wish for the New Year for you all to share.163 days 4 hours 53 minutes ago
Another plea for sanity to the worlds environmental leaders - if you care about the climate then end your opposition to nuclear energy. http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/12/15/an-open-letter-to-environmentalists-on-nuclear-energy/164 days 14 hours 59 minutes ago
You Can Now Buy 100% Nuclear Energy – In Germany! Germans can now go to a company called MAXATOMSTROM to purchase electricity that was produced completely from nuclear energy. Timed to coincide with the UN Climate Change Conference in Lima, Peru last week, the new power plan consists solely of nuclear power which leaves the smallest carbon footprint of any mix of sources, including renewables. It seems to be popular. 3,000 customers signed up in its first week. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/12/12/you-can-now-buy-100-nuclear-energy-in-germany/167 days 34 minutes ago
I wish I could make Nuclear Power as a Solution to Climate Change Rotary Club length, but it is has to include all of: • facts about climate change, • the public's opposition to the solutions (here nuclear power), • what social scientists say about why we aren't listening. After this presentation, a couple of people said, "yes, that's just what I do to help make the public discussion a mess." Half is the presentation, half is discussion. The number of tribal warriors decreased during the session, always a sign of success!167 days 54 minutes ago
Pandora's Promise: "Our good friend Ben Heard in Australia is one of the best spokesmen on the planet about energy and climate issues. See him in action here and share with friends." http://youtu.be/IzbI0UPwQHg167 days 1 hour 45 minutes ago
If you like Pandora's Promise, you'll definitely want to connect with the new group we co-founded called Energy for Humanity. Check out the Facebook page, LIKE IT, and spread the word. https://www.facebook.com/energyforhumanity167 days 2 hours 18 minutes ago
Leslie Dewan of Transatomic congressional testimony about the future of nuclear energy. http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/2014%2012%2011%20-%20Dewan%20Testimony%20-%20Nuclear.pdf167 days 3 hours 46 minutes ago
Greenpeace damages ancient archeological site in Peru while carrying out a publicity stunt. Way to go... (Not) http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/peru-strikes-back-after-greenpeaces-nazca-lines-stunt-n266616167 days 16 hours 8 minutes ago
Our friends at Breakthrough Institute have issued another must-read report for all those interested in energy innovation. http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/innovation-policy/high-energy-innovation170 days 9 minutes ago
In case you aren't already freaked out enough about climate change, the latest assessment by leading climate experts should focus the mind. We need an energy game-changer and we need it now! http://www.newsweek.com/lima-climate-talks-2-degree-warming-limit-thing-past-288274177 days 20 hours 29 minutes ago
We've posted this before (long ago) but it remains perhaps the best article you will ever read about the complexities of changing anyone's mind about nuclear energy - or anything else. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=full178 days 2 hours 15 minutes ago
Fascinating short video on a subject that poses similar challenges to a proposed renewable energy super-grid as that faced by nuclear energy. The public has an unfounded fear of electro-magnetic radiation from power lines that's almost identical the fear of radiation from nuclear power plants. The switch to any clean energy source (renewable and nuclear) will require public education about radiation. How ironic!178 days 4 hours 3 minutes ago
Fullfiling obligations to any climate treaty will require a big ramp up in the use of nuclear energy, as China is already planning to do. But even their dramatic proposals are just a drop in the bucket to what's required. Environmental activists still have not come around to realizing that renewable energy and increases in energy efficiency are not nearly be enough to meet proposed climate treaty obligations. Hopefully that will change by this time next year and the world can really get down to the business of undertaking a global clean energy revolution.178 days 18 hours 53 minutes ago
I asked Steve Kraus if he knew where I could get my hands on a shotgun and some musical instruments, on the cheap and he hasn't responded. I know that he "likes" this page and hopefully he will see it. He is a newly elected Representative and is in the news recently pertaining to items such as this. Hopefully someone will reach out to him on my behalf. Many thanks. God bless all of us. John 3:16.187 days 20 hours 18 minutes ago
An important article co-authored by one of the Executive Producers of Pandora's Promise, Google engineer and energy expert Ross Koningstein, about what's needed to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change188 days 1 hour 54 minutes ago
Robert Stone comments on John Kerry's NYT OpEd concerning the recent agreement with China on CO2 emissions: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/john-kerry-our-historic-agreement-with-china-on-climate-change.html?comments#permid=13308158 FULL TEXT: Kudos to Mr. Kerry for making this important step forward possible. But Mr. Kerry has a unique obligation to address a fundamental constraint on America's (and the world's) ability to tackle climate change which he has yet to own up to. As a Senator back in 1994, Mr. Kerry took a leading role in ending US government R&D on advanced nuclear energy, effectively killing off the program. As a result, China is now leading the world in this field while the US has fallen woefully behind over the last 20 years. Today, our aging fleet of nuclear power plants accounts for over 61% of our emissions free electricity. The next generation of nuclear power plants that might replace them - that can be fueled by today's nuclear waste and are impervious to meltdowns by virtue of their physics (as opposed to costly redundant safety systems used today) - would have been coming on line now had America continued to develop them. But we've lost 20 years. I would urge Mr. Kerry to speak out on this issue and to encourage more investments in advanced nuclear R&D. If we are to rapidly ratchet back the use of fossil fuels we will need all the means at our disposal. Renewables alone are not nearly enough.197 days 1 hour 17 minutes ago
Russia bets its energy future on waste-free fast breeder nuclear reactors http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186023-russia-bets-its-energy-future-on-waste-free-fast-breeder-nuclear-reactors via ExtremeTech206 days 20 hours 10 minutes ago
Pandora's promise should be released in more languages / translations / subtitles so that people who don't understand english well could have a chance to understand what is being said in the documentary.208 days 1 hour 19 minutes ago
1983 Playboy interview with ANSEL ADAMS: (worth a read).... Playboy: You are against nuclear weapons but favor nuclear power, which separates you from many of the environmental groups that are staunchly no-nuke. Adams: That’s an apparent dichotomy and it disturbs a lot of people, but the danger of nuclear power is conjectural and the pollution potential, compared with the known pollution potential of burning coal and oil, is minute. When you consider the threat of acid rain and the general pollution of air and water caused by thermal-power production, it is terrible. There is general agreement that nuclear weapons are absurd, but I disagree with the view that nuclear power is bad. They have many reactors in England and they have never had any trouble. The problem here is that we just don’t have adequate training for nuclear technicians. We ought to use our technology to make nuclear power safe instead of fighting it, since it is the only practical alternative that we have to destroying the environment with oil and coal. Playboy: What about the argument that we just don’t know enough to safely use nuclear power, which could potentially do far more harm than the pollution caused by fossil-fuel-energy production? Adams: If we have that much caution, why do we allow the Four Corners coal plant, for instance? That can kill many more people than any nuclear plant. A nuclear plant is not dangerous. Playboy: Even with the prospect of a meltdown? Adams: We haven’t had any. Three Mile Island only scared people to death. I had my teeth examined when I was a little kid. I bet I had more radiation than I’d ever get around a nuclear plant for a year. Now, I am aware of the arguments against it. I believe technology can check those problems. In the meantime, with the depletion of oil, coal and gas, what else is there? The better alternative to the fission reactors is fusion, which the Government isn’t pushing the way it should. It is a much safer alternative. It’s clean, efficient and not very expensive. The technology is inevitable. We have to have the water desalination that it will allow. It’s a necessity if we are going to avert a disaster. I just can’t be scared. Everything is a risk. When there is a big public squawk about fusion, it becomes evil. It is unfortunate that it has been clumped together with something as insidious as nuclear weapons, because utilizing nuclear energy is the future. Playboy: That there hasn’t been a major disaster, such as a meltdown, doesn’t mean there won’t be one. Adams: The risk is so low, it doesn’t scare me. We’re at constant risk of being hit with a meteorite or an asteroid. We’re at risk of a major earthquake, and the time for that is coming closer and closer. In Los Angeles and San Francisco, it’s going to be a tremendous disaster. The brand-new buildings may hold up, but there is a period of many decades, from 1906 through 20 years ago, whose buildings have no earthquake consideration in their construction. I think you are at infinitely more risk driving around in your car than you are around any nuclear plant. Playboy: It’s not just radicals who fear nuclear power but many scientists, too. One concern is nuclear waste. Adams: It is, indeed, a concern, but it is a solvable problem. Some experts have suggested shooting it off into the sun, which would be fine if the rocket worked. But think what would happen if it didn’t. The point is that waste is a solvable problem. There are a lot of scientists who are much more moderate and support nuclear power, but for some reason, they don’t get heard. Relating simple facts about something’s being safe doesn’t get the same attention as telling people that something is scary and dramatic and dangerous. If there ever were a proven hazard, I would be the first to admit it. But with all the information people have been able to give me, I have concluded that we are much better to go on with it than with the alternative. The danger is that most of the plants are privately operated and, therefore, under economic stress, and private companies are not likely to spend the money it takes to ensure that the plants are completely safe. Safety programs should be mandatory, which doesn’t say much. There should be rent control. There should be more rigid pollution control. But you have interests that just don’t want to pay the costs. I’m aware of the problems, but I still believe nuclear energy is a needed alternative that should be carefully developed and controlled. Playboy: But you don’t support nuclear arms. Adams: They are absolutely insane. I know people who witnessed the big displays in the Pacific who will never get over it. They had the feeling of seeing something totally beyond control that is totally lethal. They were very sobered people. Of course, people talk about the danger of a nuclear bomb hitting a nuclear reactor, but that’s a pretty silly argument. If a nuclear bomb hits anywhere, it doesn’t matter what it hits. There is enough destructive force and radiation to do unthinkable damage without any help. People cannot conceive that a multimegaton bomb falling on San Francisco would make a crater out of the entire city and do serious damage as far away as here, Carmel, 100 miles away. That is one bomb. It becomes a question of intent. Unlocking the atom can help save the race or destroy it. I have a metal letter opener that could become a murderous weapon if used with intent to murder. Anything used intentionally for destruction is terrible; nuclear bombs, of course, are worst of all. Biological weapons also terrify me. Those things are mankind at its worst. There is the other side, too, which includes art and creative technology–which is why I can find optimism amid such overwhelming odds.208 days 4 hours 35 minutes ago
