Nuclear Debate 15 - Pandora's Promise Movie Promotes Nuclear Power
The nuclear industry is trying hard to resurrect itself. There is a publicity push from the U.S. industry association as well as many U.S. politicians to convince the public that there is nothing to worry about despite concerns over the Fukushima disaster. Opponents are fighting back with their own publicity push to highlight the shortcomings of nuclear power.
There is a new movie out about nuclear power that was partly financed by our local Seattle billionaire, Paul Allen. His Vulcan Productions company just released Pandora’s Promise. In the movie, there are interviews of scientists and former opponent of nuclear power who are all calling for a nuclear revival. Their arguments are familiar even if some are not valid and others are not specific to nuclear power.
The argument that coal and oil generation needs to be replaced is certainly true but there are other alternative sources that are not as dangerous as nuclear and are renewable. As far as the argument that the new generation of reactors is safer and cleaner, that might be true in theory but remains to be proven in practice. With respect to the problem of nuclear waste, they acknowledge that it exists but suggest that it has been exaggerated. That is an interesting argument given that the spent nuclear fuel pools at the U.S. reactors are rapidly filling up, temporary storage is problematic and will be expensive and there will be no permanent geological repository in the U.S until at least 2048. The film trots out the old argument that no one has ever died from a nuclear accident. While this might be true in the sense that no one was killed at the time of the major accidents, biological damage from released radiation can take decades to emerge in the form of cancers and other illnesses. Global warming is mentioned and the film points out that nuclear power plants will reduce carbon emissions. When the numbers are run for the whole fuel cycle, the construction and the out gassing of the massive amounts of concrete at a nuclear power plant, the amount of carbon dioxide released is actually much greater that the supporters of nuclear power suggest. It is also true that China and India have growing energy demands, but both countries are exploring alternative sources of energy. In addition, a focus on conservation in buildings and efficiency in appliances and equipment will reduce demand for power.
The biggest problem with the film is the fact that no one interviewed who is allowed to rebut the pro-nuclear arguments in the slick well-made film. Absent good arguments against nuclear power, many people would find this presentation a compelling argument for supporting an expansion of nuclear power generation. In reality, this film is a very slick and well produced pro-industry advertisement. Anyone who thinks that it is a sober and balanced assessment of the pros and cons of nuclear power is sadly mistaken.
