Franken backs nuclear power as Legislature mulls more plants

Franken has always been for Nuclear Power. I’m a little disappointed that the press did not do its homework on this, trying to reinvent himself as a moderate is also a bit unerving..
Here is a quote from Franken in 2007
“Here’s a controversial idea: nuclear. They use nuclear in Europe much more than we do, they use it in France much more, and nuclear does not give off greenhouse gases. It does give off (heckler interupted) I knew I’d hit a nerve. There is the waste and the waste has a half life of thousands of years, but I kind of think we’re going to be around for thousands of years to keep up the technology of storing it. This is a way of creating electricity that does not have greenhouse gases.”

DFL Progressive Caucus, 9.30.07

Hmmm.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/113637969.html

Consider this recent letter to the editor of the Minneapolis Star Tribune; I wonder if this “Generation IV fast reactors” and claims of proliferation-resistancy and only 300 years of storage compared to 300,000+ years are “too good to be true.”

The issue of nuclear wastes as well as Chernobyl/Three Mile Island contamination risks still must be addressed. The green energy industry in Minnesota is still young; wouldn’t the billions and billions by both taxpayers and ratepayers be better spent on this industry than in building ONE or TWO nuclear power plants with the former likely resulting in MANY MORE jobs long-term?

The letter now:

—–
I thank two recent letter writers for commenting on my energy position.

While many people still claim that conservation together with wind and solar will solve the world’s energy problems, they are dead wrong. Generation IV nuclear power, along with modern fuel recycling, are the only energy technologies that can be developed rapidly enough and to sufficient scale to meet the world’s enormous need for energy and eliminate our very dangerous nuclear “waste” problem.

So called nuclear waste is really not a waste at all, but a valuable fuel asset worth trillions of dollars. U.S.-developed recycling can reduce both the storage time and the quantity of this waste and in the process produce fuel for Generation IV fast reactors. The dangerous long half-life material is reduced by 98 percent, and the present 300,000-year storage requirement is reduced to a very manageable 300 years.

The entire process is proliferation-resistant and never presents dangerous weaponsmaking possibilities. The new fuel produced is purposely made too hot to handle and is useless for weapons. A core meltdown, as occurred at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, is not possible in a Generation IV fast reactor.

The strengths and weaknesses of all energy sources should be more clearly presented to the public by our nation’s experts in order to expeditiously get on with a sensible national energy program. Our children are counting on it, and time is running out.

JOE SHUSTER, NEW PRAGUE

The writer is the author of “Beyond Fossil Fools: The Roadmap to Energy Independence by 2040.”
—–

I welcome the development of new nuclear power systems. The environmental damage done by 40 years of UNNECESSARY fossil fuel burning is far worse than a hundred Chernobyls.

I wouldn’t be so quick to trivialize the environmental damage and health risks that still persist from Chernobyl.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2010/08/13-1

The first two paragraphs:

“It’s been 24 years since the catastrophic explosion and fire occurred at Chernobyl in the Ukraine. The accident required nearly a million emergency responders and cleanup workers. According to a recent report published by the New York Academy of Medicine nearly one million people around the world have died from Chernobyl fallout.

“Now we are finding that threats to human health and the environment from the radioactive fallout of this accident that blanketed Europe (and the rest of the world to a lesser extent) will persist for a very long time. There is an exclusionary zone near the reactor, roughly the size of Rhode Island (1000 sq kilometers), which because of high levels of contamination,people are not supposed to live there for centuries to come. There are also”hot spots” through out Russia, Poland Greece, Germany, Italy, UK, France, and Scandinavia where contaminated live stock and other foodstuff continue to be removed from human consumption.”

Imagine this happening to the Twin Cities area. Most of my huge family live within 75 miles of the Twin Cities; consequently, I am not supportive of nuclear power UNTIL both issues of nuclear wastes and contamination risks are actually addressed and dealt with.

We can plant more trees and engage in other projects to sequester carbon. But as far as I know, we don’t have anything really to clean up radiation contamination.

Lane, you have to consider the source.

Common Dreams dot org is a communist website whose mission is to spread commie lies. One of the most common commie lies is that nuclear power isa bas thing. This old meme is left over from the Cold War days when the Kremlin directed all its operatives in the west generally, and the U.S. specifically, to do everything in their power to stop the development and proliferation of nuclear technology … technology that would be instrumental help destroy the old soviet union when the two superpowers inevitably clashed in WW3.