Director Robert Stone tours Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia to see construction of new AP-1000 reactors. Slated to go online in 2017 to power all Atlanta with clean non-CO2 energy. Progress for all but enviro leaders who would rather burn coal.219 days 15 hours 43 minutes ago
From Pandora's Promise: BREAKING NEWS: Everyone has been asking us, "What can I do to get involved?" Now we have an answer! We have created a new, global, pro-nuclear environmental NGO just for you. We're called ENERGY FOR HUMANITY. Join us. Spread the word. Get involved. Your children will thank you. And so will we. www.energyforhumanity.org222 days 23 hours 39 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS!! Everyone has been asking us, "what can I do to get involved?" Now we have an answer! We have created a new, global, pro-nuclear environmental NGO just for you. We're called ENERGY FOR HUMANITY. Join us. Spread the word. Get involved. Your children will thank you. And so will we. www.energyforhumanity.org223 days 1 hour 43 minutes ago
I finally got to see Pandora's Promise today, courtesy of an inter-library loan. I didn't expect they way it started with rallies by the antis. Has anyone made a list/transcription of the supportive evidence used? That would be nice to have in a text file for future use.223 days 14 hours 56 minutes ago
Nice to see media acknowledging the diversity of opinion on nuclear within the environmental movement! "Environmental advocates remain deeply divided about nuclear power. On the one hand, it's praised as the ultimate, reliable low carbon power source. On the other hand, when things go wrong, it can be disastrous."230 days 23 hours 6 minutes ago
Good summary of the SONGS closure. "SONGS is shut forever and we now have to find an additional 280 billion kWhs of low-carbon electricity just to break even on carbon over the next 20 years. This was not a well-thought out decision."235 days 21 minutes ago
How quickly we forget. The thing about a nuclear disaster is the unfortunate aspect of the word "irreversible". There are places around Chernobyl will *never* be habitable again and amazingly, the accident was nowhere near as bad as it could have been. The molten radioactive magma in reactor 4 was meters away from reaching the pooled water below, which would have likely set off a second explosion at the megaton level, spreading plutonium over the whole of *Europe* rendering it uninhabitable. One reactor to make the whole of Europe uninhabitable. The IFR reactor and other generation IV and V designs are much more stable and safe. Much more resistant to accidents and much more resilient if there is an accident. But they all, by definition, still dealing with highly enriched fissile material. It's the things we can't imagine that could bring around irreversible catastrophe. Earthquakes in safe seismic zones? Terrorism? And other completely unlikely and unimaginable things. The Chernobyl disaster too, at the time, was unimaginable. I'm not sure that Pandora's Promise was telling the whole story objectively. http://youtu.be/dS3WvKKSpKI236 days 3 hours 55 minutes ago
Great quote from the German Energy Minister, justifying expanding coal mining: "We need strategic reserves of gas and coal power for the times when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine." #EnergiewendePriorities240 days 23 hours 1 minute ago
"Almost two-thirds of the 70 reactors currently under construction worldwide, the most since 1989, are located in China, India, and the rest of the Asia-Pacific region." aka #HighEnergyPlanet http://bloom.bg/1okScTl243 days 1 hour 21 minutes ago
I just finished watching your documentary and it has changed my perspective. Like so many people I bought in to the romance of solar energy. It isn't enough to want to believe in something when you don't take the time to review the science behind it. No matter what energy source we use, there will always be risks associated with it, but we need to pick the best option for us. Now is the time to invest heavily in our education as well as research and development. No use crying over spilled milk, we must put our differences aside and find a solution that works for our planet and our needs. Thank you for educating me on this issue.243 days 8 hours 16 minutes ago
Do you think this is real? I know that a lot of sea animals have glowing capabilities that had nothing to do with radiation. I think this is a scam to scare people, but I prefer to hear what a professional thinks.248 days 3 hours 46 minutes ago
Attendees of this week's climate summit needn't look far for solutions. New York state has the country's lowest per capita carbon emissions, thanks to lots of nuclear and renewables (mostly hydro) in the electricity mix. #Climate2014 #ClimateMarch #Pronuclear http://huff.to/1mnXYZd250 days 4 hours 21 minutes ago
As climate activists and world leaders converge in NYC, we thought it would be a good time to consider what actions have been most successful in slowing climate change. The Economist ran the numbers and results may surprise you. http://econ.st/1plMrEd250 days 22 hours 56 minutes ago
This is energy poverty. "People in the United States... don't need to worry about indoor air pollution because we heat our homes and cook with electricity and gas. But there are still 1.2 billion people around the world who don't have any access to electricity at all. It's not just an inconvenience — it's a big public health issue." http://bit.ly/1oRyeQ6253 days 23 hours 6 minutes ago
A great interview with Richard Rhodes of Pandora's Promise. "Nuclear is a good technology and beautifully matched to a problem that the world is going to be facing, and that is global warming." http://bit.ly/1pc1Tme258 days 22 hours 56 minutes ago
Hello fellow nuclear enthusiasts! Check out my team's finalist proposal for the MIT Climate CoLab competition - please vote for us if you like our ideas for a licensing process for advanced nuclear reactors! http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300401/planId/1305301261 days 13 hours 6 minutes ago
In case you missed it: Last week the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted to resume making decisions on licenses for nuclear plants after a two-year, self-imposed moratorium. http://onforb.es/1xmuwqT264 days 1 hour 21 minutes ago
Please see the USEC story, and how petty politics and Wall Street corruption can hinder clean energy infrastructure in rhe USA, setback economic growth, and hinder peaceful diplomacy with Russia. They were in your movie.........,,,264 days 21 hours 22 minutes ago
"It remains unarguably true that if we are to avoid climate Armageddon, poor countries would have to become rich using far less carbon than today’s wealthy countries did." #HighEnergyPlanet http://buswk.co/1rLk9KM267 days 21 hours 3 minutes ago
We bet Pandora's Promise fans would do better than average on this radiation quiz from HowStuffWorks.com... http://bit.ly/radiationquiz (hat tip to North American Young Generation in Nuclear for the link!)284 days 22 hours 56 minutes ago
Not everyone objects to nuclear waste. "Loving County has visions of storing spent fuel from closed reactors in aboveground casks, and later, building a processing plant that would recover unused uranium, and plutonium for reuse, making the rest easier to bury." http://nyti.ms/1oKTjur286 days 23 hours 6 minutes ago
NOTICE TO EVERYONE WHO PURCHASED A DVD OF PANDORA'S PROMISE There was an encoding error in the 5.1 surround sound mix that appears on the DVD causing sound level problems throughout the film. Please play the film in STEREO to avoid the problem. This first bad batch of DVD's has been pulled from the market. The DVD is currently being remastered and new versions will be available for sale next week. Very sorry to all customers for this unexpected glitch. Again, the film plays fine in stereo.288 days 23 hours 11 minutes ago
Not surprised. This is why we're going to be a high-energy planet. --> "every single African leader has affordable electricity at the top of their political and economic agenda” http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/us-companies-pledge-14-billion-africa-investment293 days 22 hours 46 minutes ago
I'm sorry I hadn't heard about "Pandora's Promise" earlier. I'm just watching the beginning now, and very excited to see it. My father is an Environmental Attorney at Hanford, Washington. I'll be wanting to see what he thinks of it. BUT! - Perhaps not nearly as important as the central issue of this documentary, and yet... - I MUST know what the song on the opening credits is! In fact, I'm sure I might find the rest of the music interesting as well. Would you please tell me what it is, and where to find it?294 days 1 hour 41 minutes ago
It's all based on your fears about global warming. The truth is, If the world stopped using fossil fuels right now. It won't stop climate change. The most you can hope for is a short term delay. The earth is ever changing. In FACT nothing can hide from change. IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN! So now all those people who were against nukes have changed their minds and are now pushing it and saying with a straight face that "We were wrong it's really not as bad as we thought" So now you are willing to compromise the long term for a short term band-aid. What you are really doing is causing pain to people who cannot afford to pay for rising energy costs. Which in turn affects food prices and all else. Along with this administration which cannot stop themselves from printing money and driving up energy costs, for what, Global Warming??? GET A GRIP!!! This movie ought to be called Propaganda's Promise.314 days 4 hours 12 minutes ago
Reality check. Even the most famous solar company in the world has NEVER made a profit. Solar City is good at selling stock, it just can't make a profit. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303376904579135842033421008319 days 2 hours 54 minutes ago
