3 Myths From Pro-Nuclear Film ‘Pandora’s Promise’

By Denise Robbins

CNN aired a pro-nuclear appetite film Pandora’s Promise final night, that propagated three common myths about nuclear power: it suggested a environmental movement’s “scare tactics” are what has indifferent chief power, claimed chief appetite is cheaper than renewables and downplayed complications from chief waste. This led to a generally biased story, that has led to criticism from many reviewers.

CNN’s Pandora’s Promise film aired Nov. 7, and tells a biased story in a pro-nuclear, anit-renewable advocacy.

Here’s how a film Pandora’s Promise propagated chief appetite myths:

1. Claimed Nuclear Energy Is Cheaper Than Renewable Energy

The huge cost of building chief appetite plants is a pivotal stopping cause for a appetite source. Despite receiving immensely greater subsidies than renewable appetite from a commencement of a development, chief appetite is still not rival with hoary fuels in a U.S., and new breeze appetite is estimated to be less expensive than new chief generation. Yet a Breakthrough Institute’s Michael Shellenberger asserted that chief appetite is “a most some-more careful choice to really costly solar panels or really costly breeze turbines that need backup power.” He also discharged renewable appetite and appetite efficiency, one of the cheapest ways to residence meridian change, as a “religion.”

Renewable appetite prices have indeed been dropping while a costs of chief are on a rise—as chief appetite has scaled adult in France and a U.S., so have a costs of appetite plant construction. Meanwhile, solar prices have dropped 99 percent in a final entertain century, and solar and breeze energies are predicted to be cost-competitive with hoary fuels—without a use of subsidies—by 2025.

2. Blamed Environmentalists For Preventing Nuclear Deployment

Pandora’s Promise focused on antithesis to chief appetite from some in a environmental movement. In a film, author Mark Lynas even compared anti-nuclear activists to tellurian warming deniers. However, this account paints a dubious picture: a miss of chief enlargement in a U.S. comes down to a elementary box of economics. Currently, chief power cannot compete with gas-fired power. As a libertarian Cato Institute’s Jerry Taylor explained that there’s “zero evidence” that environmental antithesis is preventing new chief appetite plants, a parable that he pronounced has been supposed by chief advocates who “like to evasion a cost estimates.”

3. Whitewashed The Issue Of Nuclear Waste

Although chief appetite has intensity to turn a vital appetite source, it comes with baggage. The U.S. has amassed some-more than 70,000 metric tons of spent chief fuel, and continues to amass  2,200 tons per year, nonetheless CNN’s documentary done light of this waste—Lynas claimed that chief rubbish is “not an environmental issue.”

The Associated Press reported that a republic “has no place to henceforth store a material, that stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years.” Most of this rubbish now “sits in water-filled cooling pools like those during a Fukushima Dai-ichi” during a appetite plants themselves, some of that “contain 4 times a volume of spent fuel that they were designed to handle.”

The film also unsuccessful to discuss leaks that now plea a upstate New York appetite plant, Indian Point. According to a Union of Concerned Scientists, a plant experiences consistent leaks during refueling, nonetheless a Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not act on this. The scientists called the standing quo of chief rubbish cleanup “untenable,” nonetheless CNN’s documentary hardly glossed over this ongoing issue.

Visit EcoWatch’s NUCLEAR page for some-more associated news on this topic.