The Cold War’s over. We won. The old soviet operatives never got the memo that they can stop the propoganda and move on.

I’m glad Al Gore’s finally bringing idiots like Franken up to speed.

“is a bad thing” (dang giant fingers.)

Really!

http://www.commondreams.org/about-us is self-explanatory. Dennis, comments like yours confirm in my mind god’s infinite wisdom in not granting us immortality while we are still alive. Out with the old, in with the new!

Lane, your Maine “social justice activists” are examples of those whom I mentioned who didn’t get the memo. You are either very young, very naive, or both, but amusing nonetheless.

Disappointed in Al Gore if he told him that. Nuclear is not green. Doesn’t sound like something he would tell him based on his comments recently and on Capitol Hill.

@Lane – Modern nuclear plant designs are VERY safe. I am a dyed in the wool liberal and I WANT nuclear power.

So sorry to disappoint Dennis in that I am neither young nor naive.

Katie, what do the “modern” plant designs offer in the way of failsafe technologies that the older facilities don’t have? Unfortunately, nuclear waste still is VERY UNSAFE; we just don’t know what to do with them. If both of these issues are addressed upfront, then my reservations about pursuing nuclear power plant would be greatly diminished. You know, that old saying “Measure twice, cut once” definitely applies here.

As I said elsewhere on this blog, I came across online accounts though admittedly not confirmed as credible yet in my mind of European nuclear entities taking advantage of the current lawlessness to dump countless barrels of nuclear waste in Somali waters. Try googling on “nuclear waste Somalia” and decide for yourself.

I applaud Al Franken for his support of expanded nuclear power. Energy independence is critical to our country’s economic viability. Building more nuclear power plants will not only result in lower carbon emissions but also create a number of good-paying and often unionized jobs. Most of us in the labor movement have always supported nuclear energy due to the economic benefits.

Planet Killer Lane,

First, the ‘study’ of Chernobyl that you quoted has not stood up to peer review. There estimations are way to high. I have no idea why New York Academy of Medicine published this ‘study’ when it ran so counter to all other peer reviewed scientific studies. I have no answer but to ask question posed in from a great American book of literature Atlas Shrugged who is John Galt?

I could also tell you the countless ways of why Chernobyl could never happen in the running of a commercial western nuclear plant but you probably know them already and you chose to ignore these facts. This is the point Lane defines you as a fear monger. You know peer reviewed science does not back up your position so you chose to fear monger about Chernobyl.

I will give you a fact that all anti nuclear fear mongers like yourself cannot refute and that is during the western production of nuclear power there has never been a death attributed to an acute radiation dose.

You also posed the question what makes the new generation of nuclear power safer than the current fleet of reactors. I will gladly answer this question though you will probably ignore it. During the successful running of EBR-II a fast reactor built at INL they ran a test where they lost all coolant and personnel. The result was that the reactor shut down by itself.

Fast integral reactors are good and I can see why one would think they are like you say “to good to be true.” But the facts that are stated about them have been demonstrated and yes they will produce only limited amount of non-actinide waste that will decay less than background in 400 years. Another amazing point is that Bill Gates thinks his fast reactor called Terra Wave which stays capped for 60 years until it runs out of fuel can reduce utility costs by half thus pulling 2.5 billion of the worlds population out of poverty.

Viva the Nuclear Renaissance,

Jfarmer9

@Lane – I am not a nuclear engineer, but I have friends who are. All modern reactor designs are created so that the reaction ENDS when all the control rods are inserted into the pile. The Chornobyl reactor was an extremely old design that was built very poorly, operated very poorly, and had insufficient safety measures to prevent a meltdown – let alone an explosive meltdown; it was the last reactor of its type even in the extremely nuclear-safety-lax Soviet Union.

The comparison of continued coal burning to nuclear accidents is NOT unintentional, either – in addition to their hefty carbon impact, coal-burning powerplants emit a nasty brew of toxic chemicals as well as radioactive particulates – at least with nuclear power, the radioactivity stays in one place!

That still leaves the pesky problem of what to do with the nuclear wastes.