I'm having a minor ethical dilemma here. Someone on another nuke-related group posted a link to a working full HD version of "Pandora's Promise" on Youtube and it doesn't appear to have Robert Stone's official sanction. I have the deepest respect for what Robert Stone and his cast and crew have tried to do and they deserve every penny that comes to them from the legal proper use of their intellectual property. At the same time, I want to upload a digital copy of Pandoras Promise to every PC, phone and tablet in existence for the betterment of all mankind. What shall we do? Protect and respect Stone & company's legal rights, or spam the link as fast and far as we can?326 days 3 hours 54 minutes ago
We all fell for it didn't we. Amazing lengths big oil; coal and gas will go for profit. My state, NC will allow fracking as soon as next spring in Davie, Dan River, Durham, Sanford, Wadesboro and Ellerbe sub basins and river basins. Wasn't PA and OK enough of a lesson. And now there is a great chance Duke Power will get a pass not to clean up coal ash deposits. You want a sustainable replacement to the energy crisis, go nuclear!330 days 3 hours 22 minutes ago
Researching a nuclear disaster, I found a documentary by Robert Stone, released 2013 called "Pandora’s Promise”. After lifetime of a very disturbing adventure with the atom, I have found my answers and you will also. This is renewable!332 days 19 hours 9 minutes ago
Less nuclear, more CO2. Every time. Everywhere. Germany, California, Japan, anywhere. "In February 2012, Southern California Edison closed down two nuclear reactors at its San Onofre plant. The plant was responsible for generating 8 percent of California’s electricity. Initially, it was only a temporary shutdown to give the company time to fix cracks in the steam generator system. However, the overly complicated repair and licensing process led them to retire the reactors for good. The state turned to fossil fuels as the easiest solution to make up for the energy gap. In the following year, carbon-dioxide emissions in the region climbed 9.2 million tons — having roughly the same effect as if an additional 2 million cars were suddenly driving on the region’s roads." "After Japan took all of its reactors offline in the wake of the 2011 accident at Fukushima Daiichi, the country saw both a 6 percent climb in carbon dioxide emissions and a 42 percent jump in power generation costs in 2012. The emissions increase was Japan’s largest in 20 years." http://forumonenergy.com/2014/05/28/less-nuclear-energy-equals-more-u-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions/334 days 11 hours 21 minutes ago
China's nuclear expansion accelerates. "On Friday, China’s President Xi Jinping told a government meeting that development of nuclear energy should be accelerated. “By adopting top international standards and ensuring safety, China should lose no time in constructing nuclear power projects in eastern coastal regions,” Xi said, as state-run Xinhua newswire reported." http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-06-17/xi-jinping-gives-nod-to-china-s-expansion-of-nuclear-energy338 days 3 hours 6 minutes ago
While nuclear has no growth, solar production continues to soar I know all the environmentalists on this forum are interested in progress with solar PV installations. Solar is growing rapidly -- much more rapidly than indicated in the Pandora's Promise film. California is getting more energy from solar every day than from its two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon. Solar power here is more than doubling year-to-year. To illustrate with some actual data, I pulled this information from the CA ISO web site. This is current as of yesterday, JUN 22nd. The following is for grid-connected commercial solar one megawatt and larger systems in the CA ISO balancing area. This is known with some precision since these systems include an automated reporting system that indicates energy produced minute-by-minute. These figures represent about two-thirds of all the solar power systems in California. AVERAGE MWh PER DAY FOR THE MONTH COMPARING ONE YEAR WITH THE PREVIOUS -------------------------- JUL 2013: 17,119 JUL 2012: 8,309 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.03 AUG 2013: 19,753 AUG 2012: 8,299 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.38 SEP 2013: 20,902 SEP 2012: 8,326 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.51 OCT 2013: 18,772 OCT 2012: 6,473 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.90 NOV 2013: 15,721 NOV 2012: 4,993 yr-to-yr growth factor: 3.15 DEC 2013: 16,272 DEC 2012: 4,288 yr-to-yr growth factor: 3.79 JAN 2014: 16,965 JAN 2013: 6,035 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.81 FEB 2014: 21,063 FEB 2013: 9,292 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.27 MAR 2014: 28,776 MAR 2013: 11,441 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.52 APR 2014: 34,202 APR 2013: 13,175 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.60 MAY 2014: 38,197 MAY 2013: 14,417 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.65 JUN 2014: 43,130 JUN 2013: 18,172 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.37 We know yr-to-yr doubling cannot continue forever (if it did, within 12 years, CA would produce more energy than the world uses). It is clear the yr-to-yr doubling trend will continue through 2014.... possibly through 2015 and 2016 (CA would have 36 GW installed by then). California now gets approx 62,000 MWh per day from solar. Nuclear averages about 50,000 MWh per day total for 2 reactors. Assumptions: ------------- .3 summer (e.g., now, JUN 2014) capacity factor for commercial .15 winter capacity factor for commercial (ave commercial cap factor .23) .26 non-commercial summer capacity factor .13 non-commercial winter capacity factor (ave non-commercial cap factor .20) As of JUN 2014, California now has approx 9 GW solar installed 6 GW commercial in the CA ISO area (including solar thermal) 3 GW non-commercial (or other commercial outside of CA ISO) state-wide 6 GW * .3 = 1.8 GW average for commercial yields 43.2 GWh over 24 hrs 3 GW * .26 = .78 GW average for other yields 18.7 GWh over 24 hrs339 days 7 hours 52 minutes ago
You really want to cut CO2 emissions? Follow Ontario's lead with nuclear power and not Denmark with wind. "The average Dane, riding around on his or her bicycle, scrupulously recycling his or her cans and bottles, and using less than one-quarter the electricity that the average Ontarian uses, had an electricity CO2 footprint nearly three times that of the average Ontarian!"340 days 4 hours 31 minutes ago
We haven't been storing solar energy from PV much. Know why? There hasn't been much need. Now the need is starting to appear. Necessity is the mother. ENGINEERING is a word that people on this forum don't seem to understand.343 days 16 hours 31 minutes ago
Rates of thyroid cancer among women in Belarus have increased up to 12-fold since the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, near Kiev, Ukraine, in April 1986. Among young women aged under 14 in higher risk areas of the republic the rates have increased almost 30-fold since the disaster, new research has shown. I found this movie intellectually insulting. It should have been titled "False dichotomy" because that's what it was. "To be anti-nuclear is to be in favour of fossil fuels" - I see no blatant flaws in that logic.347 days 11 hours 18 minutes ago
France getting rid of nuke, putting in solar. http://www.solardaily.com/reports/juwi_Develops_Solar_Park_on_the_Site_of_a_Former_Uranium_Reprocessing_Plant_in_France_999.html The construction site in Getigne, near Nantes in western France, visibly marks a turning point in our energy supply. Soon clean and climate-friendly electricity is produced on exactly the same grounds where once radioactive uranium was reprocessed347 days 20 hours 6 minutes ago
Latin America solar growing rapidly http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/latin-american-solar-market "It’s very clear that Latin America has one of the world’s brightest solar power market outlooks. High power prices and volatile fuel supplies have made solar cheaper than fossil fuels in many countries, driving new investment and capacity additions..."347 days 20 hours 12 minutes ago
As nuclear power dies, solar rises BTW, this article mentions 10 GW solar at the end of 2013. It's 15 now... "As utilities find nuclear power less and less cost effective, new solar photovoltaic installations in the United States are springing up. New solar installations in 2013 reached a record 4.2 gigawatts, bringing the total to 10. On average, one gigawatt of solar photovoltaics powers 164,000 U.S. homes. That means power for 1.6 million homes." http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/opinion/hayes-denman-solar-power/347 days 20 hours 42 minutes ago
Nuclear vs. Solar costs. "Crescent Dunes is a 110-megawatt power plant with total reported capital costs of $910 million, according to its website. That’s $8,200 per kilowatt. The Vogtle reactors — also DOE loan guarantee recipients — are a combined 2,234 megawatts at a reported cost of about $14 billion, or $6,700 per kilowatt." "The Vogtle reactors will generate full power roughly 90 percent of the time. Even with the ability to store power once the sun has gone down, Crescent Dunes will only generate power about 50 percent of the time. After you adjust for capacity factor, or the actual production of a power plant as a proportion of nameplate capacity, Vogtle’s cost advantage is enormous. " http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/nuclear-is-cheaper-than-solar-thermal348 days 1 hour 31 minutes ago
E se a solução para o crescimento sustentável passasse pela energia nuclear? O documentário Pandora's Promise, assente nesta premissa, foi o tema central da rubrica João, o Outsider na 100ª emissão do Aquecimento Verbal.351 days 23 hours 33 minutes ago
Peak demand yesterday in the CA ISO area yesterday was nearly 40,000 mw, which happend just before 4pm. Commercial solar delivered 4206, or about as much as 4 nuclear reactors. Total renewables 12,500 or about 12 nuclear reactors! These hot days strain the capabilities of the whole system. Failure is not an option. People can die from heat stroke. So, which sources delivered at that moment? 4206 - solar 920 - wind 3668 - hydro -------------- 8794 mw from our major renewable sources In addition, there was at least 2000 mw from smaller solar systems*. The 4206 is only commercial grid-connected systems 1 mw and larger. There was additional 1710 mw renewable from geothermal, small hydro, and bio. So, adding all renewable 8794+2000+1710, we were getting approximately 12,500 from renewable sources nuclear? Not so much... 2278 Of course that's better than some hot days when nuke has to shut down. The largest part of the 40,000 peak load was covered by natural gas, with nearly 19,000 mw. So what if we tried to cover this demand with nuke? What about solar? -------------------------------------------------- We'd need another 24 GW of solar (given we have 5300 installed to get 4200 at 4 pm) to meet this 19 GW of demand now met by natural gas. It would take 21 GW of nuke (assuming 90 % capacity factor) At $2 per watt for solar, it will take an investment of $48 billion For nuke at $10 per watt, figure $210 billion. At our present rate of increase, we can and likely will install the 24 GW solar within about 3 years. 21 GW of nuke would take decades, even if you could convince everyone it would be a good idea. And ... solar costs are going down. It may be much less than $48 billion. Nuke costs will continue to escalate as oil prices continue to skyrocket over the next decade or two. It's a no-brainer folks. Forget nuclear and go solar. ______________________ * The un-counted smaller solar systems (e.g. rooftop) had the effect of lowering demand352 days 4 hours 9 minutes ago
