Elephant in the room. Nuclear is a solution.

Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

17 Comments

  1. Looks like a interesting flick. It would be nice if the website for it could set up some kind of pay per view – that wasn’t too expensive and available to all. I wouldn’t mind shelling out a few buck there especially knowing a good percentage was going to an actually well read and up to date artist.

    A link from the movie site that probably should be required reading:

    The Great Schism in the Environmental Movement ( http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/modern_green_movement_eco_pragmatists_are_challenging_traditional_environmentalists.html )

    Good post. Nice T-shirt too.

  2. Rod,
    I believe the burn-up number is now around 60,000 MWD/Mt. It is also important to note that the energy value of spent fuel is ~ 4 times it’s weight in gold…and it’s all owned by the government eventhough we (the rate payers) paid for it and pay to dispose of it. What a SCAM!

  3. Regarding the highjacking of his copyrighted intellectual property name by the craven radiophobes using pandoraspromise.org, I think Mr. Stone has an excellent cause for legal action.

    I hope he, and other nuclear organizations being routinely slandered, become more aggressive in turning this remedy back onto their tormentors.

    1. @Atomikrabbit,

      I really doubt that legal action would go anywhere. They are now considered public figures not private citizens so you are allowed to lie about them to your hearts content and no legal action is permitted. The concept of slander is nearly gone from modern society. I can’t think of a case where someone actually won when their name and ideas were twisted into strange forms.

      1. If Stone has trademarked Pandora’s Promise, he can probably start something with the ICANN dispute resolution mechanism and get the domain re-assigned to him.

    2. Regarding legal action against Beyond Nuclear – it would probably just be counterproductive. Ever heard of “The Streisand Effect”? That’s where you draw attention and sympathy to something or someone by being a bully (or at least perceived as being a bully), and so hurt your own cause, ultimately.

      No, just keep promoting the movie, and ignore then Beyond Nuclear folks. As for their claims about the IFR and the people featured in the documentary, just present the facts to folks.

      Remember, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think.

    3. I kinda like that they did it. Typical Green dishonesty. Someone open minded and intelligent enough to seek out the film will understand what is going on and isn’t going to appreciate that kind of nonsense wasting their time.

      1. Robert Stone is a ‘Green’. I think that is a term that has gotten a bit too general. It may feel cozy to use it, but if you want other ‘Greens’ like Stone to change their mind, it might be worth dropping this terminology and be a bit more specific.

        1. So am I, in a way I guess. I use it now to mean the political types that associate with the political “Green” platform. ( http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2012/ecological-sustainability.php ).

          I think since they are the organized “Green” political organization they may in effect own the word, In which case id rather just toss it out with the bathwater so to speak.

          “Greens” dont change their minds that I have seen. They remove themselves from that insanity. I dont look back.

  4. There is another interview with Stone at http://youtu.be/O_zQnDeKW-E, starting about 27:00.

    It is worth 12 minutes of your time, as he announces he is out of the film business and wants to do nothing now but promote the environmental benefits of atomic energy.

    A candidate for the Atomic Show podcast?

  5. Terrific !! This is the way things are going to be turned around. Environmentalists with an open mind. These are very influential people.

    The Directors Note at the pandoraspromise.com website is great reading.

    And, read this review of the movie by Owen Gleiberman at EW Weekly:

    http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/01/24/why-is-the-way-way-back-a-crowd-pleaser/

    The first part is about another film, but read down. I would have posted the whole thing, but kind of long, and I suppose there might be copyright issues. Anyway, the review is fantastic, thoughtful and persuasive (at least that one should see the film).

  6. Title of Gleiberman’s Review:

    Sundance: What makes ‘The Way, Way Back’ a crowd-pleaser? Plus ‘Pandora’s Promise,’ a radically sane and important documentary about how nuclear power could save us

  7. Found out about you on DNR… great show BTW.

    Perhaps you can address an issue you raised here about the tremendous amount of profit companies make.

    Why aren’t these companies like Exxon and BP investing in nuclear as well? Wasn’t Exxon billing themselves as an “energy” company recently rather than an “oil” company? Or where they just blowing smoke (get it)?

    It seems Inevitable that there WILL be a switch away from oil/gas to nuclear, they can lead, follow or get out of the way.

    1. @PilotBob

      Thank you for the kind words.

      My guess is that oil and gas companies are plagued by what Clay Christensen would describe as “the innovator’s dilemma.” They are making such enormous profits in their current business that they would be risking a great deal of money if they helped to enable nuclear energy to be more viable in the market.

      A large portion of their profits is based on the perception that energy is scarce. Imagine what ExxonMobil’s quarterly income statement would look like if oil prices had just kept pace with inflation since 2000. Back then, oil was selling for less than $20 per barrel; it had been holding at that level for about 15 years. With inflation, it should be selling for less than $35 per barrel now if the scarcity perception did not exist.

Comments are closed.