Katie, I am curious as to how “modern” the Monticello and Prairie Island facilites are in terms of failsafe technologies which must also include human procedures as well. Also what do your friends know about the “Generation IV fast reactors” and “modern nuclear recycling” that results in storage requirements of only 300 years instead of 300,000+ years? I also would like to know what is meant by ” The new fuel produced is purposely made TOO HOT to handle …” If these are indeed for real, then why isn’t this relatively common knowledge? Thanks.

Given the young green energy industry that has yet to take off, it doesn’t make sense to exchange one set of environmental and health problems (dirty fossil fuels) for another set (nuclear power) given the vagaries of technology, human error and circumstance. Before we rush to embrace “sexy” nuclear power (“modern” plant designs and no effective way to deal with nuclear wastes), we should investigate the promise and potential of green energy including solar, wind and geothermal. As far as national security is concerned, green energy is far more decentralized compared to the small handful of nuclear facilities that can easily be taken out within the first few seconds of conflict leaving us vulnerable. Either way, billions and billions of dollars are at stake.

And Minnesota will still have to import the fuel rods, too. Hardly the answer towards energy self-sufficiency.

Side note: While biomass is part of the overall energy solution, I have mixed feelings about ethanol production using corn given the need for petroleum-based fertilizers, soil erosion and overall inefficiency in terms of energy inputs and outputs. There are also the ethical considerations of using foodstock for this purpose given the widespread hunger as well as the consequent driving up of food prices leading to unrest in poor countries …

Lane – I am also neither young nor naive. I have spent my entire career in a field where the importance of critical thinking and a questioning attitude is respected and strongly encouraged. For the record, I entered into the Navy Nuclear Power training pipeline soon after graduation from the US Naval Academy in 1981 and have been working in jobs tangentially associated with nuclear energy ever since.

Can you tell me just how many people have ever been hurt by exposure to the material that you call “VERY UNSAFE?” I will agree that exposure to unshielded nuclear material can be deadly, just as it is deadly to get too close to a combustion energy source. What I refuse to concede is that there is any danger to the general public from properly handled used nuclear material. We have been handling that material safely for more than 5 decades – we are getting better and better at doing so.

It should also be understood that there are plenty of wealthy and powerful people who have tens to hundreds of billions of dollars worth of incentives to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about nuclear energy. Like no other fossil fuel alternative, nuclear fission has REPLACED the need to burn coal, oil and gas in a number of different markets. The total amount of energy produced by fission today is about 30% more than the energy that is produced every year in Saudi Arabia. That energy pushed its way into the market over a very brief period of time and ran into an amazingly well funded and supported resistance campaign.

How does it feel to be on the same side as Gazprom and Aramaco?

@Lane – with regard to the “pesky” problem of used nuclear material, I hereby volunteer to store my share in my backyard. In fact, I have figured out that I can fit the share of a few million people in lot and still not interfere much with my ability to plant ornamentals.

I am not the only one who has made this offer publicly. James Lovelock, the developer of the Gaia Theory of the earth as a living system, has also stated that his garden would make a good place to store some of the concentrated used material.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/james-lovelock-you-ask-the-questions-411765.html

Mr. Adams, it’s not a matter of whose side I am on. Despite your credentials and background, what you said still does not address the pesky issue of what to do with the VERY UNSAFE nuclear wastes whether properly handled or not. As for storing such in your backyard, I don’t think that’ll do wonders for your property values; you’d probably be run out of town for endangering everyone else.

Hmmm. So John Farmer chose to denigrate my legitimate concerns as mere “fearmongering” instead of addressing those issues by supplying good information and citing the sources for that information for me and others to decide.

@Lane:

The answer of what to do with the pesky wastes is for us to keep doing exactly what we are doing today – taking care and precautions to keep the material in a predictable, safe, easy to store location.

The reason I ask whose side you are on is that there are only a very few choices for power if you want reliable energy – you can burn coal, gas, or oil or you can fission uranium, plutonium or thorium. There are a few lucky people in the world who live in a place that has the ingredients of adequate rainfall, vast tracks of land that can be permanently submerged and a difference in elevation that enables hydroelectricity to provide low cost, reliable power – as long as the government builds the required dams and other infrastructure. If you are healthy, have lots of chain saws and plenty of patience, you can also use burning biomass.