In the US, we burn oil at the rate of 19 million barrels per day. Currently, it's about $100 per barrel.. That comes out to about $700 billion per year. In recent years, our entire energy budget has been about $1.2 trillion per year. Think about this: we get about 37 percent of our energy from oil, but it is taking about 58 percent of our energy dollars. That's bad for the economy now, but this chart shows you ain't seen nothing yet. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. If you understand this chart, you will understand we should not be wasting time even discussing building nuke plants right now. There isn't time. The number one energy problem is OIL. We must replace it asap. Most independent oil analyst (i.e., ones not paid by the oil industry) agreed with the peak oil warning people had been giving, including me. http://gregor.us/oil/the-decline-of-available-energy-to-society/ In my 2010 article, I said the solution is solar. The chart above (before all my markups on it) is from David Murphy -- one of Charlie Halls' PhD students at NYU. (NOTE: my marks are based on the chart as-is. The chart is a little bit wrong... the peak is being stretched out some ... but this will make only a few years difference. We are facing a deep drop-off in oil production and skyrocketing prices ... very little energy in return for our oil dollars) ________________ further reading: http://www.uvm.edu/~jdericks/BPE4/b4s1.pdf http://people.uwplatt.edu/~dalecki/newperspectives.pdf353 days 6 hours 2 minutes ago
China Laughed When It Saw How Cheap Solar Could Be Despite all the talk on this page about China going for nuke, they're actually doing more solar. 12 GW installed 2013. Anyone want to guess how many GW this year? http://www.businessinsider.com/china-laughed-when-it-saw-how-cheap-solar-could-be-2014-6353 days 6 hours 27 minutes ago
SOLAR PROVIDES PEAK POWER I have pointed out that solar power has a premium value because it reduces peak demand and it produces MWh at times when rates are the highest. Some people continue to make the absurd counter, "no it doesn't." I have explained this at length but these explanations tend to be buried in a lot of dialogue. This is an important point so I'm starting a thread on this with a chart. The chart is basically the CA ISO chart for JUN 5th showing "net demand," which is the demand after taking into account wind and solar. Since I am mainly talking about solar, I added some data to illustrate. (BTW, if the text is too small in the image, click on the image and then right click and select open in a new tab. Then view the image in the new tab). The historical peak is most critical. This determines how much generating capacity has to be available to the system. Increasing this entails great expense in infrastructure besides the generating capacity. The yellow line shows how much less all the non-solar generators have to produce to meet demand due to grid-connected commercial solar that has been installed. Yearly historic peaks always happen between 2pm and 5 pm on week days. This chart for Jun 5th is a typical example of a hot day... by no means the hottest, but typical. Some may complain for generalizing from CA ISO but this will be typical for most areas in the US except for the Pacific Northwest where they don't do much air conditioning. For 90+ percent of the US, the historical peak happens on a hot day in the late afternoon in July or August ... sometimes Jun or Sep. So, look at what happens with solar: at 5 pm we're getting over 80% of the power we were getting at the highest output around noon. The effect of solar is to off-set the peak by 3000 MW and shift the need for more power to later ... to 9pm. During these months (JUN, JUL, AUG) we're getting some solar all the way to 9pm. Here is something else that doesn't show up in these stats: Roof top solar and off-grid solar has the effect of lowering demand. The power being produced by these systems is not metered, but we know it's at least 2.5 GW by now. Unless they figure out how to meter energy production and collect all that data ... how with 100s of thousands of small systems, roof top solar will make demand appear to be lower and will shift the peak to 9pm. Peak MWh rates are about 3 times off-peak. A couple of other things ... We're just starting to see solar thermal with thermal storage. Crescent Dunes in NV will store energy for 24/7 operation, but they don't need to go that far to have major benefit. If new solar thermal is designed to at least keep running from 9pm to midnight, it will greatly reduce the need for all the other power plants. Wind helps greatly too, because it usually kicks up in the afternoon in the Spring and Summer and can generate 3-4 GW in the evening hours after the sun has gone down.... producing kWh costing 4.4 cents that the utility sells for 30 cents or more. Solar is looking better every day. Here is the chart for historical peak power in CA ISO http://www.caiso.com/Documents/CaliforniaISOPeakLoadHistory.pdf354 days 14 hours 46 minutes ago
I posted Hubbert's figures before, but I wanted to provide more detail on necessary updates. Hubbert publicly recanted his 1956 "go nuclear" projection. In 1996, he said "go solar." So, I think he would approve of these alterations. The solid red line is roughly drawn for nuclear capacity as built. The kink in the curve just before 1980 is for Three Mile Island. Figure 29 is for the US. Figure 30 is global. The percentage breakdown is my own rough prediction. YMMV. Obviously, the breakdown will vary greatly depending on location. For example, Brazil and Paraguay get a large percentage of their electricity from hydro (they get 100 TWh per year from a single dam... Itaipu produces more than 3 Gorges). Iceland is powered by geothermal.356 days 19 hours 3 minutes ago
Here are some real world energy costs. Note that the nuclear costs include all costs from construction to dismantling. Note that solar PV is anywhere from about 2X to 9X more expensive than nuclear. Costs in Euros per MWh Nuclear 59.8 Onshore wind 62-102 Solar PV 114-547 New gas or coal: 70-100 "The court, which was asked to update a previous report by a parliamentary committee, calculates the average cost of French nuclear power production over its current 40-year lifespan, from construction to dismantling." "The Court des Comptes, a quasi-judicial body, said in a report that production costs for the French utility's 58 French nuclear reactors had risen to 59.8 euros per megawatt-hour (MWh) from 49.6 euros/MWh between 2010 and 2013." "Although nuclear production costs, according to the court, are not above the 62-102 euros/MWh for onshore wind and 114-547 euros for photovoltaic power estimated in a previous report, or the 70-100 euros for new gas- or coal-fired plants, the gap between them is closing noticeably." http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/27/edf-costs-idUKL6N0OC3XJ20140527358 days 2 hours 19 minutes ago
Could we build perpetual solar farms that produce cheap electricity? Forever? Absolutely. Solar is now the least expensive and best source of electric power there has ever been. A lot of minds are stuck in the era of non-renewable energy. Non-renewable energy plants tend to have a fixed life span. Nuclear is the worst, because at end-of-life, it doesn't just go away. They are given up to 65 years for decommissioning. For example, the Racho Seco nuclear plant in California has been closed for 25 years. It's still sitting there waiting for the next step in the decommissioning process. Coal fired power plants often run until they've burned up all the coal in a nearby mine. Then they pick up and leave -- and leave a ghost town behind. So, old-thinking people will always think in terms of the life of the solar farm. They think it must have an end-of-life just as all the others have. Worse yet, these "analysts" often understate the useful life of the panels -- claiming 20 yrs or less. But PV panels 30 years old or more are still working fine. Here's how to get a solar farm that uses very little dedicated land, where the owner could sell power at 4 cents per kwh and still make a fair 25 percent profit . And the farm could contine to generate power for decades, generation-after-generation, centuries, or even millennia. That is, forever... as long as it is maintained. And the fuel cost will always be the same: ZERO For this example, let's say the solar farm has one million square feet of solar collectors. It would be capable of maximum output of 14 megawatts, and have 47,620 300-watt panels. This would require about 112 acres. The panels could be installed in any number of ways, but suppose they're up out of the way on polls. The way, the only dedicated space is for the base of the polls. The land could be used for other things. This could be a normal farm where they grow things or make it available as grazing fields. If a farmer plans to grow crops that don't mind partial shading, the arrays could be spaced out accordingly. The solar farm could even be co-located with wind turbines. This type of hybrid farm could work well in the midwest -- Nebraska, Iowa, and so on. There's a small matter of getting the thing built in the first place, but let's assume the financing is in place and it gets built (would cost about $2 per watt or $28 million). How could this solar farm last forever? ------------------------------------ The basic idea is to continually swap out used panels for new ones. The swapped-out panels would then be re-sold. Assuming these are 300-watt panels, 21 sq ft each, the farmer would swap out an average of 4.4 per day -- probably do it at sunrise or sunset. This should only take a few minutes each day. The panels weigh about 50 pounds each, so this could be a one person job -- with the right tools. Figuring 10,956 days in 30 years, 4.4 panels per day, all of the panels will have been replaced. After 30 years, go back to the oldest panel, which is now 30 years old, and repeat. This 30-yr cycle could be repeated indefinitely, and the average age of the panels will be 15 years. After the capital cost has been amortized, the on-going cost of the electricity will only be operating and maintenance (O&M). Let's assume that the panels cost 47 cents per watt, and it's going to cost 3 cents per watt for labor to replace the panels. 4.4 panels will be 1320 watts, for $660. Your entire 14 megawatt farm would produce about 67 megawatt-hrs per day (assuming average of 20 percent capacity factor). So, daily panel replacements cost about $10 per megawatt-hr, or one penny per kwh. Add another cent for other hardware costs and another penny for soft costs (taxes, insurance, etc) and the farmer's cost (after intial plant amortization) is 3 cents per kwh. The farmer could sell the power for 4 cents and make a decent profit. Average retail cost for electricity is around 12 cents right now. However, solar is produced during peak hours and partial peak hours when people are using power the most. So, it could be worth more. Of course, if a lot of solar power is being produced all over, then power during the day will become cheaper. The cost could be lower depending on how the recycling works. Suppose the farmer gets 15 cents per watt for used panels. Those panels could go to a re-seller who sells them for 30 cents per watt (plus or minus depending on age). More solar farms could be built with used panels at lower cost. Over time, the solar farm started with used panels will wind up with the same mix of panels averaging 15 years old.  some assumptions example of panel -------------------- 300 watt 21 sq ft http://files.sharpusa.com/Downloads/Solar/Products/sol_dow_NDF4Q300.pdf average cost per watt 2014 USD .47 average labor cost per watt to swap .03 residual resale value $.15 per watt 8 acres per mw 112 acre farm 14 watts per sq ft average capacity factor 20 67.2 mwh / day 47,620 panels swap average 4.4 per day days in 30 yrs 10956 1320 watts per day swapped359 days 6 hours 16 minutes ago
