Monthly Archives: October 2010

Getting political on an energy blog?

Posted on by • Posted in New Posts • Tagged , , , • 3 Comments

I’m seeing US election polls as an indicator of the American psyche. They indicate a fickle citizen with no moral compass. I found the same thing occurred during George W. Bush’s second term. It was amazing to me and many others that he was re-elected. Manipulation is the only explanation. Well run propaganda machines of the campaign and media outlets.  They seem to know how to get the gullible voter to the polls. Of course I could be wrong. Maybe greed and prejudice are more prevalent than I thought but the more likely explanation is that clever and dirty campaigning is winning.

I wonder if people feel that they are punishing Obama by voting republican? Punishing by voting for someone better or different than the previous failing regimes would make sense. But this is an example of how the system does not work. So many wanted to be rescued from 8 years of bad government and now they want the same people back. Baffles the mind. Many people reading my blog will hopefully understand that I am a believer in old American values. I love America. I’m sure there are many Americans who feel like I do.

The majority of the voters have no time for serious thinking about who should get their vote. They’re too busy trying to survive and meet the pace that they’ve become accustomed. Getting a clear view is becoming more and more difficult because reliable, detailed and useful factual information is harder to find when you’re too busy trying to survive. Now that we accept inflation as normal and living on borrowed money and mortgaged lives we can’t see the forest for the trees.  It’s like the family who grows apart because they hardly see each other forgetting the real value of family life.

If family life only has value to reproduce and bring more automatons to follow the manipulators then we don’t amount to much more than slaves.  What’s is seriously missing is a unifying force. Divisiveness seems to be the norm. Krishnamurti warned that the enemy of our times is fragmentation. This fickleness that I perceive is a sympton of the fragmentation. So are many mental disorders including ADD, depression and schizophrenia.  Television is perhaps the biggest enemy and that is why Google TV scares me. I recently read that the average American watches 5 hour a day. That leaves no time for real brain usage. The TV becomes a pacifier and distraction from the daily work routine that so many take for granted as necessary.

I don’t mean to lecture but felt that I think Obama needs all the help he can get. He is wrong about some things and the Democrats style of doing things does appear to lack a decisive coherence. It is with this exact flaw that the republicans have finessed an edge in the polls.

Obama said it himself he’s handled a lot of change in a short time. Priority is hard to gage in a failing economy but he did say that energy and immigration were his next priority. I think he deserves a chance to achieve his vision because many of us have a similar vision.

Who are the IIASA and why don't they have the facts?

Posted on by • Posted in New Posts • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

In Obama’s interview on The Daily Show he said the two areas yet to be accomplished by his administration are energy and immigration while citing his accomplishments of health care, wall street regulatory reform and a few lesser known accomplishments. Like the people in this report Obama tries to simplify things for the mass audience so it might seem like a simplistic view of what problems we should be addressing. He also said that the filibuster has been abused more than ever blocking the passing of legislation on a number of issues, yet his administration had accomplished significant legislation that can’t be ignored. People generally see things from glasses tinted with shades and colors that affect them personally. Obama has the reasonable excuse that he is trying to spell out his accomplishments.  Besides it would help Nuclear Energy if the demand for electricity were that of a healthy economy. The authors of this report just fail to see the big picture.

Energy density of nuclear energy is by far the most significant factor in reducing Carbon emissions. The report tries to claim that too much has been spent on R & D for nuclear energy and not enough on alternatives. A less nonsensical way of discussing the topic might be spend more cash on all the alternatives but let’s not sacrifice the R & D funds for nuclear energy, the most significant form of energy, just to be fair to the others.

One of the main points they wish to address is energy efficiency. They have their own definition it seems. But if they mean conserving energy by the general public and cutting down on energy usage that has happened as a result of a struggling economy. What matters now is that people have jobs and two areas that supply lots of work are new nuclear plants and new grid infrastructure. So if that’s the recommendation then that’s good.

A few sections of this report seem highly biased. I’ve marked sections for comment in red for parts I disagree with

in green for getting it half right.

The IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis)

Communications Department
PRESS RELEASE

Changes in energy R&D needed to combat climate change

Laxenburg, Austria – 25 October 2010.

A new assessment of future scenarios that limit the extent of global warming cautions that unless current imbalances in R&D portfolios for the development of new, efficient, and clean energy technologies are redressed, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets are unlikely to be met, or met only at considerable costs.

