Pandora's Promise - Official Trailer [HD] - In Theaters This June

Richard Rhodes: Pulitzer Prize Winner and author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb has, for too long, "...avoided looking at the whole picture..."

Stewart Brand: His book Whole Earth Discipline begins with "We are as gods and HAVE to get good at it".

Mark Shellenberger: "modernist" or "eco-pragmatist". Named a Time Magazine 'Heroes of the Environment (2008)'. 

Mark Lynas: Contributor to Channel 4's What the Green Movement Got Wrong" . He suggested that opposition by environmentalists, such as himself, to the development of nuclear energy had speeded up climate change.

"...can you be an environmentalist and not be pro-nuclear?.."

Pandora's Promise - Official Trailer [HD]

Electricity Generated from Fossil Fuels Kills Millions - Who Cares?

Macabre Indifference:
Gruesome and horrifying lack of concern. 

Accurate, justified description of the vast majority of energy users. We really don't give a you-know-what where the energy comes from, as long as it's there 24/7, on demand.

So - will a peer-reviewed paper, claiming nuclear power has saved  1,840,000 deaths elicit more than a mass shrug of the shoulders and a concealed "So What"? I doubt it!

                                                  

Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power

"...Their numbers come from calculating how many people would have likely died due to air pollution over the years, but didn't, because electricity was created by non-air polluting nuclear power plants instead..."

"...Kharecha and Hansen argue that burning coal over the years that nuclear power has been used as a viable energy source, (since 1971) instead of building nuclear plants would have led to deaths from lung related ailments from both the mining of coal, and burning it to create electricity. They have then used the number of deaths in the past from such ailments to project numbers in the future. They say that if the world would convert to all nuclear power by the middle of this century, 420,000 to 7 million deaths could be prevented. The numbers vary so much because they would depend on which energy source nuclear power would replace. Their overall point is that nuclear energy is much safer than coal—when looking at raw death numbers—and therefore should be seen as a replacement source for electricity generation, rather than as menace that should be abolished..."

Parliamentarian: A buffoon or jester who entertains by jokes, antics, and tricks in a circus, play, the Houses of Parliament, or other presentation.

Could any highly paid, professional body of people come up with such a pathetically comical statement as this, and not be compared with clowns:

"...it is worrying that DECC does not have any contingency plans in place for the event that little or no new nuclear is forthcoming. Crossing one’s fingers is not an adequate or responsible approach when the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments and energy security are at stake. For a department whose principal priorities are to ensure energy security and carbon reductions, DECC appears to be overly reliant on aspiration and hope. While we share the Minister’s hope that new build will be delivered as planned, we nevertheless recommend that DECC begins exploring contingency options as a matter of urgency..." 

---------------------------------//------------------------------------

The above statement comes from Para 5 of 'Recommendations' of this Report, 

from the Energy and Climate Change Committee: 

Building New Nuclear: the challenges ahead

---------------------------------------//----------------------------------------

Climate Change Commitments - A Joke! What difference would it make to the outcome, if the UK did not generate another single kilogram of carbon dioxide? - Not one Jot! But what a good way to collect votes, if you give every interested party a bit of what they want. It may mean another 4 or 5 years in a job.

I Repeat

IT'S THE ENERGY SECURITY STUPID!

"...don't say No Nuclear Power, say Better Nuclear Power..."

Sundance 2013. Robert Stone - Ondi Timoner

The interview with Robert Stone starts at 27:10.

28:40 Robert Stone: "...the core reason why people are against nuclear energy is because they conflate it with nuclear weapons..."

29:54 Ondi Timoner: "...nuclear....this big scary thing....it may actually be the only thing that saves us from climate change..."

31:01 Robert Stone: "...I have no problem with wind power. I have no problem with solar power....you just can't power the world as it is now, with those; they just can't scale..."

31:14 Robert Stone: "...by 2050 we're going to need 3 times the energy that we have now - 3 times..."

31:58 Robert Stone: "....an enlightenment environmentalism....we're here, there's gonna be 10 billion of us....we're not gonna be retreating....the reality is we're gonna keep encroaching....how do we make that encroachment as environmentally benign as possible..."

32:20 Robert Stone: "...DON'T SAY NO NUCLEAR POWER, SAY BETTER NUCLEAR POWER..."

38:59 Ondi Timoner: "...there are not that many great films that could spark a movement. this is one of those films..."

Robert Stone's Website for the Documentary

"PRISMs to Power the UK" open for business!

Here's the link:  PRISMs to Power the UK

I do hope I can get UK LFTR advocates to come on board with part-time support, for what I regard as the entrée technology for the UK's ultimate switch, in two or three generations, to wall-to-wall LFTR power.

Our short term budget for PWR spending for our 'New Nuclear', could surely be better spent on the equivalent PRISM generating capacity.

