Pandora's Promise

Trakar

VIP Member
Feb 28, 2011
1,699
73
83
Pandora's Promise
Forbes Review
Excerpts:
“What if you suspected that everything you knew about nuclear energy was wrong? What would you do?
That’s what faced some prominent died-in-the-wool anti-nuclear activists. What they did then is what smart and caring people do – they researched the subject and made their own decision.”
“Academy Award nominee Robert Stone chronicles these transformations in a new movie called Pandora’s Promise. It is a documentary about leading environmentalists that have changed their minds about nuclear energy because of concerns about climate change. They found that misinformation and outright lies about nuclear energy proliferated in an environmental movement that previously supported nuclear energy as a way out of a fossil fuel-dominated future.
That shift of the environmental establishment away from nuclear has, instead, cemented our fossil fuel future more than ever. We are on the verge of becoming a natural gas nation that will still use copious amounts of oil and coal. The poorly-considered drive to swap nuclear with natural gas and gas-dependent renewables will erase the recent benefits gained from replacing old coal plants with gas. This will cause CO2 emissions to rise higher than ever.”
“So are these icons of past and present environmentalism suddenly insane? Of course not. They’ve simply taken the time and effort to understand a complex subject like nuclear in relation to an even more complex subject like climate change.
Is considering nuclear energy politically dangerous for environmentalists? Does it prevent normally-smart public servants from considering the best path forward on climate change?
Indeed it is, and explains the swift and nasty response to Pandora’s Promise from anti-nuclear groups and the expected rants from professional fear-mongerers. They make some interesting fictional points, but provide no real information, using the word science like a mythological sword whose power they recognize but don’t understand.
We were brainwashed with a fear of nuclear during the Cold War. One can argue whether that served the larger purpose of helping to prevent nuclear war. But Pandora’s Promise let’s environmental scholars show us how to evolve our thinking so that we might achieve a sustainable future for all species and all environments on our beautiful planet.
You need to look inside Pandora’s Promise.”
 
What people understand once you put into perspective is this.. You power your house with nuclear for a whole year and generate only 0.7 ounces of waste.. About the amount of one "AAA" battery.

Think we could handle this wastestream? The OPERATING costs of a new plant built out with the latest technology is LESS than any other 24/7/365 system we have other than coal. (It's the amortized development cost that dominates the "cost" of nuclear because of regs and compliance).

Our operating plants are so old that your kids' talking doll probably has more computing power than any of the existing plants. We NEED to upgrade them.. AND build out more in an expedited fashion.
 
Pandora's Promise
Forbes Review
{snip}

You can't post entire articles here, FYI...

What the hell does nuclear power have to do with climate change? That's never been the issue. I've actually never even heard of that kind of connection until this thread. The issue has always been the human arrogance of using a technology that creates a waste product that remains toxic for longer than the entire period of human existence and thinking "what could possibly go wrong?". This was always the issue. CO2 emissions? Huh??

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Lost-Detroit-John-Fuller/dp/0345252667"]We Almost Lost Detroit[/ame]


No CO2 issue here either...

Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg
 
Last edited:
Pandora's Promise
Forbes Review
{snip}

You can't post entire articles here, FYI...

What the hell does nuclear power have to do with climate change? That's never been the issue. I've actually never even heard of that kind of connection until this thread. The issue has always been the human arrogance of using a technology that creates a waste product that remains toxic for longer than the entire period of human existence and thinking "what could possibly go wrong?". This was always the issue. CO2 emissions? Huh??

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Lost-Detroit-John-Fuller/dp/0345252667"]We Almost Lost Detroit[/ame]


No CO2 issue here either...

Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg

Don't get the connection between nuclear and Global Warming?? Nuclear is a reliable 24/7/365 generation source with virtually NO greenhouse gas emissions. In fact -- virtually NO emissions of any kind. That's CRITICAL to understanding how to fix (if you believe it needs fixin) AGWarming and pollution in general from electrical generation.