The study identifies energy efficiency as the single most important option for achieving significant and long-term reductions in GHG emissions, accounting for up to 50 percent of the reduction potential across the wide range of scenarios analyzed. However, investment in energy efficiency R&D has typically been less than 10 percent of the overall public sector R&D budget in the countries of the International Energy Agency (IEA). Conversely, although nuclear energy accounts for less than 10 percent of the GHG emission reduction potentials across all scenarios, it has received some 50 percent of the total public investment in energy technology R&D.

The analysis, conducted by Drs’ Arnulf Grubler and Keywan Riahi from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria, and published in the inaugural issue of the journal Carbon Management (2010 1(1):79-87), compared historical and current government spending on R&D by the 28 member countries of the International Energy Agency, with a “needs”-based analysis of the technologies required to achieve long-term climate stabilization. The assessment is based on the analysis of a wide range of scenarios of future technology deployment rates under a range of future uncertainties and climate constraints.

“Current investments in energy technology R&D by the public sector, in all industrialized countries, are heavily biased in favor of nuclear energy, to the detriment of energy efficiency research,” says IIASA energy expert, Dr Keywan Riahi. “Given their respective importance for future climate mitigation this is a significant imbalance. Based on current investments, we estimate that a five-fold increase in investment in energy efficiency is needed to address this imbalance. Importantly, if the current rate and allocation of investment in energy R&D is maintained there is a high chance that technology development will be insufficient to meet stringent GHG reduction targets.”

While technological development is critical the authors also emphasize the need for accompanying market deployment incentives for an aligned and consistent technology policy framework.

“The drastic emission cuts required to limit climate change will only be possible if we can achieve a major transformation of the energy system,” adds IIASA co-author Arnulf Grubler. “This will require the adoption of a range of policies and measures beyond an expanded and restructured energy technology R&D portfolio to include incentives for niche market applications and the large-scale deployment of climate-friendly technologies.”

Because the future is inherently uncertain, the study uses a range of scenarios -22 in total – to examine what successful, or unsuccessful adoption of different technologies (such as nuclear or carbon capture and sequestration) might achieve for reducing GHG emissions. The scenarios include a “do nothing” or business-as-usual scenario, where, for example, R&D policies remain uncoordinated and market incentives for new technologies to minimize emissions remain unchanged.  The study concludes that a business-as-usual approach to energy technology R&D will make combating climate change very difficult and more costly, reducing both the likelihood of success and the political and social acceptability of a transition to climate-friendly, energy-efficient technologies.

Based on the scenarios the authors outline a forward looking energy R&D ‘portfolio’ that they propose would provide the best hedging strategy for making sure future GHG emissions can be actually reduced and at reasonable costs. In order to achieve this goal currently unbalanced energy technology R&D portfolios need to change, reflecting the respective “option value” for future GHG mitigation of different options, which are particularly large for energy efficiency (Figure 1).

The study focused primarily on public or government-funded, R&D but the authors say the findings in terms of energy technology investment is similar to that of private sector investment, where there is a similar preference for large-scale supply-side energy technology investments, to the detriment of energy efficiency.

Click here for larger image
Past and current investments into developing climate-friendly technologies (R&D, right) versus uture technology needs (min/mean/max across scenarios, left) by technology category.

Reference: Grubler A. and Riahi K., Do Governments have the right mix in their energy R&D portfolios? Carbon Management 2010 1(1):79-87.

More information or interviews contact:

Keywan Riahi: IIASA, Austria
Tel: +43 (0) 2236 807 491
E-mail: riahi@iiasa.ac.at
Arnulf Grubler: IIASA, Austria
Tel: +43 (0) 2236 807 470
E-mail: gruebler@iiasa.ac.at

Leane Regan: IIASA, Austria
Tel: +43 2236 807 316
Mob: +43 664 443 0368
E-mail: regan@iiasa.ac.at

About IIASA:
IIASA is an international scientific institute that conducts research into the critical issues of global environmental, economic, technological, and social change that we face in the twenty-first century. Our findings provide valuable options to policymakers to shape the future of our changing world.

IIASA is independent and funded by scientific institutions in Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe.

Responsible for this page: Communications
Last updated: 25 Oct 2010

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) * Schlossplatz 1 * A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria Phone: (+43 2236) 807 0 * Fax: (+43 2236) 71 313 * Web: www.iiasa.ac.at * Contact Us Copyright © 2009-2010 IIASA * Disclaimer

More reasons to be jealous of France.