Vogtle = unmitigated catastrophe Nuke fans brag about the AP1000 the lastest "advanced" LWR ... this is what it looks like in the real world: A TRAIN WRECK OF UNPARALLELED PROPORTION The estimated cost goes up every time I look at it. Latest is $20 billion. I'm going to take a wild guess and say $30 billion by the time all is done. In August 2008, it was originally estimated that Plant Vogtle reactors 3&4 would cost $14.3 billion and begin commercial operations in 2016 and 2017 respectively.2 Today, the estimate of the project’s cost has reached $15.5 billion and the reactors are projected to come online in 2018 and 2019 respectively. Pending lawsuits between project partners and the construction contractors could push the project’s final costs even higher to $16.5 billion." ************ As a result of the escalating construction costs and continued delays of the Plant Vogtle project, financial rating agencies are downgrading their assessment of the partners involved in the project: Standard and Poor’s downgraded the Outlook on Southern Company and Georgia Power’s credit ratings from ‘Stable’ to ‘Negative’ in May, 2013. Fitch Ratings downgraded the outlook on all of Oglethorpe Power Corporation’s bonds from ‘Stable’ to ‘Negative’ in August, 2013. Moody’s has downgraded the outlook on Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia bonds from ‘Stable’ to ‘Negative.’ Goldman Sachs and Zacks Investment Research have rated Southern Company as a “sell.” Golden Sachs cited “accelerating capital spending on Vogtle nuclear project and ongoing litigation with the plant’s contractors” as well as the Kemper coal gasification plant and a GA Power rate case that has since resulted in a disappointing ruling for the company. Zacks pointed to weak share earnings, increased expenses, and high risks associated with the construction of reactors 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle. With the likelihood of additional delays and cost overruns, Zacks states “the project cost could easily end up around $20 billion.” http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/downloads/TCS_Vogtle_LG_Fact_Sheet_-_Updated_Feb._2014.pdf359 days 10 hours 41 minutes ago
UNDERSTANDING THE DEPTH OF FAILURE OF THE NUCLEAR PROMISE The image copied here is from the last page of Marion King Hubbert's paper on NUCLEAR ENERGY AND THE FOSSIL FUELS , in which he explains the age of fossil fuels is a blip on the map historically speaking. I recommend taking some time to study these figures from this important and influential document. In his 1956 presentation, he predicted that US oil production would peak around 1970. Oil company executives scoffed until 1970 rolled around and he turned out to be correct . With increasing demand and falling production, the US rapidly increased oil imports from the Middle East, which opened a large vulnerability in the US economy. Thus began a very expensive protracted military involvement in the region -- to "protect our vital interests" -- that continues to this day. When the 1973 oil embargo happened, gasoline shortages happened immediately. Angry people waited long hours to get gasoline, and gasoline prices went up -- and the price of everything went up. Inflation became a huge issue. Very few people at the time understood what had happened. It was certainly no surprise to Dr. Hubbert, nor would it have been a surprise to anyone who had read and understood his 1956 paper. Hubbert had given a very clear warning on the over-reliance on domestic crude oil, including a very accurate projection of when impacts would be felt. Hubbert showed, in 1956, that we needed to move away from oil addiction and rapidly scale up other sources. At the time, nuclear looked like the best option for large-scale energy conversion. Hubbert's credibility grew tremendously in the early 1970s after his prediction about US oil production turned out to be accurate. His work was the basis of President Nixon's call for 1000 nuclear power plants. Take a good look at Figure 29 for his projection of nuclear power. It shows us hitting 100 GW around year 2000. We actually scaled up more rapidly than he projected, but then peaked at 100 GW around 1990. If we had followed his curve, we would be at about 300 GW now, headed for 400 GW around 2025. Here's the thing that really wipes out his projection on nuclear: in the 1956 paper, he stated that, "In the subsequent discussion, it will be assumed that complete breeding will have become the standard practice within the comparatively near future." (see pg 31) Even though nuclear was scaling up faster than he projected, by the early 1970s he could see the massive problems with nuclear. Nuke wasn't going to work and a re-calibration of his recommendations was in order. By 1976 Hubbert was saying forget nuclear, go solar. The nuclear renaissance (really started by GW Bush in early 2000s) seems to embrace what Hubbert said in 1956, but ignores what he said later... and ignores what in fact has happened since Hubbert re-calibrated based on how nuke tech unfolded, and how solar tech has developed. People have trouble understanding how modern economies can run on energy from entirely renewable sources. You need to give it a little more thought. It can be done. Delaying the transition has already caused quite a bit of damage to our atmosphere and our economies. SUMMARY ---------------------------- There are two main things Hubbert could not have foreseen in 1956: First, it was widely assumed that nuclear breeder technology would be mastered. However, since then, breeder technology never worked and there is nothing on the horizon to indicate it will ever work economically. Secondly, solar cells for producing electricity were not available in 1956. The technology was known to be theoretically possible, but there were no factories producing solar cells. Instead of being at 300 GW, on our way to 400 GW in 2025, nuclear in the US stopped at 100 GW decades ago. Nuke in France stalled. Germany stalled. If the world was on track with Hubbert's 1956 projection, it should be at least 5 times the US... or about 1500 GW. Worldwide, instead of 1500 GW, the world has less than 400 GW capacity with an average output of less than 300 GW (nuclear output worldwide peaked in 2006 at just over 300 GW). In 1976, Hubbert said forget nuclear, go solar. Hubbert was right. Look at Figure 30 and replace the line labeled NUCLEAR POWER and replace it with SOLAR POWER . That's what can and should happen. ________________________________  http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf  Hubbert underestimated, slightly, the amount of oil and gas that would become economic to extract, however, this makes very little difference in the overall scale and timing. He predicted the peak could be as late as 1970 or as early as 1966. The actual peak was OCT 1970, around 10 million barrels per day. Production dropped to a low of less than 4 million barrels per day in SEP 2008. With oil at $100 per barrel, some new production opened up but this is just a wrinkle in the overall trend. Oil is going away. Some con artists like to make a chart from the the 2008 low and show how there is plenty of oil since it's been increasing year-after-year since the 2008 low. This is temporary. Oil production today is so expensive it is only prolonging our addiction. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=M  Watch Dr. Hubbert's 38 min presentation from 1976. So, in 1976, twenty years after he said go nuclear, he discusses problems with nuclear and says go solar. Toward the end, he shows a little fan powered by solar cells. Keep in mind that at that time, practically no one outside of the space program would ever have seen a solar cell up close. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6vXHPZ0GQU  You could also say renewable power or renewable energy. Most of it will be direct solar. Practically all of it will be direct or indirect solar (e.g., wind) except for some geothermal.365 days 21 hours 30 minutes ago
New record for solar energy production set on Sunday, broken on Monday. This is for the CA ISO area -- commercial grid connected systems. Add at least another 20,000 mwh for total in California to include grid-connected less than one megawatt, systems not in CA ISO area, and off-grid solar. We're getting more energy from solar than nuke (less than 55,000 mwh). Solar mwh increasing an average of about 50 mwh every day now, and the rate of increase is increasing.... "exponentially." Nuke cannot increase and is destined to disappear entirely.366 days 9 hours 55 minutes ago
The energy issue has created some strange bedfellows. The nuclear renaissance really got launched a decade ago by George W. Bush . Later, a few liberals have started mouthing "go nuclear." From the early 1980s on, it was liberals (hippies, even) leading the charge for solar. In the early going, it was all off-grid. On-grid solar only got going in the mid-to-late 1980s. Now, guess who loves solar? The far right wing. Survialists. Tea Partiers. And they prefer their solar off-grid. Hippies in the 1970s had a song about going to live in the hills. Now who is singing that song?  Tea Party is coming out against Koch Bros efforts to derail solar. why do you suppose that is? _______________  http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/nuclear-energy-lobbying-push/story/nuclear-renaissance-began-bush/  Here are a few articles about Tea Party love of solar http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/oklahoma_sb_1456_why_the_tea_party_is_fighting_for_solar_power.html http://grist.org/climate-energy/a-tea-party-leader-explains-why-shes-teaming-up-with-the-sierra-club-to-push-for-solar-power/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2013/07/16/behind-the-tea-party-push-for-solar-in-georgia/366 days 19 hours 42 minutes ago
Going low carbon. Essential questions. 1. What’s it going to cost me? 2. Are the additional costs of wind and solar justified by the benefits of reduced carbon dioxide emissions? 3. Why are the costs per KWH of wind and solar so much higher, and the benefits not much different, than the other three low-carbon alternatives? 4. How can we be sure that a new low-carbon plant will replace a high-carbon coal plant rather than some other low-carbon plant? 5. What does this paper have for policymakers interested in reducing carbon dioxide emissions at a reasonable cost? http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2014/05/20-low-carbon-wind-solar-power-frank368 days 11 hours 22 minutes ago