Other than fission and hydro, please ask yourself – what do all of those other power sources do with their waste? How long are the emissions from burning stuff going to be dangerous? Do they disappear or simply disperse? Is the solution to pollution REALLY dilution?

With regard to property values, it would be possible to purchase most of the town – at elevated prices – that I live in for just a fraction of the amount of money that is already accumulated in the Nuclear Waste Fund. However, we would not need that much land – you could safely and simply store all of the used nuclear material that has been produced during the past 50 years of power plant operation inside a standard football stadium. The parking lot would provide adequate security buffer zones.

Rod Adams

I am not necessarily anti-nuclear power, but I would be remiss as a responsible thinker if I did not raise these issues as I am now doing.

Why buy the town when we’ve got Yucca Mountain who I understand is now shut down despite the billions that was already spent developing it? Does this have to do with the newer technologies to recycle and reuse the nuclear waste? Is there any truth to the statement that the waste in its final, unrecyclable form requires only 300-400 years storage? If so, then this is much more palatable than the 300,000+ years …

Where would the waste be recycled/reprocessed? If that can be done at the same electrical generating facility, then that would be sweet!

Again, I still want to understand what is meant by ”The new fuel produced is purposely made TOO HOT to handle …”

@Lane – okay, it looks like we can have a sane conversation here.

I have never been a fan of the Yucca Mountain project and will never defend it. The reasons are too long for a post, but here is a link to an article I wrote nearly ten years ago titled “Yucca Mountain: Right Answer: Wrong Question”.

http://www.atomicinsights.com/FTROU/02-02-02.html

Last summer, I visited La Hague on the Normandy coast in France and watched fuel being recycled using technologies that have been around since before Jimmy Carter was elected president. The system works well already but it is being improved.

Soon after Carter was elected, after a campaign that was careful to paint him as a nuclear engineer, he issued a presidential order that made it illegal to recycle used nuclear fuel in the United States. That order turned a multi-billion dollar facility into a useless white elephant right before it was ready to enter into commercial operation.

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/07/spent-nuke-fuel-policy-5/

Interestingly enough, Jimmy Carter’s nuclear energy experience included a classroom training period between March 1953 and October 1953. His father passed away in July of that year and he resigned his commission to return to Plains, GA. The very first nuclear submarine that the Navy operated, the USS Nautilus did not even get underway on nuclear power until January 1955.

In other words, though this might come as a huge shock to you, Jimmy Carter’s campaign lied about his knowledge of nuclear energy. I think they did that so that his decision to hamstring the industry would not be questioned too much. I think that Carter’s nuclear energy policies had something to do with a two or three day meeting he had with Ralph Nader during the summer of 1976.

After that meeting, Nader announced that he was supporting Carter’s candidacy. Nader was already leading the Critical Mass Energy Project’s campaign against nuclear energy by that time. That effort started in 1974.

http://bit.ly/gF24ta

Rod Adams

I have just one thing to add, I would much rather live right next to a nuclear power plant than a casino indian or other.

Hey Lane: did I mention that I used to ride around in a nuclear submarine for a living?

Yep, I’ve logged about a year of my life (six, sixtyfive-day patrols) living, eating, sleeping within 100 feet of a nuclear reactor. Not to mention about 20 megatons of nuclear weapons. And my wife will attest that I don’t glow in the dark.

@Dennis – what boat were you on? I have a similar record – 11 patrols on two different ships, the second as the Engineer Officer.

Not only do I not glow in the dark, but neither do my children (both born while I was actively going to sea on subs). I am also kind of proud of my son-in-law, who just finished a tour on a fast attack submarine and was named squadron JO of the year in his final year on board.

Let me get this straight.

The great “progressive” hero, Senator Al Franken supports Nuclear Power? After having a discussion with the great “environmentalist” Al Gore?

Who was supported by lefty environmentalist groups.

Next thing you will tell us that the Sierra Club support politicians with egregious environmentalist records (like Bill Clinton and Al Gore who authorized Depleted Uranium weaponry, NAFTA, GATT, IMF, Open Pit mining the in the mid west and forestry in the north west) and support corporations like Clorox.