Posted on by • Posted in New Posts, nuclear • Tagged , , , , • 1 Comment

With recent protests on France over the retirement age being changed from 60 to 62 us North Americans wonder what the big deal is all about. France has a tradition of riots and public demonstrations when they disagree with government policy so the recent unrest makes you wonder if they’ve had it too easy in recent years.

Quick Facts: Population 65,447,374  Population Density: 115/km2 or 299/sq mi

6.7 Percent of the population is below the poverty line (12% in US, 10% in Canada)

one of the first countries to create a Ministry of the Environment, in 1971.

Though it is one of the most industrialized and developed countries, it is still ranked only seventeenth by carbon dioxide emissions, behind such less populous nations as Canada, Saudi Arabia or Australia.

Because the French government’s decision to invest in nuclear power in 1974,  after the 1973 oil crisis, with 78% of France’s energy  production from nuclear energy, France pollutes less than comparable countries.

France ranks high among those countries with the best standard of living in the world.  They have not totally given up their identity to become politically acceptable. Ask an expatriate living in France and they will likely tell you that the stereotypes are exaggerated.

Here are some excerpts from an article “The cost of living in France” posted on a blog called expatforum.com in 2009

Living in France can be relatively cheaper compared to the United Kingdom. Although salaries for employees are not that high compared to other European nations, the government does provide a lot of backup to business owners to give company benefits. As many advisories provide, the cost of living is dependent upon your lifestyle with the cost of going out an aspect that you need to consider, as it is easy to get lost in the sights and sounds of the French jet-set and haute couture lifestyle.

France is one of the G8 and its economy boasts a 6th place ranking worldwide. Industries are doing very well which mean that expatriates can easily find secure jobs. Trade and commerce continue to comprise the bulk of the economy. It is considered as a giant in terms of productivity ranking 4th in imports and 5th in exports.

France also has several investors helping it make 2nd place in outward transactions. A total of 57 billion dollars was placed in investments. In terms of per capita GDP, France also leads all other G8 countries. Tourism is also another main contributor in the country’s excellent financial status.

It is the number one tourist destination all over the globe. Productivity is good but the nation is currently experiencing low employment rate due to the aging population. More and more immigrants and skilled workers are needed to ensure constant effectiveness in trade and other business transactions. This has been clearly felt by an expat in a post made at France Expat Forum last August 9, 2009:

Well where to start, first of all this is just my impression and view, I have been here of 7 years and I am well travelled through the North but I have never lived in the south. In the country I find it boring and although I can not totally agree with comments that all the French are rude and unhelpful, I think it fair to say we are not popular in a number of quarters, I think resented is a better term. They resent the fact that we are here in the first place, they resent that we give them far more for their run down ruins than they could ever dream of. They resent that we have invigorated their economy and provided hundreds of jobs in service and other industries that otherwise would not have been available. But they grudging love our money….. There is absolutely no concept of ‘customer service’ whatsoever.

In the main if you need to work (like most of us) you have to look into being self employed, and the social charge system is expersive, most enterprises close in the 3 rd. year………

If you want a place to come and just drink wine, eat cheese soak up the rays and watch the seasons pass, it’s for you………………

Food and Drink Costs in France

The cost of food and drinks in France is significantly lower compared to other European nations. There are thousands of great restaurants offering the best cuisines made only of the finest ingredients. Dining out will definitely cost more but expatriates can also find a good deal of affordable meat, fish, milk, herbs, fruits and vegetables in markets and nearby ports.

France is one of the world’s largest exporters of beer, wine and bread. Pastries and wheat products comprise most of the goods for export. But there are also meat products like beef and pork as well as fish such as salmon that are continually brought out to the United States.

As far as drinks are concerned, France imports and exports wine extensively. Beer and cider are also widely traded. Locally made wine and beer are priced depending on quality but lower prices can be given if purchased directly at the brewery or winery or as wholesale.

An average individual spends around 100 euro every week on grocery items and food consumption. In Paris, the cost of commodities is low compared to other big European cities. French cuisine is very easy to get by in varying prices for every individual.

Clothing and Accessories Costs in France

Since Paris is the center of world fashion, clothes are typically expensive. There are virtually brand and designer labels everywhere. France is the place where everyone on earth can find the best quality and newest designs. Almost every week there are runway shows and magazine debuts are also featured monthly. Coats and jackets can range from 50 euro up to several thousands depending on the material.

Fur coats are limited but still very much available for big spenders. Suits, dresses and other classy items are sold in all colors and varieties at varying prices as well. In Paris, there are also unique items created by designers that can be used for collection purposes.