Fear of our own extinction is reasonable. Acting brutally toward each other as we approach the extinction is just ugly. We are better than that. What kind of Ending of human existence will result from the energy choices we make now?369 days 23 minutes ago
X-men's out my friends! Mutants are probably the most energy efficient and energy dense beings on earth. Better than any fusion, fission, fossil fuel or renewable power plant. Just imagine: give magneto 3 meals a day and he can perpetually use his magnetic fields to give you unlimited electrical power. As long as he's awake and agrees to help humans that is... Sunspot - ultimate heat generator Pyro - never burn out Phoenix - nuff said, telekinetic, telepathically insane. Storm - Endless wind power with 100% capacity factor, or better yet - lightning energy Quicksilver - you'll never RUN out of energy again If only we had them here, we probably won't need to worry about energy ever again hahaha. Enjoy your weekend!370 days 4 hours 48 minutes ago
Nuclear vs. Solar. With solar you use 242 times the area for the same amount of energy. Energy density counts! "The small nuclear is capable of producing 242 times the electricity per unit land. Small nuclear is as staggering in scale as large solar, just for the opposite reason."375 days 1 hour 44 minutes ago
While nuke power growth has been negative since 2006, solar power growth is rapid and exponential. Just now, power from new renewables in the CA ISO area broke 10,000 megawatts for the first time.... just thought you'd like to know!375 days 19 hours 54 minutes ago
Brilliant film. I have been doing every research paper in school since high school (I'm now on my 2nd college degree) on nuclear energy, trying to convince people that this is the future. Films like yours give me hope that prevailing attitudes toward nuclear energy can change. For the sake of the human race, I hope it's soon.376 days 15 hours 35 minutes ago
QUIZ ON EXPONENTIAL GROWTH OF SOLAR ENERGY Roughly speaking, US energy consumption (all uses, not just electricity) is equivalent to about one terawatt of electric power (1 TW). 1) Did you notice when grid-connected solar increased from .001 TW to .002 TW? 2) Any idea when that happened? 3) How long did it take to double? EXTRA CREDIT QUESTIONS ---------------------------- 4) Assuming the first grid-connected solar installation was 2kw (would have happened sometime in the mid 1980s), how many times did installed capacity have to double to reach .001 TW? 5) How many more times does installed capacity of grid-connected solar have to double before it's equal to all the energy now consumed in the US? ANSWERS --------------- 1) I'm going to guess (unless you're in the business) you did not noticed and weren't really aware of that happening 2) 2006 to reach .001 TW 3) about 2 years, later we reached .002 4) Nineteen times... assuming the first one was 2kw, the initial installed capacity of grid-connected solar expressed in TW would be 0.000000002 TW. 5) Since 2008, capacity has doubled 4 more times. We're now at .01 TW. If we double 9 more times, we will be getting more energy from grid-connected solar than all the energy currently used in the US. If each doubling takes 2 years (it's been taking less than 2 years), we would be 100% solar within 18 years ... or by 2032. NOTES ON ANSWERS ------------------------- Here is what 2kw doubled 19 times ... becoming .001 TW by 2006 .. in TW, 0.000000002 0.000000004 0.000000008 0.000000016 0.000000032 0.000000064 0.000000128 0.000000256 0.000000512 0.000001024 0.000002048 0.000004096 0.000008192 0.000016384 0.000032768 0.000065536 0.000131072 0.000262144 0.000524288 0.001048576377 days 4 hours 29 minutes ago
Great documentary. The first half felt lackluster but the end really brought it home perfectly! Thorium should have be a big focus in this though. It's extremely common, and waste products from current reactors can be used as start up material for a reactor using Thorium as the fuel. So much good about Thorium while the negatives arise from lack of funding and interest.419 days 21 hours 32 minutes ago
Atomi per la Pace (italian pro-nuclear no-profit association) interviewed Patrick Moore (former founder of Greenpeace) about energy issues, including nuclear (and much more) - here the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqUrVaEk7Cs Enjoy!423 days 6 hours 57 minutes ago
I see this movie as a kind of intellectual/political jujitsu, sincerely balancing the fear of global warming against the paranoia of nuclear energy to arrive at an outcome and recommendation that is very positive for humanity. Brilliant!426 days 23 hours 23 minutes ago
Howdy! During a pre-screening session at Texas A&M University, Mr. Shellenberger asked the nuclear engineering students where they go after they graduate. This article from the ANS Nuclear Cafe might be of some interest:427 days 16 hours 34 minutes ago
how is it possible to make humanity realize the importance of nuclear energy if the media print stuff like this in the pic (sorry for the german). We dont have an NPP in Lucens anymore (was our first home made prototype inside a cave - blew up, cave sealed). But we have one in Leibstadt... And such a Person is allowed to make a comment about the Situation about Japan?428 days 4 minutes ago
Read the report of the discussion with director Robert Stone; environmental activist Mark Lynas, moderated by Tom Clarke, Science Editor for Channel 4 News following Friday's screening of Pandora's Promise.429 days 4 hours 9 minutes ago
Still handful of tickets left at the door for tonight's screening of Pandora's Promise followed by a Q&A with director Robert Stone and environmental activist Mark Lynas, moderated by Tom Clarke, Science Editor for Channel 4 News.433 days 30 minutes ago
How can we continue to provide the energy needed to lift billions of people in the developing world out of poverty, while also reversing the looming threat of climate change? Pandora's Promise explores the myths and science behind the deeply emotional and polarising issue of nuclear energy. Join director Robert Stone tomorrow for the screening of his controversial film followed by a discussion with environmental activist Mark Lynas, moderated by Tom Clarke, Science Editor for Channel 4 News.434 days 2 hours 2 minutes ago
This was a great film. And definitely made me sit-up and listen. I learned a lot... However, you did yourselves a great disservice by ignoring the valid and documented reports of cancer clusters around nuclear plants in the recent past - among others, the Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Braidwater Generating Station. When I found this out it brings your whole argument into question. Do I believe that nuclear power CAN be safe? Yes! But not in this country where the NRC is owned by the industry...436 days 17 hours 25 minutes ago
Thanks for making this movie that I highly recommend. I believe that pandora's promise crucial point is that being environmentalist nowadays would require being pro-nuclear given the actual twentiefh century's energy compriomise. However I would just like to outlight something I don't necessarily agree with. It states that energy demand will increase in the next 50 years up to 3 times more. It is true that the developping countries will see a raise in energy demand. However, technology allows electronic devices to be less energy intensive. I can mention the energy-saving bulbs, the applainces that require much less electricity and others. So wouldn't it be exagerrated to say the energy demand will increase that much? Having said that your movie is still very efficient in reinforcing my pro-nuclear opinion. Regards from France.438 days 4 hours 14 minutes ago
Next Friday 21 March director Robert Stone joins us for the screening of Pandora's Promise. This film tells the personal stories of environmentalists and energy experts, who have undergone a radical conversion from being fiercely anti- to strongly pro-nuclear energy, risking their careers and reputations in the process. It is a thoughtful film that changes the conversation about the myths and science behind this deeply emotional and polarising issue. Full details and tickets: http://www.frontlineclub.com/pandoras-promise/443 days 4 hours 47 minutes ago
Thank you for making this film. It really opened my eyes to the many myths I had believed to be truths about Nuclear. The one thing that didn't sit right with me is the graph displaying the number of deaths associated with each energy source- is it a fair comparison? I am wondering why you chose this argument? As noted in the pie chart in the beginning of the film, Nuclear only powers about 13% of the world's energy. It has also been around for significantly less of a period time than coal. I am not discounting the benefits of Nuclear and I am not saying it is unsafe; I just think it is misleading to compare the safety of industries directly to each other that are substantially different sizes, with varying periods of time of time in operation. There are other statistical methods better suited to yield reliable data on safety.444 days 1 hour 33 minutes ago
hey people i thaught it would be a awesome idea to ask a anti nuke admin on facebook what he//she knew about nuclear power the admin did delete my post after this conversation i think their afraid their followers are going to go pro nuclear445 days 20 hours 34 minutes ago
I was thoroughly impressed with what misconceptions I had about nuclear power, accidents and weapons that were shattered by this film. I believe the general world public would be impressed as well. Energy from Thorium pointed out that Director Robert Stone has been very good about including thorium and LFTR in his public promotion of the movie.452 days 3 minutes ago
This movie exposes the bad science of the environmental movement in the 60's and 70's. They defeated nukes by scaring people with propaganda pseudo-science. This victory brought the huge expansion of coal, talk about unintended consequences. Now the same group is doing the same thing with global warming and they are promoting nukes to solve this non-problem. If you need a boogeyman to defeat, why not fight world poverty. Promote nukes to help end world poverty and the "REAL" pollution of coal and the real deaths it causes each year. Even if every country in the world went full on nuke, the high cost energy strategies being promoted will kill millions more around the world. Wind, solar, carbon taxes all designed to make energy more expensive, exactly the opposite of what should be done. So..... promote molten salt reactors for real reasons, they all make sense. Sorry for the rant.452 days 1 hour 21 minutes ago
year 69 of the forever experiment... Truth is the daughter of time not of authority... certainly not this movie. http://enenews.com/reports-plutonium-did-get-out-of-u-s-nuclear-facility-we-dont-know-what-happened-inside-why-it-happened-whether-it-could-happen-again-the-big-problem-is-how-much-was-released-or461 days 4 hours 21 minutes ago