Oh wait, too late. Already happened. Never mind.

Dear God. The level of open complicity and naked cowardice of the so called left in this state and country is mind boggling.

Please, carry on with carrying water for those in power.

No wonder right wing fruitloops like Dennis and Company are not afraid of “progressives.”

Rod, I was on the USS Patrick Henry SSBN 599G from May 1969 to May 1973.

Navette.

Thank you for the links, Mr. Adams.

I admit to wondering for quite some time now why the U.S. doesn’t reprocess the nuclear wastes …

I continue to be very wary of the nuclear industry and associated politics. My concerns as a relatively non-involved, but definitely affected ordinary citizen still stand.

[...] former Vice President Al Gore for helping to change his position on nuclear. Read the full story here. Share Article | Permalink window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({appId: null, status: [...]

For those who want to learn more about Chernobyl, I recommend the article by
Zbigniew Jaworowski, a medical doctor and nuclear scientist who was in charge of radiation protection in Poland at the time of the accident:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Observations_Chernobyl.pdf

There is also a short news update on how Belarus is repopulating the Chernobyl
exclusion zone:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Belarus_Repopulation.pdf

Don’t take it so hard, Michael. What do expect from a comedy writer?

He should stick with what he knows and so far that rules out economics, taxes, the role of the FCC, and nuclear technology. Maybe someone will start a debate on who’s the funniest guy on late nite teevee.

@Dennis – You and Tim are competing to make my eyes roll right out of my skull, aren’t you?

Dennis

Well you easily win the funniest fruitloop award for the Minnesota “Independent.”

Grin

Lane,
First of all, I have been a nuclear operator since 1992. 6 yrs in the Navy, and the rest at a comercial power plant in Michigan( Palisades) Also, I have been studying nuclear power since juinior high. I am kind of a nut about it.
1) the reason the Navy does not reprocess is because their fuel is burned alot longer than comercial fuel, and is packaged different. It would be possible, because it is on an atomic level it is the same, but would physically be alot harder. Navy fuel is by design very robust.

2) Used nuclear wast is not “very unsafe” It is actually very managable. Yes, if we were to just drop a bundle in the parking lot, there would be issues. But after just 5 years, the amount of shielding required to drop radiation to background is really small. I was amazed when I saw our dry fuel storage casks getting loaded for the first time, and reading the NRC requirments for shielding. The radiation is very managable.

3) I only support Yucca if we don’t reprocess. But honestly, our CURRENT inventory of spent fuel throughout the country count support our reactors for almost 1000 years, depending on which type of reactor it is processed for.

4) Safety of our current fleet? My plant was designed in the mid 60′s. Right off the drawing board, safety modifications came into play, and they have not stopped. We are constantly Making our plants safer using newer tech and design. As built, this plant and all the others in the US were very safe from the get go. Even the unfortunate accident at TMI was really no danger to anyone. If the operators had left the plant alone, it would still be running today. But the containment did what it was supposed to do, and farmer browns cows were fine. There are so many exciting avances in Nuclear Power, and the US is getting further and further behind the rest of the world.
We need to get over it and move forward!

Please forgive me for my grammar and spelling, I am a better operator than I am a typist! LOL

Hey Ken, do you work with Homer Simpson?

It’s refreshing to have an informative dialogue instead of the usual snarkfest.

It seems to me that an information campaign conducted by a truly disinterested entity other than the nuclear industry/military and politicians would be in order if the “modern” plant designs are indeed truly safe – and the technology/know how exists to re-process the spent fuel. Such a campaign would include what-if scenarios to demonstrate safety among other things. Factors affecting its credibility would be any attempts at persuasion or omission of “inconvenient information” to the extent that our safety is not compromised – i.e. terrorists using some of that “inconvenient data” … If this can be accomplished despite today’s manipulative climate, that would go a long ways towards building consensus for the majority of us Americans – regardless of political stripes – to finally go forward with nuclear energy.

I am not interested in comparing nuclear energy to dirty fuels and such. I am far more interested in safety and actual versus perceived environmental / health risks in various scenarios as well as getting up to speed on the current state of technology and waste handling / re-processing. I do not want to see any “spokesman” or “politican” in this campaign as they know nothing except spin, and I so despise spin when it comes to important issues that affect all of us.

