Pandora's Promise (2013) Reviews

• History, context, and reason.

  MEMangan2013-04-24

  I saw a showing of this film at MIT, paired with a discussion by the director, Shellenberger, and a nuclear scientist. The audience was probably an unusual crowd, and they laughed at parts that other folks likely won't. One of the researchers at MIT pointed out that most of this information is not new to anyone--that the facts and issues are really the same as scientists have known. But there was great appreciation that someone has chosen to try to tell the story to the general public. And to accomplish this in part with interviews from folks who had been opposed to nuclear power, and who consider themselves to be environmentalists, was effective and interesting. It was also helpful to have the historical context--how the fear of weapons became entirely tangled in the idea of the technology for non-military uses. But it also laid out the facts about how our craving for power has led us to burning fossil fuels that have harmed far more people than nuclear power ever has. And how France's reliance on nuclear means their carbon footprint is dramatically lower than that of the Germans, who think they are more environmentally friendly. It could open some minds. It could start some conversations. It's worth your time if you care about the atmosphere.

  More

• An Environmentalist's Dilemma - Rethinking Nuclear in the Global Warming Solution

  nebula-attack2013-04-19

  I am an advocate of objectivity in public policy debates: Attacking the Nebula and breaking through the fog of misconceptions. I found Pandora's Promise an excellent film to re-ignite the dialog and cause people to re-examine their nuclear/anti-nuclear positions; hopefully with objectivity. The film will not likely convert one from an anti-nuclear bent to a pro-nuclear one—the topic is too complex and emotionally deep an issue and an hour and a half is too short a time for a real debate. But rather, the film should cause people to question the whether or not their beliefs are based on sound-bites or by evidence. Environmentalists traditionally have been anti-nuclear particularly since nuclear pollution is such an emotionally frightening topic and not easy to put into context. It therefore is quite natural to believe that zero emissions is the right number. But as carbon dioxide, which was once considered a benign gas, enters into our public debate with greater concern and frequency, emissions of carbon dioxide, indeed any kind of emissions, become more and more relevant. This makes Pandora's Promise timely and relevant. By presenting environmentalists who once were anti-nuclear but now see it a different way, and by interviewing some experts in the nuclear field, Robert Stone, takes us through a journey of discovery, as we see how some of the most common perceptions about nuclear power have little connection to solid reason. The overarching theme of the film is that when presented with facts and well-grounded research—i.e. objectivity—old anti-nuclear positions can be reversed. As I watched the film, I made a few notes about some of the information presented and afterward spent a bit of time on the researching some of the points presented. Largely, I found good corroboration and am comfortable saying the film fairly addressed some of the many nuclear myths perpetuated over time. While the film is largely balanced, it does succumb to the temptation of attacking an extreme position in making its case. A "60 Minutes"-type ambush of the vocal anti-nuke Helen Caldicott, making her look the fool is not debate. She is a side-show with unsupportable viewpoints. Attacking her only serves to make a nuclear advocate rejoice, but does little to inform a thinking anti-nuke. Another weakness in the film is a shallow and overly narrow handling of nuclear technology. The film dwells far too long on the integral fast reactor (IFR). The advantages and disadvantages of an IFR is in of itself a wide and broad topic which could take many hours and days to adequately explore. But there is no IFR in operation nor in construction today, so it seems quite odd when speaking about the merits of nuclear power, so much time was spent on a reactor design which is not part of the nuclear infrastructure. So, while there is a great deal more to debate and discuss on the topic of nuclear power, Pandora's Promise presents a great case for a renewed debate, particularly amongst those interested in energy and global climate changes.

  More

• Another inconvenient truth

  lillau-712-6308642013-06-14

  Stone's earliest documentary used declassified footage acquired through the Freedom of Information Act to tell the story of the Bikini islanders and American servicemen affected by nuclear weapons testing. Pandora's Promise shows he remains a dedicated researcher twenty five years later. With captivating images of energy production from all over the world, Stone explores the contradictions of science and ideology related to climate change, urbanization, and nuclear power. The personal narratives of the people featured in the film provide an unapologetic point of view on disruption in the historic environmental narrative. Beautifully shot, enjoyable to watch, the film's highlighting of counter intuitive information will present inconvenient truths that inspire conversation after the credits roll.