For expatriates looking for cheaper wares, there are a number of department stores offering different kinds of clothing and accessories. Chinese-made products have also entered France by storm that may have caused some designers to increase significantly in prices and avoid sales and auctions that may make people think of their original creations as mere Chinese imitations.  There are though some low cost high quality manufacturers in this highly fragmented market. In the outskirts of French cities, they are often found as many multiple specialist stores that cater to the market of thrifty shoppers.

Housing Costs in France

Cost of housing has increased drastically over the past years. This is not uncommon since France has always been among the top three tourist destination countries. The influx of people coming in caused congestion a few years prior but the government is doing several housing measures and regulations that aim to limit the population excess. As it is worldwide, the global recession has hit the once red-hot property market in France, especially in the French Riviera as buyers drive harder bargains for the hard earned purchases.

Rental in nearby communities can cost around 500 euro every month while downtown apartment and condominium rental costs reach an astounding 1500 to 2000 euro every month. Fully furnished spaces will cost more as well. Rental spaces are priced according to location, condition and quality.

One-fourth of the French population lives in housing complexes subsidized by the government. The living condition is not really good compared to modest housing structures in the city outskirts. Farm space is available in the provinces at expensive prices. It is almost impossible to acquire land in the big cities today. Laws and regulations are also very stringent when it comes to expatriates owning French land. The cost of housing and rentals usually include insurance and utilities.

Services Costs in France

France has state-of-the-art technology that provides remarkable telephone and Internet services. Broadband networking is currently the trend and there are several WiFi hotspots almost anywhere in Paris. Remote areas as well are well supported by these modern devices in addition water and electricity.

Education and college grants are made available by the government. Public schools are subsidized by the French government as well since they value the literacy rate among the rising number of younger generations. There are a number of excellent colleges and universities in France. Students aim to study arts and communication in Paris particularly because of its cultural and artistic heritage.

Financial plans and insurance services are also provided to all working individuals. The French health care system is one of the best in the world, offering high quality of services and being easily accessible at the same time. If France becomes the country of your residence, you will be covered by the state social security system that also includes health insurance. Expatriates can also apply for insurance quotes as well. The government can provide funding for immigrants provided that part of their future income will automatically be directed to specific government or community funding.

But the just how expensive it is to live in France? A post made in the France Expat Forum last January 3, 2009 can summarize it:

How expensive France (or anywhere) is will depend on a number of things. The big one (especially right now) is where you’re coming from and what your source of income will be. If, like many of the members of the forum, you’re from the UK, the current rate of exchange is a killer. At roughly GBP 1 = 1 € everything is going to be expensive. And, you’re at the mercy of the exchange rates as they rise and fall.

It can also depend on what part of France you’re thinking about.

Employment Costs in France

Overall, employment rates have been rising in all members of the European Union. France has an employment rate of almost 90%. Majority of the remaining population are working part-time jobs including students aged 15 to 17 years old. Males constitute most of the workforce although majority of French women including pregnant ones are also working full time. On the downside, maintaining these employment costs has put pressure on the overall income of the French, as it is the highest and most expensive overall in the European Union in 2009.

France is currently looking for more skilled engineers, architects and teachers. Business investors are always welcome as well as those who are highly adept in trade and commerce. Expatriates may have a hard time finding a well-paying job during the first few years until they find their niche and prove their expertise in a given field.

Another page describes the countries economy as of January 2010

France is in the midst of transition from a well-to-do modern economy that has featured extensive government ownership and intervention to one that relies more on market mechanisms. The government has partially or fully privatized many large companies, banks, and insurers, and has ceded stakes in such leading firms as Air France, France Telecom, Renault, and Thales. It maintains a strong presence in some sectors, particularly power, public transport, and defense industries. With at least 75 million foreign tourists per year, France is the most visited country in the world and maintains the third largest income in the world from tourism. France’s leaders remain committed to a capitalism in which they maintain social equity by means of laws, tax policies, and social spending that reduce income disparity and the impact of free markets on public health and welfare. France has weathered the global economic crisis better than most other big EU economies because of more resilient consumer and government spending, and lower exposure to the downturn in global demand. Nonetheless, France’s real GDP contracted 2.1% in 2009, while the unemployment rate increased from 7.4% in 2008 to nearly 10%. In response to the economic crisis the government passed a $35 billion stimulus plan in February 2009 centered on investment in infrastructure and tax breaks for small businesses. Paris also created a $25 billion strategic investment fund to protect French companies from foreign takeovers, and President Nicolas SARKOZY proposed a $52 billion plan for strategic investments in science and technology. These various stimulus and investment measures are contributing to a deterioration of France’s public finances. France’s tax burden remains one of the highest in Europe – at nearly 50% of GDP. The government budget deficit rose sharply from 3.4% of GDP in 2008 to over 8% of GDP in 2009, topping the 3% euro-zone ceiling in both years. SARKOZY is expected to seek passage of some structural reforms – notably to the pension system and government bureaucracy – which have the potential to cut public expenditures, while he may delay additional, more costly, reforms.