Ahora entiendo por qué los movimientos ecologistas no prosperan mayormente en su lucha por un medio ambiente sano, libre de contaminantes: no se ponen de acuerdo unos con otros, y sobre todo si cambian de postura tan radicalmente como los payasos que se prestaron para este documental, que es totalmente PRONUCLEAR, sesgado en planteamiento, cero objetividad y crítica, y francamente tendencioso. Vale la pena verlo para, precisamente, darse cuenta uno que la energía nuclear es peligrosa, no sólo por las armas que se pueden construir con ella, sino porque todo aquello que contamine: es peligroso, y la energía nuclear contamina de un modo casi irreversible. Por otro lado, hace ver a los ecologistas como fanáticos salidos de una caricatura. ¿Y la crítica a los poderes e intereses detrás de la energía nuclear? Cero. La recomiendo sólo para aquellos que son ambientalistas congruentes: podrán reafirmar su visión y pensamiento.476 days 15 hours 33 minutes ago
I just showed Pandora's Promise to one set of friends, thanks!!!! but before showing to the next set, will give everyone a piece of paper with numbers— µSv/hr on average around the Earth, in Denver, and in areas with higher exposures. We wondered whether explaining the health effects would be a lot simpler if people considering returning home in the areas near Fukushima just saw labels (eg, Denver, Kerala) rather than numbers.480 days 11 hours 27 minutes ago
You must be a pronuke scientist/engineer/fascist to be that kind of intelligent! My review of this project...I seriously feel like Robert is one of those good neighborhood kids, kicking it with the wrong crowd...http://wakeup-world.com/2014/01/30/the-pandoras-box-of-the-nuclear-industry/484 days 3 hours 26 minutes ago
I'm about to watch this documentary today or tomorrow, but don't you think this film is about a decade late? Already solar cells cost about $0.50 per watt and new nuclear plant in US about $6 per watt. (Btw, solar cells also work when cloudy...)484 days 23 hours 57 minutes ago
Kudos to Robert Stone for his article "Animal Planet’s Bogus Account of Chernobyl Wildlife -- Fission for Scare Tactics" With regards to the Tohoku earthquake and Tsunami in Japan three years ago, I wonder if Animal Planet’s River Monsters show will ever look at the impact of chemical contamination on aquatic life..... And incidentally, how did all that get resolved in terms of insurance?489 days 17 hours 19 minutes ago
I've been looking for a version of Pandora's Promise in German to send to my friends there. To date no luck with that; is there such a version? Is this film available in any language other than English?493 days 6 hours 35 minutes ago
Just wondering that who really believes that nuclear energy would somehow come instead of fossil energy. Its quite obvious that all possible fossil resources will be used and nuclear as well. But somewhere has to be a limit of concequenses we can afford. In my homearea we have now a great problem with multimetallic nickel-uranium mine and this mine should just be a start for uranium mining in Scandinavia.493 days 6 hours 47 minutes ago
HIBAKUSHA: OUR LIFE TO LIVE - Saturday, Feb. 15, 11 AM - in The Pavilion Theater, New York, Brooklyn: A wonderfull documentary about Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear Bomb Survivors with the presence of director David Rothauser. "Life is a precious gift. May we live it without fear." One of about 60 films about nuclear power, atomic bombs, uranium, Fukushima & Chernobyl of the International Uranium Film Festival New York February 14-19 Filmwebsite: http://www.hibakusha-ourlifetolive.org/ Festivalwebsite: http://www.uraniumfilmfestival.org/index.php/en/travelling-festival/usa-2014/new-york-city/saturday-feb-15/455-at-11am/1106-hibakusha-our-life-to-live The Pavilion Theater: http://www.paviliontheater.com/?p=content&id=Uranium+Film+Festival+2014+Feb+14+to+Feb+18+ Contact for more info & support: firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.uraniumfilmfestival.org/index.php/en/support497 days 5 hours 32 minutes ago
Well made film but I perceived huckster logic in several sequences. Singular views were presented as fact (phones = refrigerators for energy use) and some facts glaringly abandoned. For example, while France's spent nuclear fuel waste might fit in a single bunker the ancillary radioactive waste produced requires a million cubic feet of safe storage per year and growing. Additionally, the critical issue about safe radiation exposure seemed designed to confuse rather than inform by using 20 some shots of a Geiger counter without measurement units to suggest living in Fukushima is safer than visiting Brazilian beaches. Surely the filmmakers and producers know spot measures do not reveal trends but feeding into non-scientific thinking when it is thesis supporting is disingenuous, as you know. I appreciate the film's structure addressing major concerns and assumptions but you responded to them only dismissively and without informed counterpoint. If Helen Calidicott is wrong about Chernobyl's effects then interview her - don't bum rush her when she is distracted by another event. Your sequence with her was userous rather than serious in a film positioned as educational. You leave people with the idea that breeder and Gen IV reactors are ready to support a 3X increase in worldwide energy needs but the costs to make that happen would be extraordinary. Perhaps that cube of (??enriched uranium??) could power my life but the mining destruction and millennial dangers of that cube might not be worth it. It might be better than the coal equivalency but that is not the whole story and journalistic documentaries are (I've heard) supposed to present the whole story. An honest comparison evaluating the relative rewards from investing billions into new nuclear versus investing in renewable technology could have advanced the discussion. Unfortunately, limiting the discussion (no evaluation of conservation at all?) to only emphasize nuclear benefits makes your film a promotional piece rather than a serious documentary.565 days 23 hours 10 minutes ago
I have been against Nuclear generated energy for over 30 years, until, I saw the CNN Program "Pandora's Promise". The problem with Nuclear energy has always been the waste. The new "US" invented process recycles the waste into new rods and the spent ones are recycled into new ones and so forth on site. If you want to world to stop releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere then Nuclear is the ONLY path and without it man will clearly destroy himself. This "new" tec. will allow countries like China and India to get rid of their carbon omissions and the earth will be better for it. Wind and solar, which I support, will never be able to do this, ever. I am a democrat and believe that we must get rid of both the right and left wings of both parties if we are ever to be able to solve the big problems. Nuclear has its problems but compared to oil and coal it is head and shoulder above the rest. Just remember if you don't have the support of the general population, nothing will be done. The general population is willing to really do nothing to change the way they live, so in order to counter this then electricity must take the forefront and although I wish there were a different way, sadly I must admit we must go nuclear and do it quickly. After all it is an American invention.563 days 21 hours 31 minutes ago
What an informing documentary slashing all the false assumptions and advertising against nuclear power. It also explains what went wrong with all the nuclear facility meltdowns; basically no cooling systems. Chernobyl will no longer be what anyone thought, neither will Fukushima. This film explains radiation and how its measured. It's amazing how the levels of radiation in Fukushima are so miniscule that scientists can't appropriately allocate that to cancer deaths! Yet the uneducated citizens won't let their children play outdoors for long. Even a beach in Brazil has higher naturally occurring levels of radiation than Chernobyl or Fukushima. The supposed millions of deaths in Chernobyl are not true! It amounted to about 50 deaths or so. Due to solar & wind power's energy fluctuations, they generate more carbon footprint than nuclear power because of the backup energy they require. Now that's something some green/environmental activists don't know! I just read on CTV news that a storage tank in Fukushima leaked tons of rasioactive water today. This may scare a lot of people but somewhere burried in the article it states; "The environmental effects of radioactive water pouring in the sea are unclear, though scientists generally agree that the impact so far has been minimal." The media will always blow things out of proportion, its time films like Pandora's Promise brings actuality into perspective and urges action. Go nuclear!!!565 days 13 hours 9 minutes ago
I just watched Pandoras Promise on CNN. It was very insightful and I wish more would watch it. My father works at a Nuclear Power plant, he has for almost 30 years, and the movie helped me understand clearly what he had tried to tell me before. I sent an Email to my science teacher, hoping he will show the students. I just feel people should understand.565 days 5 hours 1 minute ago
Interesting documentary. But I ask you this, why hasn't one $ of private capital ever been spent on nuclear power plants? Answer: Too costly? Too risky? What are the real costs per kW/h? Also, I disagree with the crackpot portrayal of Amory Lovins. Read his Reinventing Fire. In it he argues for efficiency first (using less energy is cheaper than not using less) and then a gradual move to clean natural gas as baseload power supplemented by wind and solar...565 days 1 hour 57 minutes ago
I suggest Robert Stone look into The Resonance Project and the work of physicist Nassim Haramein if he really wants to help our planet with safe energy. Nassim has done extensive work on this very topic and what he can tell us will put all big corporations out of business, and wouldn't that be nice?565 days 23 hours 52 minutes ago
Very interesting. What was not discussed in the somewhat myopic film and following discussion, is the role of point of use sustainable energy production. In my mind, the role of capacitor technology in storing efficiently captured solar and wind energy for near time use (within 72 hours ) is the new frontier. New technologies are already on horizon, but those blinded by the status quo only see the opportunity in developing more fossil fuel discovery with these, i.e. sub terrainian sonic burst searches. Progress truly happens when those on the existing paradigm train decide to jump off.566 days 12 hours 28 minutes ago
Just watched Pandora's Promise, followed by Ralph Nader going to another Olympic Gold for hyperbole relative to the 1985 Chernobyl accident, by far the worst nuclear accident on the globe. I did some work in Ukraine about 100 km from Chernobyl in late 1990s-early 200 and asked a knowledgeable scientist about Chernobyl. He told me that "a lot of people died." (Why?) "Mostly old or sick people who froze to death," (when there was no heat in their apartments). Chernobyl (built in 1977-1980) was a terrible design, and the pumps at Fukushima (built 1970) should never have been underground. Modern light water nukes have coolant stored above the reactor core, so it can be quenched by gravity simply by opening a valve. The March 2011 EQ and tsunami in Japan caused over 15,000 deaths, >90% by drowning and the rest by trauma and other direct causes. Perhaps time will tell, but confirmed deaths due to radiation exposure so far: ZERO. The TOTAL global power from wind and solar is about 72 GWh. An average-size nuke plant in the US generates about 12,200 GWh. Any questions?566 days 12 hours 26 minutes ago
