User reviews

I saw a showing of this film at MIT, paired with a discussion by the director, Shellenberger, and a nuclear scientist. The audience was probably an unusual crowd, and they laughed at parts that other folks likely won't.

One of the researchers at MIT pointed out that most of this information is not new to anyone--that the facts and issues are really the same as scientists have known. But there was great appreciation that someone has chosen to try to tell the story to the general public. And to accomplish this in part with interviews from folks who had been opposed to nuclear power, and who consider themselves to be environmentalists, was effective and interesting.

It was also helpful to have the historical context--how the fear of weapons became entirely tangled in the idea of the technology for non-military uses. But it also laid out the facts about how our craving for power has led us to burning fossil fuels that have harmed far more people than nuclear power ever has. And how France's reliance on nuclear means their carbon footprint is dramatically lower than that of the Germans, who think they are more environmentally friendly.

It could open some minds. It could start some conversations. It's worth your time if you care about the atmosphere.

I am an advocate of objectivity in public policy debates: Attacking the Nebula and breaking through the fog of misconceptions. I found Pandora's Promise an excellent film to re-ignite the dialog and cause people to re-examine their nuclear/anti-nuclear positions; hopefully with objectivity. The film will not likely convert one from an anti-nuclear bent to a pro-nuclear one—the topic is too complex and emotionally deep an issue and an hour and a half is too short a time for a real debate. But rather, the film should cause people to question the whether or not their beliefs are based on sound-bites or by evidence.

Environmentalists traditionally have been anti-nuclear particularly since nuclear pollution is such an emotionally frightening topic and not easy to put into context. It therefore is quite natural to believe that zero emissions is the right number. But as carbon dioxide, which was once considered a benign gas, enters into our public debate with greater concern and frequency, emissions of carbon dioxide, indeed any kind of emissions, become more and more relevant. This makes Pandora's Promise timely and relevant.

By presenting environmentalists who once were anti-nuclear but now see it a different way, and by interviewing some experts in the nuclear field, Robert Stone, takes us through a journey of discovery, as we see how some of the most common perceptions about nuclear power have little connection to solid reason. The overarching theme of the film is that when presented with facts and well-grounded research—i.e. objectivity—old anti-nuclear positions can be reversed.

As I watched the film, I made a few notes about some of the information presented and afterward spent a bit of time on the researching some of the points presented. Largely, I found good corroboration and am comfortable saying the film fairly addressed some of the many nuclear myths perpetuated over time.

While the film is largely balanced, it does succumb to the temptation of attacking an extreme position in making its case. A "60 Minutes"-type ambush of the vocal anti-nuke Helen Caldicott, making her look the fool is not debate. She is a side-show with unsupportable viewpoints. Attacking her only serves to make a nuclear advocate rejoice, but does little to inform a thinking anti-nuke. Another weakness in the film is a shallow and overly narrow handling of nuclear technology. The film dwells far too long on the integral fast reactor (IFR). The advantages and disadvantages of an IFR is in of itself a wide and broad topic which could take many hours and days to adequately explore. But there is no IFR in operation nor in construction today, so it seems quite odd when speaking about the merits of nuclear power, so much time was spent on a reactor design which is not part of the nuclear infrastructure.

So, while there is a great deal more to debate and discuss on the topic of nuclear power, Pandora's Promise presents a great case for a renewed debate, particularly amongst those interested in energy and global climate changes.

Stone's earliest documentary used declassified footage acquired through the Freedom of Information Act to tell the story of the Bikini islanders and American servicemen affected by nuclear weapons testing. Pandora's Promise shows he remains a dedicated researcher twenty five years later.

With captivating images of energy production from all over the world, Stone explores the contradictions of science and ideology related to climate change, urbanization, and nuclear power. The personal narratives of the people featured in the film provide an unapologetic point of view on disruption in the historic environmental narrative. Beautifully shot, enjoyable to watch, the film's highlighting of counter intuitive information will present inconvenient truths that inspire conversation after the credits roll.

As an Environmentalist, and someone who cares deeply about the fate of the planet, Pandora's Promise was a refreshing look at the reality of Nuclear Energy.

As a society, we face some tough choices. The traditional environmental movement opposes Nuclear Energy, instead favouring Solar, Wind and other renewables. Unfortunately they cost considerably more than burning fossil fuels, and no amount of technological advancement will change this - it's just way too cheap to dig up coal and chuck it in a furnace. And that's exactly what's happening the world over.