I want to be informed. I do not want to be entertained. I do not want to be persuaded by anyone; let the facts speak for themselves.

Not sure if I am being clear re: the “inconvenient information” …

To the extent that our safety and security is not compromised by dissemination of truly sensitive information, we need to know the dirt along with the glitter such as design weaknesses, unmet technical challenges, costs and such that have impacts on the overall safety and environmental / health risks. There is no such thing as perfect solutions in the real world. This is part and parcel of becoming truly informed citizens.

@Lane – I’m just curious – which disinterested parties would you want to hear from? I know a number of civil & nuclear engineers who agree that nuclear power is a safe, sustainable, and environmentally conscious choice.

Katie, an effective education campaign would use the perspectives and knowledge of civil and nuclear engineers as input since it is impossible for anyone to not develop a certain bias. Similarly, I am not interested in the rantings of an environmentalist who is not technically saavy and not able to credibly identify flaws in plant designs or technical nonfeasibilities in reprocessing waste. Nor am I interested in politicans or think tanks or anyone with agendas. For this campaign to be effective, that someone would have be able to present the admittedly “dry” information so as to truly inform and engage the average bloke on the street. That’ll be quite the challenge. I am thinking more along the lines of PBS’s NOVA than the fluff-to-fill-up-the-broadcast-time crap on the Discovery Channel.

Again, I just want the facts – pictures, diagrams, charts, animation to help better understand the scenarios, and so on. The nitty gritty stuff. None of the policies and politics. As for the history, that can be problematic, confusing and distracting. Just focus on the current state since that is what we need to address to be able to go forward. What is in the past is in the past – not much we can do about it.

Hollywood stars and famous personalities / voices – nah.

@Lane:

There is such a campaign going on that is not sponsored by any industry. It is not being run by “disinterested” people – that would be quite a stretch to get someone who is not interested to dedicate the time and the effort to undertake such a strenuous and time consuming task as changing several decades worth of a purposeful misinformation campaign.

it is not terribly humble of me to point to my own work, but you can start to find the campaign that I am talking about by visiting Atomic Insights (http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com) It the right hand column you will find a blogroll full of links to some amazing work being done by people with a passion for sharing the knowledge that they have gained.

The senior statesman of the bloggers on that list created a site called “Learning About Energy”. The man there is Ted Rockwell, a guy who was Admiral Rickover’s Technical Director during the creation of both the Nautilus and the Shippingport reactor. You can also find a blog by Gail Marcus, a woman who has served on the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is a past president of the American Nuclear Society (a fifty year old technical society, not an industry group). There are dozens of others out there whose only “commercial” aspect is running Google Adsense, an activity that might bring in a few hundred dollars per year for a well traveled blog.

Atomic Insights has been on the web almost as long as there has been a web; our first issue was published in April of 1995 as a paper newsletter, but it was posted in HTML by November of that year.

For the facts, pictures diagrams etc. I highly recommend Joseph Gonyeau’s Virtual Nuclear Tourist – http://www.nucleartourist.com/ or Jeremy Whitlock’s Canadian Nuclear FAQ. Both of those sites have been around as long as Atomic Insights and both are what is often called a “labor of love” by two knowledgeable nuclear professionals who simply want to share their fascination with nuclear energy.

I also recommend visiting Yes Vermont Yankee, Nuclear Green, Energy from Thorium, Canadian Energy Issues, Idaho Samizdat and the ANS Nuclear Cafe. I hope you have plenty of time, there is a TON of information out there just waiting to be discovered and shared. Since the sites I am pointing to all host comment systems, you should find plenty of people willing to answer any honest questions that you might have. It will not take you long to figure out that we all have our own points of view and we often challenge each other and argue about the best ways to make good use of atomic energy.

Admittedly, you will not have heard about this education campaign. We do not have much money, but we try to make up for it with cooperation, mutual support and plenty of links.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

@Lane:

I almost forgot to mention that Robert Stone is working on a project he calls “Pandora’s Promise”.

http://robertstoneproductions.com/pandoras-promise/

Just in case you have never heard of Robert, here is a brief bio: “An Oscar and Emmy nominated director and a two-time Sundance Grand Jury Prize finalist. He is one of America’s most acclaimed documentarians, known best for “Radio Bikini”, Guerrilla: The Taking of Patty Hearst”, “Oswald’s Ghost”, and “Earth Days”.