A good question to ask these days is “What comes first prosperity or nuclear energy?”
The UK recently woke up to reality and has changed a new government policy originally set on wind and tidal energy to a Nuclear future. Likewise China, Finland, India, Iran, Spain, Venezuela and more have Nuclear plants under construction.

The US is talking about it and talking about it.  Thirty coal plants since 2008?

 

2007 Article still very relevant - Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can’t Oui?

 

 

John Kutsch and James Kennedy speaking Oct 18 in Small Modular Reactors Workshop in Washington DC

Posted on by • Posted in Funding, LFTR, New Posts • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

PRESS ALERT – Keywords: Rare Earths, Magnetite, Thorium,Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, Missouri,

October 18, 2010,

Washington, D. C. Event

Who: Wings Enterprises, Inc. and Thorium Energy Alliance

What: Rare Earth Elements (REEs) and Magnetite Mine in Missouri

Where: Small Modular Reactors Workshop B, Top of the Hill, Washington, D.C.

When: Press Briefing following Workshop (1 to 5 p.m., Monday, October 18, 2010)

Why: Heavy Rare Earth Reserves Represent Unique U. S. Response to China Monopoly

What does it mean: James Kennedy, President of Wings Enterprises, Inc., explains that the U.S. is 100% dependent on imports of REEs to meet strategic needs for rare earth magnets critical to all guided missile and ordnance systems used for America’s defense, plus rare earth magnets for hybrid cars and consumer electronics. None of the currently proposed Rare Earth Bills in Congress are designed to resolve U.S.domestic supply chain problems. All three bills in Congress will actually exacerbate the problem. None of these bills contemplates any real world countervailing measures or defensive strategies to protect a re-emergent domestic rare earth industry.An alternative proposal, put forward by Wings and supported by the Thorium Energy Alliance is specifically designed to rapidly expand the development of domestic rare earth supply chains and provide real world defensive measures against China’s monopoly position. This alternative proposal would also allow for the extraction and storage of Thorium, a byproduct of the rare earth process, for our Nation’s future energy needs.

Call to action: Re-establishing domestic REE mining and refining will include Thorium as a coproduct.This element can be useful for restarting the research and the ultimate commercialization of Small Modular Reactors like LFTR technology (Liquid Fluoride ThoriumReactor). A LFTR-design molten-core reactor produced low-cost energy in a non-weaponable pilot plant at Oak Ridge National Laboratory until the 1970s. The business community is now re-examining the Business Case for commercializing Thorium as an energy resource for low cost nuclear power that produces no GHG emissions, offers a non-proliferation alternative, and is not dependent upon imports from China, the Middle East, or other unreliable areas of the world.

Press Credentials: Erin Dolleris <erind@infocastevents.com> PH: 818-888-4445 x 48

Venue Address: Top of the Hill Conference Center, One Constitution Ave., N. E.,Washington, D. C. 20002

– PH 202-479-2200 – Fifth Floor – Minuteman Ballroom “B” Workshop B,

1-5 pm – Evaluating Business Cases for SMRs

Contact: James Kennedy

Contact: John KutschWings Enterprises, Inc. Thorium Energy Alliance

jkennedy@wingsironore.com

314.494.1638 312-303-5019

(Questions regarding magnetite iron ore, pig iron, and rare earths mining and refining.)

thoriumenergyalliance@gmail.com

(Questions regarding Thorium  as an energy resource.)

Robert Stone's Pandora's Promise – How Converting From Anti-Nuke to Pro Nuke Can Save the Planet

Posted on by • Posted in New Posts • 3 Comments

1. Who’s voice is doing the talking in your film? Do you want this documentary to represent your personal experiences or are you trying to be objective?

