In this documentary mainly experts who used to be anti – nuclear talking about both sides of the argument for and against nuclear power to show how nuclear power has had many misconceptions and the facts can change a anti -nuclear activists minds. As a summary of some of the points made in this movie. Experts like Gwyneth Cravens, Mark Lynas an activist and environmentalist, Michael schelenberg, Richard Rhoads, Stewart Brand and Len Koch. Koch was the pioneer nuclear engineer for the argon national lab. This lab on December, 20th 1951 lit a light bulb with nuclear energy and started the nuclear energy movement. Those against nuclear energy in the beginning of the documentary argued that solar, wind, geothermal and ocean thermal are renewable energy sources available to us now and that no other energy source can leave such large areas contaminated like in the Fukushima Disaster. During this time fear of a nuclear fall out and the bad reputation nuclear energy was getting from the use of the nuclear bomb made the nation think of nuclear as primarily a weapon. This early nuclear opposition is thwarted by facts that nuclear is an unlimited source of energy and one pound of uranium is equal to 5,000 barrels of oil.
Rhoads explained that there are two types of nuclear reactors:
1. Breeder which uses and reuses its own supply of plutonium
2. light water reactors produce much more waste and where marketed first as a stepping stone for the use of the breeder but the commercialization of the nuclear reactors did not account for the amount of waste coming from these light water reactors. although later in the movie they claim that the waste is contained and is not causing any problems and that all the spent fuel would fit into a football field seized space and only 1/4th of that would have a life span that would negatively effect us.
In 1956 in Pennsylvania the first commercial nuclear plant opened mainly because of the cleaner option of nuclear power. When three mile island occurred here and shortly before a movie called China Syndrome came out in which apocalyptic results from a nuclear fall out happened (a hole so big it cut to china, regardless of the fact that China is not geographically on the opposite side of the world) fear arose again from the nation about nuclear plants. Fear began to shut down reactors as a result of three mile island.
.
In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol happened trying to make a unified world decision about what to do regarding global warming, by now widely accepted as fact. this created a “seductive narrative” that lowering emissions would happen just like the graphs shown during the conference. It was proposed to make fossil fuels more expensive which most people knew would not happened realistically. No global treaty could be made resulting in a lack of action taken world wide to aid in global warming.
It is at this point in the documentary that we really see pople like Gwyneth Cravens change their mind about nuclear energy. It is the gap between fossil fuels and renewables that make people like her take a second look at nuclear as a viable option for energy reform. It is problems with wind and solar energy not working all the time and being dependent on nature that nullify them as able to be used on a larger energy scale. Not to mention that nuclear is the second safest resource after wind and is surprisingly safer than solar panels which are highly dangerous to make!
We now realize that there is a correlation between quality of life and access to electricity, as quality of life rise in places like China and Brazil energy demands rise as well. By 2050 we need to replace the infrastructure of energy in order to keep up with the growing demand of energy and the growing population of the world with access to energy.
Also shockingly surprising was that coal is said to be the fastest growing use for energy and that most people don’t understand the extreme risks of burring coal or the death rates. 3,000,000 people die each year from it !
Perhaps the most potent point I think made in this documentary was the levels of naturally occurring radiation. If you eat one banana a day you will get more radiation poisoning than if you drank the tritium water that comes from a power plant. Background radiation effects all of us all the time ! A zero tolerance for radiation doesn’t make any sense according to one expert, all over the world we usually get more radiation naturally than we would from a power plant. We have seen no correlation between people who live in naturally occurring high background radiation areas and cancer.
On the other hand we have seen that when a nuclear reactor goes wrong it goes very wrong like with Chernobyl in April of 1986 the surrounding town was evacuated and is still mostly a ghost town frozen in time. Although the reality of Chernobyl is different than the perceptions we have gotten from the media. the death tolls are way less than reported by most anti- nuclear protesters but there is solid evidence from multiple certified organization that the death toll for Chernobyl is below 100. Chernobyl’s style of reactor was inherently unsafe and could have been prevented, there is no reactor in the west made from this style. In addition Radiation levels in Chernobyl in 2012 where .92 lower than the natural background levels measured in Brazil or lower than the levels we receive when we fly on a plane.
Efforts have been made to create a fool and accident proof reactor. in the 80’s they designed a reactor that could resist any accident that could happen and they tested this IFR in the circumstances of Fukushima and three mile island which all had problems with cooling systems which caused the disasters in the first place. The IFR reactor can shut itself down automatically with no action required making it impossible to have a melt down plus it recycles its energy again and again in the breeder design above. Unfortunately for the supporters of projects like the yucca mountain dispose site or the IFR style reactor, these program got shut down due to government politics and the disagreement between republican and democrats.
We now look to France’s model for nuclear energy to solve our energy problems. 80% of France’s energy is nuclear making it the greenest country. Per capita it produces only 5 tons of carbon monoxide where Germany produces 10 tons.
This documentary gave an all inclusive look into how attitudes for and against nuclear energy has changed since the 50’s it is clear that it is up to this generation to decide weather to revolutionize the energy system by switching to nuclear or not. It is certainly clear we must do something about global warming, unfortunately nuclear energy still has it pros and cons in the eyes of some. Overall the documentary was incredibly engaging and I enjoyed it even though I didn’t think I would. they made valid points throughout and was clearly in support of nuclear energy. I’m still a bit skeptical if all the information is valid but certainly made me stop and think about the pros and cons of nuclear energy.