Here is the blurb from the site about the project:

“PANDORA’S PROMISE is a feature-length documentary about nuclear power and how mankind’s most feared and controversial technological discovery may ultimately hold the key to its very survival. Built around a number of in-depth interviews with several of the world’s leading environmentalists, scientists and energy experts, many of whom (like me) have undergone a metamorphosis in their thinking about nuclear power, the film will be brought to life through a wealth of incredible archival footage and original filming across the globe. Operating as history, cultural meditation and contemporary exploration, PANDORA’S PROMISE aims to inspire a serious and realistic debate over what is without question the most important issue of our time: how we continue to power modern civilization without destroying it.”

Robert would like people to remember what Pandora found at the bottom of the box.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora

Rod Adams

Hmmm. I hope Robert will see to it that PANDORA’S PROMISE is captioned as I am Deaf. Thanks.

Again, Mr. Adams, thank you for the links. I hope many other readers besides me will add them to their Favorites to visit when we have time.

We need the equivalent of a Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawkins to help “popularize” nuclear issues, to get the public engaged. That is the surest way to start to get beyond “the entrenched disinformation campaign” whose depths I am not yet aware of at this point in time beyond being merely “very, very wary …”

@Lane – I will pass on your request. I would be surprised if Robert has not already thought of that aspect of his film-making, but it is always bad to assume that someone has thought of everything.

I hope you enjoy the reading. Please say hello if you have any questions about what you read at Atomic Insights or any of the other sites of the pro-nuclear bloggers.

Rod Adams

@Lane,
Would you settle for founding father of modern environmentalism, Stewart Brand, and Co-Founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore? They are both adamantly pro nuclear now.

Also, Richard Branson and Bill Gates may not be intellectually on par with Hawking, but they are also fairly bright guys in their own right and both support nuclear power.

Also, I recommend you read and listen to John Horgan from Bloggingheads TV, John is a very intelligent person who was formerly (a year ago) anti nuke and after a video blog with Rod Adams and some due diligence of his own, published an article in Scientific American called ‘Nuclear Fall In, Why I’m Becoming a Pro Nuke Nut.’

Gentlebeings, I’d settle for facts. Just the facts and only the facts, ma’am. I am not big on personalities and their say-so’s – especially if they aren’t Minnesotans, but then we have plenty of our own wackos, too. Just point people like me in the right direction, and we’ll go from there.

FWIW, I already am in touch with some state legislators, urging them to check into this as well.

I was at a welcoming party for new hires at Bill Gate’s lakeside home in North Seattle long ago. It was all I could do NOT to offer to wipe his dirty glasses clean for him so he could see who he was talking with!?! Smiles.

The facts so presented would be comprehensive, up-to-date, appropriate to audience and peer-reviewed by those who actually work with plant designs and nuclear waste challenges. The goal is to inform and educate as to the technology itself thus establishing a working common understanding and vocabulary which is necessary for meaningful dialogue that is not owned by any entity – whether it be individual or organization. The dialogue would then move towards whether or not we should pursue additional research and development in nuclear technologies.

Given that technical details can be a bore to a lot of people, it behooves that the presentation be engaging and again, appropriate to the audience. Visuals help. Come to think of it, an invisible narrator with a clear voice would be most appropriate; to use a charismatic evangelizer would be to risk pulling a Michael Moore and thus needlessly politicize/polarize when what is needed is just that common understanding. After all, what is controversial about a fact such as 2 + 2 = 4?

Funding would have to come from disinterested parties to minimize potential controversy.

As for when to implement the latest technologies by building new facilities or upgrading existing ones or establishing/revising various laws, regulations, policies and tariffs, that would be for another time; after all, why do this if informed consensus and support is not there among the general populace? It would be at this time that comparisons between nuclear energy and dirty fuels would be appropriate.

Just some thoughts. In the meantime, I’ll do my best to check out all the links and sources so cited when I have time.

> The dialogue would then move towards whether or not we should pursue additional research and development in nuclear technologies.