“Most, but not all, of the people in the film were once anti-nuke and have changed their minds completely about it.  It is told entirely through the voice of those who are in the film – no narration.  The film has a clear point of view and the people in it have undergone a similar intellectual metamorphosis on this issue as I have, so there’s an element of it representing my personal experience.  It’s certainly not going to be a standard reportage documentary that looks at both sides like a pissing contest.  It has a clear point of view.”

2. Who are some of the people you have chosen to speak in your documentary and are they answering the same question or are they more instrumental in telling your story?

“Stewart Brand, Patrick Moore, Richard Rhodes, Gwyneth Cravens…. to name just a few.  The film is in part about their own personal journey with this issue so it’s not just a dry look at a subject matter.  It’s a film about how this subject has defined the world view of so many of us and how that world view has evolved over time, particularly in light of climate change.”

3. With regard to fund raising. In Canada we have government funded organizations such as Telefilm that assist in funding film makers. Does the US have the same?

“Canada is a more enlightened country in this regard.  We’re more Darwinian here in the US.  It’s very tough fundraising given that the organized left hates nuclear power and the organized right hates the science climate change.  This film is an attempted to bridge through the voices of people who see nuclear power as the only viable solution to mitigating a climate catastrophe.”

4. With an increase in dependence on the internet for spreading the word are you finding it effective?

“I’m not finding the internet to be a particularly effective means of fundraising.  Malcolm Gladwell had a very interesting piece in The New Yorker about this the other day.  He found that of the millions of people who have signed up on-line to protest the genocide in Darfour, the average contribution was just 9 cents.  I’m actually seeking out high income individuals who believe in this subject and are willing to make a tax-deductable contribution.”

5. Most scientists and engineers and now politicians are slowly waking up to how renewables, especially wind and solar, are simply not enough to reduce carbon emissions.  Do you see them as a waste of money and  land use or do you see them as a parallel technology?  What do you think?

“I think everything needs to be on the table.  Nuclear is obviously good at powering cities with clean baseload electricity.  Solar is great for putting on your home or for remote sites.  A few wind turbines in every town would be a nice idea too, especially for peak electrical generation.  I just don’t think wind and solar necessarily lend themselves to large industrial scale farming like what is being proposed.  We’ll never be able to build enough nuclear plants quickly enough to meet demand without burning more and more fossil fuels so I think we’ll need a host of solutions, some perhaps have yet to be invented.”

6. Michael Moore is considered by many to be a film maker who manipulates his viewers by distorting the facts. Sounds like a definition of propaganda. Do you like Michael Moore’s approach?

“I like Michael Moore’s films and he’s an old friend too.  I don’t think he distorts facts as much as he’s simply very selective in using them to prove a point.  Of course his films are propaganda.  All documentaries are propaganda to one degree or another in that they express a point of view.  He’s perhaps more blatant about it.   But he makes very different films from me.  He has an entirely different approach and sees the world in very black and white terms.  I’m far too interested in the gray areas to buy into a particular ideology.”

7. What do you think of “The China Syndrome” and how it influenced a generation?

“Just goes to show you that the only formula for success in the film business is timing.  It had a huge influence but fear-mongering usually does, whether it’s from the Left or the Right.  People are easily manipulated by fear.”

8. James Cameron’s films are mostly a warning against abuse of the environment and poorly planned use of technology. He recently made the comparison of the issue of the Tar Sands in Alberta to what happens in Avatar. But nuclear energy is quite a different use of a very advanced technology that will provide a way of reducing green house gas emissions and providing energy. Cameron is a good story teller but is the message that we should learn to live with less a practical message when we can actually meet energy needs?

“People tend to understand the world around them in terms of story. We don’t understand things in the abstract. They need to be framed. So whoever frames a subject in the most compelling way as a story tends to influence the thinking of the widest number of people. But I don’t think anyone is changing their point of view, let alone their lifestyle just because they saw Avatar. It’s just Hollywood entertainment in the end. Whether he’s advocating using less energy or not is hardly going to make a difference in the real world because it takes place in the realm of fantasy.”

9. I noticed that you will not accept donations from Nuclear Energy companies and that makes total sense. Have you ever had a corporation wanting to make a donation that wanted some control of your films content?

“Nope.”

10. Bill Gates just made a film called Waiting for Superman which is a case for improving education in America? Our society has become troubled by survival. Inflation is a reality we take for granted. Children and teachers are not reading great literature. What role does film have in the schools and online schools for children
and teachers?

