Nuclear

A compelling case for nuclear energy. A film that shifts the perspective from nuclear "trauma" to the technological wonder nuclear "could" be. A striking claim, but watch for yourselves, to determine if this film is as persuasive as I find it. Not only does it point out the boon nuclear could be for humanity but also how the other resources are lacking and may leave us hacking up smog or what not. Nuclear is more than electricity, how it may heat and supply bounties of clean water, clean transit, etc. Stone does a simple yet effective job of pitching an industry that is unfairly and inaccurately represented and understood by the masses. Watch it and decide for yourselves.

Keep in mind that this documentary is fully founded and promoted by a company specialized in the construction of nuclear reactors (Newcleo). The primary focus of this recently (2021) created organization is to advocate for the construction of new nuclear reactors and to influence energy policies across Europe, such as in Italy, where nuclear energy is presently prohibited.

Newcleo, in the next 7-8 years, plans to develop two reactors in France and the United Kingdom, with a non-nuclear prototype in the study phase in Italy. Additionally, they intend to establish a nuclear fuel factory producing mixed plutonium-uranium oxides (MOX). The concept for the MOX facility emerged after the conflict in Ukraine, driven by the demand for radioactive fuel independent of uranium sourced from Russia, one of the world's major producers. The company will require capital in the range of 3-4 billion euros to accomplish these endeavors. For these reasons, probably, they have produced a documentary to support their cause, shift public opinion on the subject and seek funding.

Throughout the entire duration of the documentary, not a single mention is made of any drawbacks associated with nuclear energy. Is nuclear energy so flawless that it possesses no disadvantages? Not quite. For instance, uranium mining causes lung cancer in large numbers of miners because uranium mines contain natural radon gas, some of whose decay products are carcinogenic. Clean, renewable energy does not have this risk because (a) it does not require the continuous mining of any material, only one-time mining to produce the energy generators; and (b) the mining does not carry the same lung cancer risk that uranium mining does. Additionally, uranium, the fuel for nuclear reactors, is energy-intensive to mine, and deposits discovered in the future are likely to be harder to access. As a result, much of the net energy created would be offset by the energy input required to build and decommission plants and to mine and process uranium ore. Then there's the significant issue of nuclear waste, which is only superficially addressed. New storage systems are being designed, but a completely safe and efficient 100% solution has not been found yet.

I am not against nuclear energy, but I would like to hear a more impartial and objective perspective on the topic, or at least hear the opposing viewpoint before drawing my conclusions.

This well-organized argument for the increased use of nuclear energy, to cope with the climate change problem, could be shown as a part of a double feature with Al Gore's far more popular film, "An Inconvenient Truth" (2006). Oliver Stone confronts the old objections to nuclear power plants and points out the increasing need for this type of energy production going forward. He points out the minimal effect of so-called clean energy and dispenses with the problem of nuclear waste. He points out that China, with its 1.5 billion population, pledges, by going nuclear, a carbon footprint of zero by 2060. This convenient truth is convincing.

Stone starts off the movie by showing how the world was seemingly united on the dream of using nuclear energy for good back in the 50's & 60's but them big oil & coal used their influence to steer public opinion away. Hmmm, they do that? Is that possibly why, despite knowing how bad fossil fuels are, we're still addicted to the stuff 100 yrs later? Maybe I, too, was duped by their anti-nuke propaganda - but there are some flaws in Stone's sunny brush-overs ... all 3 major nuclear accident events are all just written off as problems caused by "poor design". Does he not think that the oil & coal industries, along w/ grimy corps like known polluters GE & short-cut takers like Halliburton aren't going to have their paws in the overhaul of our country's energy source? Or that we won't be buying fake steel and defective parts from China? And that 1 nuclear.accident, albeit extremely rare, has the potential to exterminate/radiate all life forms within hundreds of miles - Sweden detected high levels of radiation 2 days after Chernobyl, and they're over 600 miles away. But we do need to move away from oil & coal once and for all, and this new technology of recycling/re-using the nuclear waste would solve a half century-old dilemma if it were true. I say let's power back up all the existing decommissioned plants here in the U. S. until solar & wind is finally ready to take over ...

Nuclear molecules were from Uranium and Atoms. They talk about that and how it was around in WW1 through submarines. It became more useful over the years and the Uranium is healthier to run other engines than coal. It's a lot of information though. They discuss the pros and cons of each country and certain gases and electricity are harming our world and burning more coal, yet coal is still important because of fire without arson fires. He says China is using too much coal sent to America. The irony is, firefighters won't have a job without out of control fires unless alarms go off without fires.