Over 1000 new coal plants are planned worldwide(1). Coal is a killer. Coal plants pump out far more radiation than nuclear power plants, due to the radioactive elements present in coal, which are released into the atmosphere by the burning. Particulates alone are responsible for over 13,000 deaths *per year* in the United States(2), and some estimates say over 100,000 deaths per year in China. This doesn't include coal mining accidents. Even the best coal mines in the US kill over 30 people per year(3). Coal mining killed over 6000 people in China alone in 2004 (3).

Coal is a *killer*. We need to stop burning it. It has killed far more people than nuclear power ever has, and this is something that a lot of people in Environmentalist movement just simply ignore.

Many Environmentalists claim to believe in science - certainly when conservatives deny climate change, environmentalists point to the science. Yet they bury their heads when it comes to Nuclear.

Nuclear Energy has killed *zero* people in the United States (4). There were no deaths after the accident at Three Mile Island, and zero deaths as a result of Fukushima (4). Chernobyl was a catastrophic accident and indeed did lead to many deaths, 56 (4) direct deaths and potentially as many as 4000 premature deaths due to cancer (4), but these figures pale into significance next to the figures on coal.

So how can the environmental movement be so opposed to nuclear? It just does not make sense.

I am in favour of Wind and Solar power, but the wind and the Sun don't provide power 24 hours a day. There are no economic storage methods. We need base load power. We need cheap energy.

So what can provide CO2 free, safe and cheap energy? Nuclear power can. It's a perfect ally of renewable power. Nuclear energy is a natural phenomena, it is responsible for 50% of the heat at the Earths core, without which the planet would be as dead as Mars - without a molten core, solar winds would strip the earth of it's protective outer layer.

Existing Nuclear has many problems, but these are solvable. Unfortunately in the 50s and 60s the world settled on Light Water Reactors. These use Water as a coolant. Because water boils at 100^C, too low a temperature for efficient power production, reactors have to keep the water under pressure to get temperatures high, effectively creating pressure cookers kept at 300 atmospheres. This leads to high cost, and any fault results in steam escaping. In Fukishima, when it lost coolant, the high temperatures disassociated the hydrogen and the oxygen, creating an explosive gas mixture at the top of the building which is what exploded, spreading radiation particles from the reactor core. It just does not make sense to use Water as a coolant.

Nor does it make sense to use solid fuels. All existing reactors use solid fuel, which results in incomplete burn up, approximately 1% of the fuel is used. This produces a large amount of spent fuel, which must either be reprocessed, or stored as waste.

There are solutions. In the 60s, at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, a radically different design was developed, called the Molten Salt reactor. Unfortunately Pandora's Promise didn't cover this at all, but this design solves almost all the problems with existing nuclear power.

In a Molten Salt reactor(6), rather than having solid fuel rods with high pressure water in a pressurised reactor container, you instead dissolve the nuclear fuel in a salt. Thanks to the salt being a liquid, the fuel circulates, allowing 99% of the fuel to be burned, producing just 1% of the waste of existing reactors. Because the salt is already molten, you can't suffer a "meltdown". If the reaction starts to go too fast and get too hot, the salts expand and the reaction slows down - it's inherently self regulating. A failsafe is to have a passively cooled drain tank attached to the reactor - a fan blows over the pipe between the reactor and the drain tank, freezing some of the salt in the tube. If the building loses all power, the fan stops, the plug melts, and the fuel drains into the tank. What's more, reactors of this type can be used to burn existing spent nuclear fuel.

So with an MSR, you have completely safe nuclear energy, vastly reduced waste, with a vastly simpler design. MSRs can also use Thorium as a fuel instead of Uranium, an element as abundant as Lead that's safe to hold in your hand and is produced as byproduct of mining, making it free - people will pay you to take it away.

I'd highly recommend people who care about the environment watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

Not all nuclear power plants are equal. Nuclear Power is as far as I'm concerned, humanity's last hope to avoid catastrophic runaway climate change, and I'm desperately fearful that we won't embrace it. If we don't embrace it, the planet is doomed.

References:

1: http://goo.gl/DIksK

2: http://goo.gl/0g8kF

3: http://goo.gl/DOXyb

4: http://goo.gl/B17dt

5: http://goo.gl/i8Qc1

6: http://goo.gl/1LxQs

The good: It's good to see a film that advocates science and reason for the purpose of spreading an important message that is far overdue. I think the interviewees were well selected from pools of both scientific experts and relate-able, intelligent, concerned citizens who all present the overwhelming and long-known evidence for nuclear power's safety and use.

The bad: A 45-60 min version could have been equally informative. There's a lot of bad editing and poor documentary style, sometimes laughably so, and the narrative thread gets rather weak as it's stretched to meet minimum feature length. Many poor pro-nuclear arguments and some inflammatory material is thrown in the mix which diminishes film's documentary integrity.

Should awaken folks like my fellow Sierra Club members, NRDC & Greenpeace contributers, etc. to the folly of their organizations' uninformed, anti-nuclear stances.

The myths around radiation from nuclear plants are exposed clearly, as is the extreme variation in normal (background) radiation around the world, up in the air, etc. The director is innovative in how these facts are exposed to the viewer.

The movie also does an excellent job of deflating myths and downright lies about Chernobyl's effects, and the exploitation of that event by irresponsible people like Helen Caldicott who choose to spread fear and sell books rather than discuss the facts. The movie shows Ukrainians who never left their homes & church in the exclusion zone. To complement this, www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Z5__IkaCs -- Chernobyl's radioactive wolves is an excellent documentary.

This film interviews several environmentalists and peace campaigners who have changed their mind on nuclear, and explores the reasons why they have changed their mind from "anti" to "pro". The film doesn't gloss over the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima; some of the speakers visit these locations in person and acknowledge their unease in a thoughtful way, but they also press on and discuss quantitatively whether people have been poorly informed about the actual dangers. The film is a myth-buster, which gives the open-minded viewer the chance to compare polemics with facts that the viewer can verify. The film makers take a radiation dose meter around the world, showing on screen the readings in capital cities, inside a nuclear power station, in aeroplanes, on a beach in Brazil (to which people flock for its natural radiation), near Fukushima, and near Chernobyl. Viewers who like me love numbers are advised to take a sheet of paper and pen to note down the readings at the beach, near Fukushima, and near Chernobyl. No doubt the main response to this film will be a brawl between "pro" and "anti" people, most of whom have not seen the film. They all need to calm down and watch this film.

Some people compare this film with An Inconvenient Truth. I think Pandora's Promise is a better documentary.

Contrary to what other reviewers say, it is not "propaganda by the nuclear industry" - only a couple of the people involved in the film were ever employed by the nuclear industry; most of the people interviewed are genuinely independent thinkers, mainly environmentalists, with no hidden agenda, who have taken the trouble to look at facts and data, and who have been willing to imagine that their opinions might be wrong. This is a trait to be admired.

See the film, study the facts, then decide. (And, incidentally, I should say the film's photography is great!)

"Pandora's Promise" is a challenging and engaging documentary about nuclear power. However, instead of it being promoted by the usual sources, this film is about LIBERALS pushing for nuclear power. This shows a divide between them and the old fashioned anti-nuke liberals. However, this film does NOT mean that it represents this group joining in with the Conservatives here in America because much of the basis for their new-found love of radioactivity is their fear of global warming. In essence, it is as if they are now saying 'we were wrong about nuclear power...we're sorry...but believe us now about global warming'--an argument that is bound to alienate many.

So is this a bad film? No. While I think it is inconsistent in some ways, it IS thought-provoking and interesting from start to finish. But, occasionally it made me question some of their facts and conclusions--such as saying that 3,000,000 folks a year die as a result of fossil fuels! Where did they get that figure from and why does the film also mock the fantastic death figures thrown about by the anti-nuke movement. I BOTH are way overstating their cases in order to make their points. As for me, I'd like to see more about this subject but also from different sources.

I haven't even seen this film and already have a pretty good idea of what it will say... and it needs to be said because the vast array of options to develop nuclear power are largely unexplored. This is a problem of ignorance for our country and this movie is probably made for them. Our Govt has committed to one particular nuc technology, uranium or plutonium solid fuel which only utilizes about 0.5% of the potential energy in these materials before it must be decommissioned for storage. The advantage of this design is that it can be relatively easily converted to nuc weapons and nuc weapons can be relatively easily converted into civilian power uses. There are many other designs which harvest more of the potential energy from the fuel, and therefore pose less of a waste storage problem, could even consume "waste" solid fuel, are less easily made into weapons, are self limiting and incapable of "melting down" and can be scaled from large to small applications. These need to be explored and the best solutions developed in USA if we hope to remain economically competitive and if the world hopes to continue to develop while eliminating CO2 concerns. For more info on this check out "Thorium LFTR" on Youtube.

This documentary makes some strong arguments in favor of nuclear power; however, it also fails in its arguments by utilizing some of the same arguments against other power sources that it complains are used against nuclear power. For instance, it argues that many arguments against nuclear power are based on dated information and that many of the problems people worry about aren't actually significant worries anymore. However, at the same time, it complains about problems with solar panels that were actually solved before the documentary was made. As a result, the entire documentary becomes overly cheerful about nuclear and dismissive about other options for generating power. With such a clear, strong bias, the value of the rest of the documentary is severely degraded. The quality of the film otherwise is very good - just too flawed for a strong recommendation.

Plot

The atomic bomb and meltdowns like Fukushima have made nuclear power synonymous with global disaster. But what if we've got nuclear power wrong?

Cast

Made by Robert Stone, a totally unbias gentleman clearly who also did another similar documentary called Atomic Hope (2022).

Verdict

I becoming rather disillusioned when it comes to documentaries, I miss the days it was just a person doing a documentary film on a subject without bias nor agenda. Now the vast majority of documentaries feel forced, feel like propaganda, feel like they've been bought and paid for by an industry, feel politically motivated! I expected Pandora's Promise to feel the same but it doesn't, not exactly anyway.

Many people are saying this plays out like a commercial for nuclear energy and though I get the logic I'd disagree but it's far from unbiased.

You see it presents itself as featuring those who are pro-nuclear, those anti-nuclear and those on the fence. The trouble is, I don't believe it for a second. They're all pro-nuclear playing the role of people who need convincing that nuclear is good and their ridiculous one sided education is basically the entire documentary.

Does it address the criticisms? Yes, but it does it at such a gloriously skew angle it glosses over it and misdirects the viewer. The thing is amidst the misdirection are lies, and I don't appreciate this. When you resort to lies to get your point across, your point is lost entirely.

Pandora's Promise isn't a propaganda documentary, but it does have an agenda.

Rants

There are various accomplishments that governments and corporations have done involving swaying people into voting/fighting against their best interests such as convincing people in the US they don't want healthcare! That one always astounds me but what the fuel industry has done swaying people in favour of environmentally damaging options and making them hate environmentalists and valid alternatives is incredible!

The Good

Relatively well made

The Bad

Dishonest Agenda laden The dynamic of supposed anti-nuclear gone pro-nuclear is insulting.

I had read one review that labeled this as a "mess" but I still wanted to watch it. After doing so, I found it to be very informative and I learned much more about nuclear energy than I have seen anywhere else. I have to believe that the reviewer who labeled it simply as a mess, could in fact be someone who is so against nuclear energy that they feel others should not see opposing viewpoints.

I thought it was very well compiled and the information and its accompanying documentation flowed smoothly. Yes, it may have a few segments that depicted some who disagree with the nuclear energy as being uninformed but, after watching the film, I have to agree.

It was interesting to see how some who were adamantly against this form of energy in the past, which includes a number of experts in that field, have changed their minds and are now in favor of it after researching the data.

I was also not aware of the different types of reactors and, how corners were cut to save money in just about every location where accidents have occurred with the remaining, being due to human error in that safety fail-safes were ignored, that could have prevented the accident as was the case in Three Mile Island.

Whether you are pro or against this form of energy, I would have to say that I highly recommend this film as one to include in your quest to be informed on the subject.

This film is much better than what people rank it. Not a surprise, as these reviewers are by far liberals who could not accept the message. I watched it on CNN. It was a very interesting film in many ways. I found most interesting the education of two of the old leading environmentalists. Who blatantly admit they were closed minded in their view of how energy production could be made feasibly. They slowly educated themselves to understand that wind and solar were not realistic options for producing the massive amount of energy that is needed globally and that it would be impossible for the globe to solve it's energy needs with just them. They admit feeling lied to and stupid for believing that wind and solar were going to solve the worlds problems. As someone who didn't need a video to state the obvious, I am left wondering how people can really believe those blatant lies. With out spoiling the doc and getting into specifics. This guy does a good job at taking a hard look at things. He does not say we should never use solar or wind. Simply it will never be enough and they use a natural gas when to keep the plants running when their is no wind or it's cloudy. And he's right. Nuclear is his better than the rest of the other options solution. As someone who personally thinks clean coal is a better option, I will say he makes a strong argument. My only, concern with his theory, is that he never talks about what to do with the spent fuel. These critics of the film are hell bent on 2 arguments. Conservation and solar. Conservation isn't put much into the video, but he clearly states in interviews that we will never conserve enough and we will always use more. Which studies and both common sense prove to be true. But he never address that fissile fuels can be made to burn cleaner. 1 thing he definitely got right. It's not just the US. The emerging world that is starting to use more and more energy is going to massively increase pollution. Which there is no fix. I am waiting for the day we start having the Chinese global debate for 1 child.

The documentary is a complete mess in regards to facts. A few are there to be sure, but so scattered and disconnected that you will learn nothing about nuclear energy, good or bad. Indeed, if you have a real interest in the subject, it will take less effort to simply pick a physics book and start reading from chapter one.

What the documentary does (if it does anything at all) is to display a tiny portion of human stupidity. From activists to scientists, and various other creatures, we hear unsophisticated social/political theories that make absolutely no sense but that they are delighted to tell the world about nonetheless. And when the documentary does allow a professional politician to speak (e.g. Thatcher), it is to manipulate the audience by misconstruing the very manipulation of the politician herself. In other words, it is a mess.

In sum, it isn't worth watching on account of the presumed topic. Regarding the human folly, one can turn the TV on any channel for much of the same.

Pandora's Promise earns six stars for sparking vital conversations about nuclear energy. Environmentalists must confront the facts and move beyond outdated objections to nuclear power.

In the 1980s, anti-nuclear films and documentaries painted terrifying pictures-mass deaths from radiation, a frozen planet. These narratives cleverly linked nuclear weapons with nuclear energy, muddling public perception. While reactors produce fissile material, that's a separate issue requiring nuanced discussion.

The choice to use submarine reactor designs for commercial power, driven by Admiral Rickover and later endorsed by Nixon and California's governor, was a political misstep, not a technical necessity.

Global warming debates often feel like political theater, costing lives and environmental health. Renewables, burdened by heavy metals and plastic waste, pose their own environmental challenges.

"Facts don't bend to feelings" applies here. Renewable energy's limits, dictated by physics, can't be wished away. Fear of nuclear power ignores evidence, signaling intellectual stagnation or dogmatic loyalty to an environmentalist orthodoxy.

Cheap, clean energy is the path to a better world. It's time to shed half-century-old fears and embrace nuclear power's potential.

It's just basic info and history of nuclear power, something which, sadly, very few Americans know anything about, just like economics.

It's a good presentation for the adult children out there that are trying to think for themselves.

The documentary film Pandora's Promise is addressing some of the most important questions humankind faces these days. The documentary fosters a healthy debate about these issues. Director Robert Stone achieved a landmark documentary bringing together an impressive wealth of facts, myths and contradicting world views. Most convincing are the five protagonists which bravely changed their believes from being fiercely anti-nuclear to a realistic pro-nuclear stance. Independent whether you are anti- or pro-nuclear energy everyone who is seriously interested in solving the poverty, energy and environmental crisis should watch Pandora's Promise.

Well, with a title like "Not at all convincing", it will surprise some readers to know that I am a supporter of nuclear power. Unfortunately, this film is polemic, one sided, and so entirely slanted that it works against its own purpose.

Anti-nuke protesters are shown, but only the most extreme ("1,000,000 deaths in Chernobyl!") and holes are so wide you could drive a nuclear submarine through them ("Look! Chernobyl! Almost radiation free!")

The reality is that Chernobyl is a decaying mess, and it is the failure of the nuclear plant that caused it. Even if not directly, *it doesn't matter!* When the nuke plant blows up, nobody is going to stick around because some filmmaker found 27 souls who moved back to Chernobyl 10 years later and they're OK.

The problem of nuclear waste is real. It doesn't matter whether we've poured $30 billion into Yucca Mountain or not, the people of Nevada are unmistakably against it (nearly 75%!) so pretending it's a problem that will somehow go away is akin to howling at the moon.

Solar (and other renewables) are dismissed with "You can't do everything with solar power." Well, I don't know of anyone outside a few oddball extremists who ever thought that. Pretending that's a legitimate argument may allow you to demolish it, but then what have you accomplished? You've demonstrated that you can mount an effective argument against a lie? Good show.

I happen to be one who believes that humans have a limitless appetite for energy. I am sure that nuclear has to be part of that, and probably a BIG part of that. But reducing opponents' arguments to caricature and showing lopsided and occasionally irrelevant factoids is not the way to convince anyone.

Here's the question: do you want people to say "Yes, the industry should only use government approved designs, or should the 'free market' be allowed to produce anything it wants" flies in the face of the ideology of most of the supporters of nuclear power. Do you think anyone, anywhere wants the nuclear waste in their backyard? No? Why not? (I know, I know, everybody's irrational except you.) What would happen In New York City if that happy little nuclear power station on Long Island went up in smoke, as Fukushima did (which we were assured could never happen, of course.)

These are the questions I hoped the documentary would answer, for the good of the industry, global warming, the nation and the planet. Unfortunately this film is more of an infomercial for the nuclear industry, as phony as the chicken that come so perfectly baked (every time!) from that stove-top rotisserie grill you can buy for only 3 easy payments of $39.99.

The purpose of this movie is to, if not change your mind, at least make you question your opinion about nuclear power. It is some of the rare documentaries that actually succeed to keep you pinned the entire way through, and make you feel like you realized something no one else has noticed before. It is an incredibly powerful and moving documentary that shows the direct flaws with today's power and gently pushes arguments that are for nuclear power, through credible, documented, and completely valid sources.

A definite eight points from here, this documentary succeeds in every way possible with its message and makes you involved at the same time. A must watch for anyone interested in global warming, or anyone who is open to new ideas and viewpoints from a business that has a taboo around it. And as it is available on Netflix, I see no point in not at least giving it a try.

My only criticism of Pandora's Promise is that it didn't stress global warming enough. Yes, it was implicit in the use of Stewart Brand and other environmentalists (who all believe global warming is a huge problem). However, it wasn't mentioned anywhere that climate change could make the planet entirely uninhabitable by the year 2100 -- or even much sooner than that.

Given the nature of the catastrophe staring all of us in the face, we must build nuclear reactors even if the Helen Caldicotts of the world are correct. If we build a thousand new power plants before 2100, and 5 of them suffer meltdowns as bad as Chernobyl, then we could be looking at 5 million deaths, if Caldicott is correct. But so what? If the construction of coal plants continues to accelerate, then we'll have 10 billion deaths by 2100, as almost all humans will die as the earth warms up by 10 degrees C.

Germany has tried to build more solar and wind farms recently. But because of a lack of power storage batteries and the intermittency of wind and solar, they've had to construct gas power plants -- so the net result is to make global warming worse, not better. Plus German electricity prices are roughly double what nuclear France's prices are.

In 50 years, we may have solved these problems of power storage and intermittency. In 50 years, the world may have successfully figured out how to completely rely on the greenest of renewables like sun, wind, tidal, hydro, etc. I hope that we do. But if we don't solve global warming now, the state of human research in 50 years will be irrelevant. We need something which will get us to the year 2100, and nuclear energy is the only technology we have which is practical to do the job.

One of your anti-nuclear reviewers referred the reader to the beyondnuclear.org's reviews of the film. Given the need to solve global warming now, only one of the points on their website is relevant:

"Nuclear power, no matter the reactor design, cannot address climate change in time. In order to displace a significant amount of carbon-emitting fossil-fuel generation, another 1,000 to 1,500 new 1,000+ Megawatt reactors would need to come on line worldwide by 2050, a completely prohibitive proposition."

Our nation developed a crash program to put a man on the moon within a decade of JFK's announcement. And we did it. Our nation developed a crash program called the Manhattan Project to build and test The Bomb before the war ended. Against all odds, we did it. So if we are willing to do what the French did, and build standardized-design nuclear reactors mostly in factories, there's no reason why we can't build one or two hundred reactors by 2025 -- just 6 years from now. But this will only happen if we make it our number one national priority, like Apollo and Manhattan were.

Compared to wind power, nuclear power is much safer, more reliable, cost justified, and environmentally better. My TOP pick would be hydro-electric power, however, there are only so many waterfalls in the world. SECOND would be nuclear power, THIRD would be solar, however that would be costly and require 'solar farms'... still a possibility.. but is still an 'on- demand' source of energy, however it could be fed back into the grid. FOURTH would be coal-fired plants and LAST (and least) would be wind power. There are just too many cons regarding this source of 'energy'... too invasive on people and environment (dangerous, noise, flicker effect, affect on birds, bats, etc.), costs return (installation plus kickback)... it has been proved that wind power will make us pay more in electric bills... and they average a 20-yr lifespan (or less).... Monsters in the hills.... they have taken over our natural landscapes.