This argument would not be part of the facts-only presentation. I am thinking in terms of some people watching this presentation, and then through word of mouth, others arrange to watch, and so the building up of momentum and resultant dialogue would then move on its own to the question of whether we should pursue additional R&D.

Al Gore is a politician, not an environmental scientist, despite his public positions on such issues. Sen Franken’s conversations with Gore on nuclear power were probably more political than fact-based. I find it regrettable that Franken’s message is so much based on the word “hope”. Hope this and hope that. Putting faith in technology. All baloney! The sort of baloney that gave us Barack Obama in the White House and the continuation and expansion of GWBush’s policies.

As a retired physicist, I can tell you, Sen Franken, nuclear power is an aggravation of our energy problems and not a solution.

Mr Franken, you are off my small list of respected MCs.

Ok and doesnt it take something like 10 to 20 years to build one? Until then how about some of those easy to build job creating wind farms.

“Mr Franken, you are off my small list of respected MCs.”

The idea that he was ever on your list should make you forfeit your Ph.D

heh heh

Do I detect jealousy on Dennis’ part that he is probably not on Alvin’s list of respected MCs?

But seriously …

> As a retired physicist, I can tell you, Sen Franken, nuclear power is an aggravation of our energy problems and not a solution.

This is very non-informative – especially from “a retired physicist.” How so?

In addition to the growing barriers to building new coal-powered and gas-fired electrical energy plants due to environmental and greenhouse gas concerns, consider this response I got from Rod Adams:

“The established nuclear industry is not exactly “salivating” at the prospect of any near term expansion; it has a modest goal of building the required capital base (which consists of adequate financial resources, a strong supply chain and an expanding base of “human capital”) to complete somewhere between 4-8 new units by 2020.

‘The leaders of the established industry favor a slow and steady approach to building the required momentum; they are part of the electric power industry and see little opportunity for much expansion of the overall market. Due to the recession, the demand for electricity has shrunk over the past couple of years instead of the normal steady growth as the population expands. Many corporate leaders in the established industry do not think that building enough new nuclear plants to enable shutting down existing, profitable coal plants is a good investment.

“I disagree with them; there are many good reasons for building enough new nuclear plants to enable replacement of existing fossil fuel plants. There are other nuclear technology advocates who agree that the established industry is too timid about telling people how nuclear can replace coal and natural gas. They have a conflict of interest; they make more money in the near term by operating existing facilities.

Building new plants is hard work and requires a large initial investment that takes time to pay off. A 50-55 year old CEO may not even see that investment begin to pay off before he retires.”

Finally, I like the idea of wind farms, but am concerned about issues such as reliability of electrical supply from this source given wind is variable, bird kills and reports of generator noise and visually-induced anxiety in people living next to or under wind generators.

First of all, it does not HAVE to take 10-20 years to build a plant. The delays are due legal attacks, petitions, hearings……… The physical construction does not take much longer than a comperable coal plant. There is not alot of difference between the 2, on the secondary side. On the heat generation side of the plant, we have alot more equipment, but that is just construction. They burn rocks to make heat, we have rocks that get hot when you put them in water.
Windfarms, tidal, solar; all should be part of the mix. But, they can’t be baseload units. Their output changes without our control, and the generators are not big enough to control voltage/vars. You need units like 600mw and up to hold up the grid.
Also, base load units can only hold up the grid for so many miles, so they are spaced out.
A unit like that is hydro, gas, bio, coal, or nuclear. Hydro is limited, have to be by a big river, and have an elevation change. the next three are “burn stuff” variety. That leaves nuclear. Current US Nuclear units need water, but the source can be varied. For instance: Palo Verde. 3 unit site, by Phoenix. They use the municipal “grey water”. They pipe it in, purify it, and use it. Then there a other types of commercial reactors that don’t need water; like High temp gas cooled. They use helium to cool the units. They still use water for the secondary side, just not as much. I am all for renewables in the mix, but just realize they can not replace the base load units.

More like hundreds of millions of years, the radioactive waste will be around!

And if we keep creating these poisonous wastes, I bet our species doesn’t survive another three centuries.

Anything living in this toxic waste in a hundred thousand years won’t resemble humans.

Put Gore and Franken together, and you have a critical mass of stupidity.

We’re safe here! An earthquake and a tsunami got no chance.