“Documentaries can play a big role in shaping curriculum and educating students. I grew up watching loads of of documentaries at school about environmental issues as a kid and it left a huge impression. The generation before me saw loads of films about nuclear war and that left a big impression on them. So of course what children are taught and exposed to can influence their world view as adults. In this day and age film is perhaps a more powerful medium than books in this regard. I think today’s young people are far less prone to fear nuclear power because they understand technology and regard it as their friend. They’re not paralyzed with cold war fears of nuclear Armageddon. But this is why I’m so fascinated by adults who have changed their minds on this issue. They’ve broken free of the ideological prism through which we grow up seeing the world. There’s great hope in that, and an opportunity to bridge the political differences that are tearing the US apart and find some common ground.”

Pamdora’s Promise Production Team:  See  http://robertstoneproductions.com

Robert Stone: Producer / Director – An Oscar and Emmy nominated director and a two-time Sundance Grand Jury Prize finalist.  He is one of America’s most acclaimed documentarians, known best for “Radio Bikini”, Guerrilla: The Taking of Patty Hearst”, “Oswald’s Ghost”, and “Earth Days”.

Michael Giacchino: Composer – Oscar winning composer for “Up”, he has also scored such films as “Star Trek”, “The Incredibles”, “Ratatouille”, Robert Stone’s “Earth Days” and the television series “Lost”.  He is one of the most sought after film composers in Hollywood and was recently profiled in The New Yorker magazine.

Doug Abel A.C.E.: Editor – “The Fog of War” (Oscar winner for Best Feature Documentary), “Metallica: Some Kind of Monster”, “Smash His Camera”, and the environmental documentary “Everything’s Cool”.

Howard Shack: Cinematographer – A long-time collaborator with Robert Stone and one of the top cinematographers for National Geographic.  He has also shot a number of other independent documentaries, including the Sundance Award winner “Scouts Honor” and the Emmy Award nominee “Sentenced Home”.

Pandora’s Promise is currently in the early stages of production. Funding is ongoing. $675,000 is needed to complete the film, of which nearly $500,000 is committed once we raise the remaining $175,000. Donations are fully tax-deductable through the Human Arts Association in New York, a not-for-profit 501C3 foundation supporting documentary filmmakers since 1976

You can contribute online at http://robertstoneproductions.com

Is Commitment to More Nuclear Energy Real or Fake? Lost Constellation Deal Looks Bad on Chu and Obama.

Posted on by • Posted in New Posts, nuclear • Tagged , , , , , , , • 1 Comment

The current US administration, the OMB and US policy makers have failed to close the deal with Constellation, good candidates for a Nuclear Plant at Calvert Cliffs in Maryland which was to be an additional unit at the existing Nuclear Plant site.  (SEE updates at bottom of page)

According to several more involved bloggers the recent deal with Constellation fell through because the US wanted the corporation to pay a hefty nonrefundable fee of $880 Million dollars as well as accept a large risk of non-guaranteed investment protection. Rod Adams points out that the same day the deal went bad a deal was made in California for a Wind Farm with far different friendly dealings.   Clearly there is still a problem getting Nuclear Energy off the ground.  Rod also points out that if it’s jobs they care about the Nuclear deal would have gone a lot further than the wind farm deal. Rod Adams is understandably upset:

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/10/loan-guarantee-foolishness-by-folks.html

So is Dan Yurman: “…The Obama administration, which has been overwhelmed with other issues, has allowed the future of the nuclear energy industry to slip below its radar screen. The White House de-facto ceded energy policy to bean counters and sent the wrong signal not only in this country, but also to the rest of the world….”

Dan Yurman’s blog:  http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2010/10/constellation-walks-away-from-calvert.html

and Matt Holzmann:

http://oceanaris.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/obamas-scam-on-nuclear-energy/

NICOLE DAO posted this Oct. 12, 2010

http://somd.com/news/headlines/2010/12596.shtml

…Federal and state officials are attempting to revive a plan to develop a third nuclear reactor in Calvert County, a project that could create more jobs and develop energy in Maryland…

The article also states that anti-nuke organization PIRG wants to take over plans for their own renewables of solar and wind.

A project to help bring 6,000 megawatts of wind energy — enough to power 1.9 million households — from wind farms off the coast of the Mid-Atlantic states to the mainland was proposed this week by Trans-Elect, a Maryland-based company, which plans to lay a 350-mile transmission cable from northern New Jersey to southern Virginia. The project would allow any new wind farms to feed clean, renewable energy into the cable, helping Mid-Atlantic states to meet their renewable energy goals.

