Rod Adams on the Impact of Pandora’s Promise

Impact of Pandora’s Promise. Here’s Rod:

I recently saw an exceptional commentary about Pandora’s Promise from a man who asked to be identified as ‘an angel working in the clean-safe-nuclear field’. He gave me permission to share this.

By the way, this movie Pandora’s Promise shows the path of prominent Green leaders towards the pro-nuclear position.

It is likely to be influential among people who respect these leaders. And useful to nuclear power advocates, green or otherwise.

(…) The point I would make, that the movie fails to make strongly enough, is that what we really need is leadership.

We need an Eisenhower or John F. Kennedy to set the goal of clean safe cheap energy technology within 5 years, and appoint young engineers and scientists to accomplish it.

(…) 

Leadership — exactly right. The US President is in the best position, and actually has the power to make this happen. E.g., to build the IFR through to utility scale pilot (that’s the easy part). More important, he has the power to bring together the US+EU+UK to work with China, India etc. to ramp up mass production of clean nuclear fast enough to really slash the amount of GHG from the coal plants that will otherwise be built. It just needs vision and political will. Sounds like “hope and change” to me.

4 thoughts on “Rod Adams on the Impact of Pandora’s Promise

  1. I have strong reservations about the IFR; I do not like the idea of using sodium for cooling. Na is highly reactive and although a Na fire might not endanger the public, it could be a disaster for the investors. There have been attempts to make it work and those attempts have not been successful although it may be that if there were no suitable alternative, it could be made practical. However, I think that there is at last one better alternative that should be tried first.

    It looks as though the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is probably the way to go. If that falls too far short of its promise, then perhaps the IFR would be the way to go since, in spite of the risks of Na cooling, at least it would solve the nuclear waste problem and eliminate the need for enriching uranium.

    In any case, we need something better than PWRs.

    • I’ll see whether I can order the book. I strongly believe in being well-informed on all sides of issues.

      I read the book “Prescription for the Planet” by Tom Blees; he is, or was, a strong advocate of the IFR. However, I thought that he was a bit Quixotic. The idea of having nuclear “embassies” or whatever he called them, in remote areas, and staffed by international nuclear professionals who would rotate from one site to another, seems unrealistic. Family life and community life would be impossible. But perhaps “Plentiful Energy” puts forth a different approach.

Comments are closed.