  More

• A refreshing and balanced look at Nuclear Energy

  alasdair-386-6494432013-06-01

  As an Environmentalist, and someone who cares deeply about the fate of the planet, Pandora's Promise was a refreshing look at the reality of Nuclear Energy. As a society, we face some tough choices. The traditional environmental movement opposes Nuclear Energy, instead favouring Solar, Wind and other renewables. Unfortunately they cost considerably more than burning fossil fuels, and no amount of technological advancement will change this - it's just way too cheap to dig up coal and chuck it in a furnace. And that's exactly what's happening the world over. Over 1000 new coal plants are planned worldwide(1). Coal is a killer. Coal plants pump out far more radiation than nuclear power plants, due to the radioactive elements present in coal, which are released into the atmosphere by the burning. Particulates alone are responsible for over 13,000 deaths *per year* in the United States(2), and some estimates say over 100,000 deaths per year in China. This doesn't include coal mining accidents. Even the best coal mines in the US kill over 30 people per year(3). Coal mining killed over 6000 people in China alone in 2004 (3). Coal is a *killer*. We need to stop burning it. It has killed far more people than nuclear power ever has, and this is something that a lot of people in Environmentalist movement just simply ignore. Many Environmentalists claim to believe in science - certainly when conservatives deny climate change, environmentalists point to the science. Yet they bury their heads when it comes to Nuclear. Nuclear Energy has killed *zero* people in the United States (4). There were no deaths after the accident at Three Mile Island, and zero deaths as a result of Fukushima (4). Chernobyl was a catastrophic accident and indeed did lead to many deaths, 56 (4) direct deaths and potentially as many as 4000 premature deaths due to cancer (4), but these figures pale into significance next to the figures on coal. So how can the environmental movement be so opposed to nuclear? It just does not make sense. I am in favour of Wind and Solar power, but the wind and the Sun don't provide power 24 hours a day. There are no economic storage methods. We need base load power. We need cheap energy. So what can provide CO2 free, safe and cheap energy? Nuclear power can. It's a perfect ally of renewable power. Nuclear energy is a natural phenomena, it is responsible for 50% of the heat at the Earths core, without which the planet would be as dead as Mars - without a molten core, solar winds would strip the earth of it's protective outer layer. Existing Nuclear has many problems, but these are solvable. Unfortunately in the 50s and 60s the world settled on Light Water Reactors. These use Water as a coolant. Because water boils at 100^C, too low a temperature for efficient power production, reactors have to keep the water under pressure to get temperatures high, effectively creating pressure cookers kept at 300 atmospheres. This leads to high cost, and any fault results in steam escaping. In Fukishima, when it lost coolant, the high temperatures disassociated the hydrogen and the oxygen, creating an explosive gas mixture at the top of the building which is what exploded, spreading radiation particles from the reactor core. It just does not make sense to use Water as a coolant. Nor does it make sense to use solid fuels. All existing reactors use solid fuel, which results in incomplete burn up, approximately 1% of the fuel is used. This produces a large amount of spent fuel, which must either be reprocessed, or stored as waste. There are solutions. In the 60s, at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, a radically different design was developed, called the Molten Salt reactor. Unfortunately Pandora's Promise didn't cover this at all, but this design solves almost all the problems with existing nuclear power. In a Molten Salt reactor(6), rather than having solid fuel rods with high pressure water in a pressurised reactor container, you instead dissolve the nuclear fuel in a salt. Thanks to the salt being a liquid, the fuel circulates, allowing 99% of the fuel to be burned, producing just 1% of the waste of existing reactors. Because the salt is already molten, you can't suffer a "meltdown". If the reaction starts to go too fast and get too hot, the salts expand and the reaction slows down - it's inherently self regulating. A failsafe is to have a passively cooled drain tank attached to the reactor - a fan blows over the pipe between the reactor and the drain tank, freezing some of the salt in the tube. If the building loses all power, the fan stops, the plug melts, and the fuel drains into the tank. What's more, reactors of this type can be used to burn existing spent nuclear fuel. So with an MSR, you have completely safe nuclear energy, vastly reduced waste, with a vastly simpler design. MSRs can also use Thorium as a fuel instead of Uranium, an element as abundant as Lead that's safe to hold in your hand and is produced as byproduct of mining, making it free - people will pay you to take it away. I'd highly recommend people who care about the environment watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4 Not all nuclear power plants are equal. Nuclear Power is as far as I'm concerned, humanity's last hope to avoid catastrophic runaway climate change, and I'm desperately fearful that we won't embrace it. If we don't embrace it, the planet is doomed. References: 1: http://goo.gl/DIksK 2: http://goo.gl/0g8kF 3: http://goo.gl/DOXyb 4: http://goo.gl/B17dt 5: http://goo.gl/i8Qc1 6: http://goo.gl/1LxQs

  More

• Compares normal everyday locations to so called "hot" areas.

  malteserick2013-06-03

  This movie is a wake up about nuclear energy. It explains common misconceptions about nuclear energy. The speakers are all convincing and at least one of them goes through his transition (like the others interviewed he was once anti-nuclear and becomes pro nuclear) during the Fukushima crisis. All those interviewed care very much about what has been happening to the environment and the effect it will have on our future if steady and growing amounts of CO2 and other pollutants and green house gases continue. Since nuclear plants emit no CO2 they can replace coal very effectively. Robert Stone is a respected documentary maker and his successful Radio Bikini was an Oscar nominee in 1988. I think the most effective moments in the film are when the dosimeter is used to measure radiation. The areas that trigger radiation are not anywhere near a plant. There is natural radiation where we don't expect to detect it that measures very close to that of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Not only did the subjects interviewed have a change of heart but so did the director. These environmentalists are pro nuclear because they recognize that renewable energy is just too sparse and difficult to ramp up because of the low density of the power sources.

  More