Politicians eh! Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em! Let's hope David Cameron can reverse Bill Clinton's dire decision, nearly 20 years ago, to halt IFR progress - energy wars, what energy wars? 

PRISM is almost here and now! The UK can lead the world into the Breeder Reactor era.

Maybe before the turn of the century, LFTRs will become the pre-eminent power source for the rest of this millennium and millennia to come.  In terms of the benefits which can accrue to the UK, there isn't a ha'p'orth of difference between LFTRs and PRISMs, but the timescales are miles apart. Cold reasoning leads me to conclude that in the very near future, PRISM deployment for commercial electricity generation can become a reality for the UK, whereas LFTR technology will surely be the prerogative of the USA or China. 

We have the technical/design capabilities and the manufacturing capacity here in the UK,  to manufacture PRISMs in their entirety and if we can lead the way in this technology, the benefits to our manufacturing industry, growth and prosperity are dream-worthy.                        

Over the past couple of years I have sadly concluded that nothing much will happen in the UK, by way of Government or private investment in LFTR technology, in the next 2 or 3 decades.

I am persuaded however, that there is an opportunity for the UK to start the world on a course to widespread breeder reactor deployment, by dint of our Government's approach to GE Hitachi, to use their PRISM Breeder Reactor to solve our plutonium stockpile problem.

I have contacted GE Hitachi through the website, with the following request:

----------------------------------------------------//-------------------------------------------------
I am going to start blogging in the UK, in support of your endeavours to persuade the UK Government to use your PRISM reactor to solve our uranium stockpile problem.

I am particularly convinced by the strength of the arguments, for PRISM to alter public perception of nuclear power, advanced in this recent 'white paper': The Case for Near-term Commercial Demonstration of the Integral Fast Reactor

The aim of my blog will be to argue for an urgent adoption by our Government of your current proposal and my hope is that we will lead the world into the inevitable era of worldwide breeder reactor deployment, for the equitable, clean, plentiful, safe and secure provision of energy for all.

Beyond, what I hope will be your first success, I will be following a blog objective of ultimately powering the UK, to the exclusion of fossil fueled and unjustifiable wind powered sources. Around 30 PRISM Power Blocks of 600 MWe each, will provide all the UK's future electrical energy needs and subsequently, with public perception changed by, say, 5 or 10 years of success of the first PRISM, I think a strong campaign could be mounted.

My reason for contacting your PR department is to ask if I could be kept up to date with the latest PRISM developments, with particular regards to your UK proposals, by way of public/press announcements, newsletters, etc.?

Hoping to hear from you soon.

Regards,

Colin Megson.

-----------------------------------------------------//------------------------------------------------
I will be switching soon to:  PRISMs to Power the UK

Anyone fancy taking this blog over, or taking up the UK LFTR banner with another UK based blog?

Radiation (the lack of it) could impact 1 in 3 anti-nuclear proponents.

More than 1 in 3 (4 in 10) people in the UK will develop some form of cancer during their lifetime.

This blog has established that believing any form of radiation is evil, offers no level of protection whatsoever.

An exhaustive poll carried out on behalf of this blog has established that 99.99% of of anti-nuclear proponents, with morbid fears of radiation, will refuse all forms of radiation therapy, should they develop cancer.

Of the 3 anti-nuclear proponents interviewed for the poll, 2.9997 of them (that's 99.99%) said they would refuse radiation therapy should they ever be diagnosed with cancer. The Grim Reaper will surely knock at the door of one of the 3 interviewees when the malice of his or her untreated cancer has undergone its course.
Some people may think this might not be a bad thing, but I take the contrary view and think it's a good thing - - - that is, they stick wholeheartedly to the principles, to the very end!

Extrapolating our blog findings to the anti- nuclear population as a whole, Dylan Ryan, a self-designated "Energy Guru", with anti-nuclear credentials having particularly vitriolic and verbose characteristics,  will surely carry the banner of "Say No to Radiation Therapy". He will do so with a pride and passion befitting his morbid fear of invisible, evil (but easily detectable) radiation.

But why single out Dylan Ryan? - - - Well, not being a particularly diligent blogger myself, I don't pay a lot of attention to 'Comments' coming after my posts. But, all of a sudden, after a trawl through them, I suddenly find Dylan Ryan in 'Parasitic Wasp'-mode, depositing his blog link 'eggs' all over the place.

After our last confrontation:  Dylan Ryan of Glasgow, Age 32. Speaks English, and writes it very verbosely indeed.  I thought I'd done with him, because I've never wasted another second of my time looking at his useless blog.

Now since I don't pollute your blog with my pro-nuclear opinions, and because of our history of mutual disdain, would you kindly, Sir, reciprocate accordingly.

In the words of Father Jack: