Pandora's Promise - Movie Review

Pandora's Promise was a documentary produced by Robert Stone in 2013, and it showcased some ordinary people and scientists discussing the use of nuclear energy. The documentary was interesting, because from what I could tell, the people who were being interviewed were initially very opposed and against the use of nuclear energy, but as they discuss the pros and cons and at the end of the film they are arguing for it and embracing its use. The whole idea that the film was based upon was that there were and are a lot of environmentalists who are very opposed to the idea of it, but in reality, it is actually a very safe and clean energy source. The documentary also discussed the increasingly severe problem of anthropogenic global warming and radiation.

One of the things that I learnt from the film was about the impact of radiation. I had always known that radiation can be very dangerous, especially in high levels, due to the damage that it does to the cells that make up the human body. However, I didn't realise the severity of it. One of the environmental experts that was interviewed discussed many of the power plant failures ranging from Chernobyl to Fukuyama. He proceeded to say "It must be absolutely awful to have a town wiped out by a tsunami or earthquake, and you can't even come back and rebuild because it's all contaminated by radiation." (7:20) This opened my eyes and made me more aware of the risks that high amounts of radiation can pose. However, it was comforting (in an odd way) to find out that flying a plane produces more than 20 times the radiation than the people living in Chernobyl get, as well as athe fact that no one has ever died from nuclear power plants in the US, but over 10,000 people die from coal dust every year. I also learned about the first nuclear energy source in the United States, which was built in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. It was a modified version of a large submarine reactor. Something I found that was very interesting is the the United States buys nuclear war heads from Russia, so that they can recycle them and use them as fuel in reactors, and very little waste is actually produced from new reactors because they have the ability to reuse and recycle their own material. There were two types of reactors described in the film: the breeder reactor and the light water reactor. The breeder reactor creates plutonium material and recycles it. The light water reactor is much simpler than the breeder reactor, but it produces much more waste. According to the film, the amount of energy consumed by humans is expected to double by 2050, and is expected to triple or even quadruple by the year 2100.

There were a few other things that I was quite shocked by. The first thing was when it showed footage that visually showed the danger that came with different types of energy. It communicated this information by showing different sized cubes. The first one looked like a normal sized cube and it said coal on it. It then zoomed in and got to smaller and smaller cubes, until it finally got to nuclear energy, which was said to be the second safest form of energy production, not far behind the safest: wind energy. Nuclear energy is even safer than solar panels and solar energy, because solar panels is an extremely toxic process! The other things that I was surprised by was was when one of the ladies being interviewed said " 70000 tons have accumulated, of used fuel in the US. I thought the quantity was staggering! In fact, all used nuclear fuel from nuclear plants in the United States could fit into a single football field, if stacked to about 3m. Of that, only a very small fraction is plutonium that would still be radioactive and dangerous years from now." (1:15:50). The next person followed up that claim by saying "volumetrically, nuclear produces tiny amounts of waste." After that he said, Nuclear energy power 80% of France's energy needs, and the waste could fit into one room, compared to the billions of tons of waste produced by coal burning.

I felt, as I mentioned, pretty surprised by the end of the documentary. Going into it, I didn't really know what to expect, and I didn't really know what the documentary was about, let alone the stance that it would take. Upon discovering it was a discussion on the use of nuclear energy, my immediate thoughts were primarily negative, thinking that nuclear energy and nuclear power plants are definitely not the way to go. I thought they were dangerous, I thought they produced a lot of toxic waste, and a plethora of other things that made me against using them. I was surprised that the documentary was kind of able to convince me otherwise. Some of the visuals and ways that they showed it's effect and size (waste fitting in one room, waste fitting in one football field, small scale comparisons in block size to other power sources, etc.) were very effective in convincing me that they made not be as bad and I had initially read them to be. Prior to starting the film, I had this awful idea of anything involving the word "nuclear". To be honest, I didn't know much of anything about it, I just thought it was something bad, because I associated with things like nuclear bombs. My ideas were confirmed at the start of the film when it said it is "primarily a weapon, not an energy source". The last thing that stuck out to me was the part where it showed the warming of the earth changing (32:20) and it suddenly got much redder once it hit the 2000's. I kind of expected this, but I didn't realise that there was such a prominent change once the millennials were introduced to the picture.

What I liked about this film was that it was meant for ordinary people. They didn't use a lot of very scientific terms that were difficult to understand. Also, as I mentioned, it was very effective and I was quite hooked in it, because I completely agreed with the kinds of things they were staying towards the start of the film, but there was a very smooth and dragged out transition from them saying it was bad to saying it was good, and I felt like I was brought along this journey alongside them, which made it all the more convincing to me. I wouldn't say I'm now a 100% strong advocate for using nuclear power, but I definitely see it in a much more balanced way now. There are, of course, some things that aren't great about using nuclear power plants, but there are pros and cons with everything. Nuclear power is "by far the safest, cleanest source of world power", and a quote I really liked that they used at the end of the film was that "loving your children is about loving the future and the world that they will inherit". Although it's not directly related, I remember that when I was reading about Cape Wind, there was a quote that said something like "Society has to at some point accept that if we want electricity, we have to get it from somewhere and wherever that is, it won't be zero impact" I think this quote is very true, and nuclear power sources are very small impact, but there is still some impact, and it's a matter of weighing the pros and cons of different power sources. I think that nuclear power sources are one of the better, safer options out of some of the others. As a whole human race, we have to cut down on our energy use, because there are only so many ways that we can find sustainable energy sources, and these sources can only be so sustainable. Being "sustainable" doesn't mean it can support ALL our needs and wants forever. The ending of the film said they were hopeful for the next generation, and I'd like to hope that I can be too.

Northern Pass - Response Essay

In the simplest words, the Northern Pass is a 192-mile transmission line from
Hydro-Quebec that would carry hydroelectric power from Canada to New England.
It would bring 1090 megawatts of “clean”, affordable energy to NH and the rest
of New England. It was in the process of being built, but is now currently on hold,
and at the moment, is not being/going to be built. While there are many advantages to
the building of the Northern Pass (more surface level things like creating jobs, which
are in fact, very temporary), I feel that the costs outweigh the benefits in this case, and
in my opinion, I do not think the Northern Pass is a good idea, and it should not be built.

I think that the biggest thing is that the building of the Northern Pass would mean that
it would be a huge disruptor and would cause great destruction to scenic landscapes,
national park lands and habitats. Today in class, we discussed and learned that it would
likely cut right through the White Mountains (where we spent wilderness orientation).
There is a lot of natural heritage and historic monuments in New Hampshire that would
be greatly affected, and I think that this is worth more than the energy that wouldn’t
even hugely benefit residents. This would create a major drawback in visitors, and it
would create major economic implications for tourism. Furthermore, the economic
implications would also be seen in the depreciation of home and property value. It
would cut through agricultural land, lowering its property value and usage ability.

New Hampshire’s total energy consumption and per capita energy consumption is
one of the lowest in the entire nation, so really, New Hampshire residents wouldn’t
reap huge benefits. Furthermore, New Hampshire residents can’t even use the direct
current energy. They can only access it when the DC is converted to alternating
current (AC) energy. According to notonorthernpass.com, the project “is not about
clean energy, it is about an unfair market advantage, cloaked in false “green”
promises. The Northern Pass would effectively turn NH into a glorified extension cord”.

In conclusion, I do not think the Northern Pass is a good idea. Along with the NH
site evaluation committee, I think that there are definitely more severe consequences
to building the Northern Pass and many flaws in the idea, that just aren’t worth the
minimal amount of benefits that it would provide. The scales just aren’t nearly
balanced.I acknowledge that there are, of course, big benefits to building it, but it’s
just not something I think we need. Furthermore, I definitely think that there are
other ways to reap those same benefits. The Northern Pass would be a huge production
that, statistics show that of over 3,000 public comments that were submitted to the
SEC, 95% of NH residents oppose it. Nearly every community along the proposed
route of towers has spoken up to oppose the project, and as have others across the
state. I agree that we need to expand our energy, but the Northern Pass is not the
way to do it, because it would do irreparable damage to the beautiful state.

Bibliography:

“Home.” No To Northern Pass, www.notonorthernpass.com/.

“Northern Pass Is Wrong for New Hampshire.” New Hampshire Business Review, www.nhbr.com/February-2-2018/Northern-Pass-is-wrong-for-New-Hampshire/.

The Northern Pass.” Forest Society, 8 Feb. 2018, forestsociety.org/advocacy-issue/northern-pass.

“Northern Pass.” Appalachian Mountain Club, www.outdoors.org/conservation/hot-issues/northern-pass.