Excerpt: Earlier, TEPCO said it detected 2.35 billion becquerels of cesium per liter in water that is now leaking into the groundwater through cracks in the plant’s drainage system. This radiation level is roughly the same as that measured in April 2011. The normal level is 150 becquerels of cesium per liter of water. For the past two years, TEPCO has claimed that it managed to siphon off the excess water into specially-constructed storage tanks. However, the company was forced to admit late last month that radioactive water was still escaping into the Pacific Ocean. These consistent failures are testing the patience of Japanese authorities. “You can't just leave it [disposing of radioactive waste at the plant] up to TEPCO," Shinji Kinjo, head of a Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) told Reuters. "Right now, we have an emergency." Earlier this month, TEPCO was forced to go on the defensive after a scathing first-page article appeared in The Asahi Shimbun daily criticizing the company’s cleanup efforts. “TEPCO did nothing for more than two years despite having pledged to seal a leaking hole between a turbine building [the leakage source] and an underground pit [a trench] in April 2011 when water contaminated with radioactive materials…was found to have leaked into the ocean; and the company only began preparing for shielding tests this summer after contaminated water was found to be leaking into the sea this time,” the newspaper stated on August 1, 2013.566 days 12 hours 13 minutes ago
Great production. I worked at Argonne-West from 1986 thru 2004 and saw the Integral Fast Reactor research first-hand. I worked in an auxiliary capacity (nuclear material control and accountability) and so wasn't directly involved in the actual research, but did know many people who were. Dr. Till even recognized me once in a while, lol. The change of heart of a few leading environmentalists chronicled in parts of the production would have been heartening if it had occurred in the early 80s. Instead, those of us who labored on the last nuclear energy project standing in the U.S. in those years had to endure the hostility that they were fostering in most of their peers and most of the public. Hostility that will be little changed by the puny efforts of a few of you who are having your belated epiphanies. The arguments being dredged up again in comments against your production are mainly just a source of renewed pain to me, and I must say given that it is far too late to resurrect this energy source I really don't care to have all of it hashed out again. At least not in the U.S. This power source will never be resurrected here. China might build some IFR type machines in the next 20 years ago, and that's fine. But the earth is pretty much irrevocably cooked already. So thanks for nothing.566 days 11 hours 33 minutes ago
How about posting all the infographics that you had in the movie? I found this movie fascinating! One of my favorite factoids that you need to add to your cache of information is that to replace just one gas station's energy with solar, you would need 800 ACRES(!) of photovoltaic panels.566 days 11 hours 28 minutes ago
How does a car of the 1960s compare to a new 2014 model? Well that's what our nuclear power stations are. They are outdated just like any other technology, including last years iPad. Contain new nuke stations under ground in old abandoned coal and salt mines, make them bigger than 1.21 gigawatt. Of course far away from any city. And if there is ever a major disaster, since it's underground just cover it up with landfill.566 days 8 minutes ago
Fukushima has spread ten times more radioactive fallout than Chernobyl and the Pacific fisheries have been severely compromised. We Americans have been poisoned by radioactive fallout for over 68 years and we are paying the price by high cancer rates. Nuclear power plants are not cost effective to build, maintain and decommission. No lending institution, in their right mind, would finance one without a federal government guarantee.566 days 11 hours 19 minutes ago
I definitely would not, under any circumstance, live next to a Nuclear Power Plant! That said, I do believe that Nuclear Power has a place in meeting our energy needs. However it is no where near as safe, cheap, or as environmentally friendly as Pandora's Promise alleged. Every nuclear accident is a huge problem! Pandora's Promise is pure propaganda - totally biased. It didn't take in to account the total cost of Nuclear production, but used its low-ball figure to compare against other forms of energy. They often brought up the subsidies for Alternative Energy but said nothing about huge subsidies to the Nuclear Industry. I wouldn't mind living next to Solar Power installation - in fact, one is going to start construction in my area (Social Circle, GA) in the next couple months and I am totally fine with it. Living next to a HydroPower plant may actually be a big plus!566 days 9 hours 28 minutes ago
A worse case accident at a Solar Power Plant and wothin a few hours everything is ok. A worse case accident at a Hydro-power Plant or a Coal-fired power Plant and wothin a couple months everything is ok. Ask the residents of Chernobyl, Fukushima, or even Three Mile Island if their area is ok even yet. Though Nuclear Accidents are sort of rare, there is no such thing as a minor nuclear accident!566 days 9 hours 7 minutes ago
Some of the panel seemed to miss the development of a way to recycle the spent rods so that they become a fuel source, thus practically eliminating the issue of waste storage. With further development of nuclear production, this would most likely be improved even more. Lobbies of Big Coal and Big Oil will make sure that this never happens. Their only interest is in their profits. Global warming and atmospheric poisoning, ultimate elimination of the human race has no interest in their thinking. Profit NOW; the rest bed%$$#@&! The human race is a doomed experiment. Maybe the cockroaches and ants will do a better job over the next millions of years, after we have exterminated ourselves.566 days 1 hour 52 minutes ago
I wish this could have been released sooner! It was highly recommended to watch for a debate within my university module happening before the release...still intend to watch it when it's out at least :)550 days 6 minutes ago
Invitation: Russian Movie "Atomic Ivan", winner of the Yellow Oscar 2013, Australian Science Fiction Movie "Double Happiness Uranium", the Academy Award®-winning US-documentary "Deadly Deception" and more than 50 other films about nuclear power, atomic bombs, uranium mining, depleted uranium weapons, radioactive accidents and radioactive dangers from all over the world are coming to New York City Brooklyn in February 2014. International Uranium Film Festival New York - A film festival about the Nuclear Age, Feb 14-18, in The Pavilion Theater Brooklyn. http://world-nuclear-news.org/uploadedImages/wnn/Images/Atomic_Ivan_2.jpg http://world-nuclear-news.org/C_Atomic_Ivan_in_love_with_the_atom_0909111.html http://www.doublehappinessuranium.com/screenings.html http://groundspark.org/upcoming-screenings # http://groundspark.org/our-films-and-campaigns/deadlydecep http://www.paviliontheater.com/?p=content&id=Uranium+Film+Festival+2014+Feb+14+to+Feb+18+ Festival Contact: email@example.com Festival Website: www.uraniumfilmfestival.org524 days 7 hours 15 minutes ago
I just watched your movie, and I'm glad to see such a realistic documentary on nuclear power, though I would have been glad to hear and see more about alternative nuclear fusion devices which are in curent progress and evolution513 days 8 hours 38 minutes ago
The show was even better than I expected. But seriously, I hope you are already working on Part II...there was so much left unsaid. The troglodytes need about 30 years worth of lies erased. It's going to take more than one movie...562 days 15 hours 2 minutes ago
Pandora's Promise in London, Round 1, Channel 4 News 11 Nov: In the Green corner: Robert Stone, environmentalist + independent documentary film maker. In another Green corner: Caroline Lucas ex head of Green Party UK. http://bit.ly/1i5x8iM (click on 'Is nuclear waste the answer to our energy needs') The Green on Green war over nuclear MUST CEASE - a futile time waste which only makes environmentalists impotent opponents to the behemothic fossil fuel lobby. Feel free to drop Ms Lucas a line: firstname.lastname@example.org days 1 hour 8 minutes ago
We watched the movie, which is quite compelling, and were left wondering why there was no mention of the environmental cost of mining uranium. Could it be because it's a filthy, water intensive process, laden with toxic chemicals? It's an important piece of the total cost.561 days 14 hours 18 minutes ago
Very interesting show. Strange beginning with the disaster in Japan, but still very informative. Most people are scared of nuclear power because of the propaganda machine and that is you change the order of the first two letters it becomes "UNCLEAR". Get this out there on Youtube. Power companies should get this linked on their websites.560 days 4 hours 37 minutes ago
The world can no more afford "environmentalists" who deny the science that nuclear energy is safer than other modes of base power generation than it can afford those who deny the science supporting climate change. Climate change would be much less of a concern today if the no-nukes movement had never happened.559 days 15 hours 59 minutes ago
In the film the assertion is made that there's more radiation in a banana than in a liter of Fukushima radiated water (or something to that effect). I'd be very interested in precisely what was stated in the film and what the source(s) of the information were.557 days 20 hours 32 minutes ago
Please donate for my dream to buy a house to come true!Or share it, like it, spread the word! Any help, of any kind it's well received and appreciated! Thank you! https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-house-I-can-call-home/171384123062479?ref=hl554 days 21 hours 42 minutes ago
Many of you folks seem to be indoctrinated by "facts" from the thermal neutron reactor plants. The fast neutron reactor plants are much better. They use sodium for cooling, not water; convection cooling will work if there is a power outage. They can use the "waste" from the thermal reactors to produce around 100 times more energy. There is not enough available land for solar and wind to replace the energy that our society wants. Fossil resources will run out someday; our energy demand across the world is increasing tremendously. Someday the graphs of these two will cross; after that our style of life will decrease, because energy will not be available to support it. We must go with nuclear, and fast nuclear because it makes much better use of the fuel than thermal--we won't have to mine any for a very long time (centuries), because there is so much already on hand.553 days 13 hours 20 minutes ago
Recently, four of the world’s leading climate scientists released an open letter to world environmental policy makers urging the development and... Read more.
Most of the afflictions wrongly attributed to nuclear power can rightly be attributed to coal. I was struck by this thought when I saw the graphics... Read more.
There are limits to what one can cover in 90 minutes, and some viewers may feel slighted by neglect or oversight of their favorite pro- or... Read more.