ANY TOXIC material you put into the waste stream has a LONGER half life than radioactive waste.. When we dumped mercury and lead and Cadmium and Lithium into the waste stream -- it also stays there forever. When you're proposing BILLIONS of tons of battery waste to be disposed of and recycled -- what's the "half-life" of that?

0.7 oz of waste to power a home with nuclear for a year.. Think we can "handle" that better than disposing of Billions of batteries all over the place?
 
Pandora's Promise
Forbes Review
{snip}

You can't post entire articles here, FYI...

What the hell does nuclear power have to do with climate change? That's never been the issue. I've actually never even heard of that kind of connection until this thread. The issue has always been the human arrogance of using a technology that creates a waste product that remains toxic for longer than the entire period of human existence and thinking "what could possibly go wrong?". This was always the issue. CO2 emissions? Huh??

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Lost-Detroit-John-Fuller/dp/0345252667"]We Almost Lost Detroit[/ame]


No CO2 issue here either...

Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg

It has to do with the fact that renewables cannot meet the standard base load requirement of an electrical grid due to thier intermittent nature. You need a bulk of a grid's power to come from constant sources, which as of now are coal, oil, Natrual Gas, and nuclear (hydro and some geothermal falls under this catagory as well)
 
Pandora's Promise
Forbes Review
{snip}

You can't post entire articles here, FYI...

What the hell does nuclear power have to do with climate change? That's never been the issue. I've actually never even heard of that kind of connection until this thread. The issue has always been the human arrogance of using a technology that creates a waste product that remains toxic for longer than the entire period of human existence and thinking "what could possibly go wrong?". This was always the issue. CO2 emissions? Huh??

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Lost-Detroit-John-Fuller/dp/0345252667"]We Almost Lost Detroit[/ame]


No CO2 issue here either...

Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg

Don't get the connection between nuclear and Global Warming?? Nuclear is a reliable 24/7/365 generation source with virtually NO greenhouse gas emissions. In fact -- virtually NO emissions of any kind. That's CRITICAL to understanding how to fix (if you believe it needs fixin) AGWarming and pollution in general from electrical generation.

Uh.... that's my point. Nuclear has severe drawbacks but CO2 isn't one of them as the OP seems to suggest.

ANY TOXIC material you put into the waste stream has a LONGER half life than radioactive waste.. When we dumped mercury and lead and Cadmium and Lithium into the waste stream -- it also stays there forever. When you're proposing BILLIONS of tons of battery waste to be disposed of and recycled -- what's the "half-life" of that?


I don't know where you're getting all these "batteries" :dunno: but I do know this:
>> A 98-foot-wide, two-mile-long ditch with steep walls 33 feet deep that bristles with magnets and radar reflectors will stand for millennia as a warning to future humans not to trifle with what is hidden inside the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) outside Carlsbad, N.M. Paired with 48 stone or concrete 105-ton markers, etched with warnings in seven languages ranging from English to Navajo as well as human faces contorted into expressions of horror, the massive installation is meant to stand for at least 10,000 years—twice as long as the Egyptian pyramids have survived.

But the plutonium ensconced in the salt mine at the center of this installation will be lethal to humans for at least 25 times that long&#8212;even once the salt walls ooze inward to entomb the legacy of American atomic weapons. And WIPP will only hold a fraction, though a more deadly fraction, of the amount of nuclear waste the U.S. plans to store at Yucca Mountain in Nevada or some other site designated to replace it as a permanent repository for the residue of nuclear reactions. <<

That's a quarter-million years, minimum -- or five times the entire span of human existence. And this is material that didn't exist until we created it and then found ourselves needing to do something with it, for five times the entire history of our species. The thing is, we knew this when we started..... AND WE DID IT ANYWAY. :banghead:

That's categorically insane right there.

0.7 oz of waste to power a home with nuclear for a year.. Think we can "handle" that better than disposing of Billions of batteries all over the place?

Again wassup with the batteries? Know how many people could be killed by 0.7 oz of spent fuel, even if it didn't get touched until your children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children literally get wind of it?

Not to worry though; we don't have 0.7 ounces of waste to deal with. More like seventy-two thousand tons.

Makes ya wonder what the hell was in the water in the Fifties....
 