Bloomberg News: EDF Willing to Build U.S. Nuclear Plant Alone After Constellation Dispute

Washington Post Steven Pearlstein added some new perspective EDF rescued the original financially troubled Constellation and after enabling them to stay afloat and went to considerable lengths to assist in the nuclear deal

Constellation’s fallout with French firm unfortunately the new business as usual


Reactor under microscope - Constellation, officials working to keep CC3 project going (Oct. 20, 2010)

see Dan Yurman’s post

Deal between EDF and Constellation saves Calvert from ending


Avatar Director Supports Nuclear. Compares Oil Sands to Pandora

Posted on by • Posted in CNSC, LFTR, New Posts, nuclear • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

I recently saw the film Avatar and also an interview with James Cameron the director on CBC. He recently toured the Alberta Oil sands and said he supports Nuclear as a means of easing up on the environmental damage. During the interview there was a comparison to the film. The native territories that are plundered were being called Pandora’s like in the film. So it seems Nuclear energy can also help save the destruction of the atmosphere and scarring of the Pandora’s of this Earth. Cameron refers to the idea of using Nuclear as a bridge to preventing climate change.

“…I’m pro-nuclear, yeah, in this particular context, as a bridge to a fully sustainable future. I think the waste problem is a 500 year horizon, I think the warming problem is a 10 to 15 year horizon…”

James!!! I would love you to do a movie about Nuclear Energy. The true story of what happened to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors.

He see’s the urgency of cleaner solutions as the priority because time is running out. Like in a recent article I read the earth is not like the Titanic. When a ship sinks you can make another. We only have one planet.

Toyota Has Smart Grid Software Will be Available 2012 In Japan

Posted on by • Posted in LFTR, New Posts • Tagged • Leave a comment

Article from CBC News
It’s a little early to say when Toyota’s smart-grid software will arrive in US or Canada or if someone will beat them to it.

Toyota shows off smart grid system

see on TV screens and mobile handsets how much electricity is being consumed by a household, how much a plug-in vehicle has charged, and how much electricity has been stored in the home.

It calculates the most efficient way of using energy, eliminating waste by shutting off gadgets when they aren’t being used and maximizing the recharging benefits of hybrids, which recharge as they run. Utilities can also be used when rates are cheapest such as overnight to heat stored water.

This does answer some questions. Is there a role for private companies to help enable the smart-grid?
What kind of regulatory hurdles are to be expected?

Columnist from South Africa identifies Thorium as a possible replacement for Pebble Bed Reactor

Posted on by • Posted in LFTR, New Posts • Tagged • Leave a comment

This is an excerpt from a recent column titled “Torque” from South African columnist David Gleason of NewsTime

The energy conundrum and a home-grown solution

Talking at a public discussion in Johannesburg recently on the subject of this country’s future energy needs, Bobby Godsell was reported as saying he thinks as much as 20 000 megawatts of the estimated 40 000 megawatts required could come from nuclear energy. That was followed by a comment by Dipuo Peters, Minister for Energy, saying there was concern about the availability of a supply of enriched uranium – because it is said the Chinese are taking up increasing quantities of what’s available out of Africa.

She has a point. The world’s requirement of uranium in 2009 was about 190 million pounds. But it seems no more than about 110 million pounds was produced from mining. The balance has to come from suitably treated weapons material. So the supply/demand equation looks seriously out of kilter. But I’ve no doubt that production will rapidly be increased if the price continues to beckon attractively.

But the Minister’s comment unlocks another aspect. It is thorium, one of the so-called rare earths, and we have plenty of it. Say thorium to most generally knowledgeable people and they look at you blankly. That’s because thorium fell out of favour because it cannot be converted into bomb material. But thorium fuelled the first nuclear reactors in America and Russia.

And thorium has a lot of other things going for it. As I’ve reported, it can’t be pressed into service as a nuclear bomb; it is inherently incapable of causing a meltdown; it doesn’t need to be converted or enriched; it is very energy efficient; its waste lasts for tens of years unlike uranium which hangs around malevolently for thousands; it is much less expensive than uranium extracts and is reasonably environmentally friendly to mine.

Of course, the famous and now cast-off Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, if it can be made to work efficiently, could be the nuclear plant. Such a pity we didn’t knuckle down to solving the managerial and financing problems.

But we do at least have a home-grown solution in terms of an excellent nuclear fuel alternative. What I don’t yet know is whether it will be cheaper to build and operate a thorium fuelled power plant as opposed to one that consumes uranium.