Last edited:
You can't post entire articles here, FYI...

What the hell does nuclear power have to do with climate change? That's never been the issue. I've actually never even heard of that kind of connection until this thread. The issue has always been the human arrogance of using a technology that creates a waste product that remains toxic for longer than the entire period of human existence and thinking "what could possibly go wrong?". This was always the issue. CO2 emissions? Huh??

We Almost Lost Detroit


No CO2 issue here either...

Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg

Don't get the connection between nuclear and Global Warming?? Nuclear is a reliable 24/7/365 generation source with virtually NO greenhouse gas emissions. In fact -- virtually NO emissions of any kind. That's CRITICAL to understanding how to fix (if you believe it needs fixin) AGWarming and pollution in general from electrical generation.

Uh.... that's my point. Nuclear has severe drawbacks but CO2 isn't one of them as the OP seems to suggest.

ANY TOXIC material you put into the waste stream has a LONGER half life than radioactive waste.. When we dumped mercury and lead and Cadmium and Lithium into the waste stream -- it also stays there forever. When you're proposing BILLIONS of tons of battery waste to be disposed of and recycled -- what's the "half-life" of that?


I don't know where you're getting all these "batteries" :dunno: but I do know this:
>> A 98-foot-wide, two-mile-long ditch with steep walls 33 feet deep that bristles with magnets and radar reflectors will stand for millennia as a warning to future humans not to trifle with what is hidden inside the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) outside Carlsbad, N.M. Paired with 48 stone or concrete 105-ton markers, etched with warnings in seven languages ranging from English to Navajo as well as human faces contorted into expressions of horror, the massive installation is meant to stand for at least 10,000 years—twice as long as the Egyptian pyramids have survived.

But the plutonium ensconced in the salt mine at the center of this installation will be lethal to humans for at least 25 times that long—even once the salt walls ooze inward to entomb the legacy of American atomic weapons. And WIPP will only hold a fraction, though a more deadly fraction, of the amount of nuclear waste the U.S. plans to store at Yucca Mountain in Nevada or some other site designated to replace it as a permanent repository for the residue of nuclear reactions. <<

That's a quarter-million years, minimum -- or five times the entire span of human existence. And this is material that didn't exist until we created it and then found ourselves needing to do something with it, for five times the entire history of our species. The thing is, we knew this when we started..... AND WE DID IT ANYWAY. :banghead:

That's categorically insane right there.

0.7 oz of waste to power a home with nuclear for a year.. Think we can "handle" that better than disposing of Billions of batteries all over the place?

Again wassup with the batteries? Know how many people could be killed by 0.7 oz of spent fuel, even if it didn't get touched until your children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children literally get wind of it?

Not to worry though; we don't have 0.7 ounces of waste to deal with. More like seventy-two thousand tons.

Makes ya wonder what the hell was in the water in the Fifties....

Sorry about the misunderstanding about CO2 in the OP.. There are a couple sloppy sentences about "swapping nuclear for " that seem to contradict the main thesis.. But it doesn't..

The military waste from weapons is the real environmental threat. It's leaking RIGHT NOW at Hanford WA. And Savannah River, GA.. The govt doesn't seem to care about it's own deadly pollution..

Yucca Mtn is being built to handle all the commercial waste.. By VOLUME --- most of this is Medical and Industrial.. Nothing to do with the power industry.. Every Nuclear Med section of every hospital desposes of about 1000 lbs or more of "nuclear waste" every year.

This is long overdue and needs to get done as it was promised.

All those toxics I mentioned have LONGER "half-lives" than nuclear materials. They will also sit there for generations. We SHOULD take them more seriously. Sacrificing a couple sites to disposal does not concern me at all. There are arsenic laced ponds all over the Western desert. People DO obey the markings --- some which have been there since the 1800s. I don't see a problem.

If -- the govt were to allow fuel reprocessing --- as France and Japan and many others have -- we wouldn't even have the volume of fuel waste that we have now.. In fact, in 3rd gen reactors, there are several designs that use "pebble sized" fuel pellets that can be more easily recycled automatically.
 

Forum List

Back
Top