Want a Resolution to Bring Change? Share Free Book Unintended-Consequences

To Supporters of Science as a way of reaching the truth

In the interest of raising awareness about climate change and safe nuclear power, please share this book with others by reaching beyond your usual community of pro-nuclear friends: “Unintended Consequences: The Lie that Killed Millions and Accelerated Climate Change”. The subtitle reminds us that the integrity of science can be damaged when unsubstantiated claims go unchallenged. If we respect science for anything, it’s the scientific method, which provides a solid basis for decision making and deciding what works best. 

Unfortunately, the media and special interest groups have spokespeople who pose as experts, even though they are merely repeating commercially generated opinions on important matters like nuclear energy vs. oil, natural gas and renewables.


​Dr. George Erickson, the best-selling author of “Unintended Consequences,” having personally witnessed the changes that are accelerating all across the Arctic, began to investigate climate change and energy issues about 15 years ago by joining the Thorium Energy Alliance and the National Center for Science Education, and then by giving presentations on these issues all across the U S and Canada.

In “Unintended Consequences,” Erickson exposes the lie that created our extreme radiation safety standards, the damage those regulations have caused, and his contempt for “greens” who profit from promoting large footprint, carbon-reliant, only 30% efficient, so-called “renewables.” He sees the label “renewable” as a misnomer considering the totally inefficient wind and solar resource hogs that use hard-to-recycle materials, vast quantities of land including bird and bat killing wind turbine monstrosities and toxic laden solar panels that are far more likely to affect human health. Yet these “greens” oppose environment-friendly, CO2-free, 90% efficient, safe, small foot-print nuclear power.

With unique images and input from engineers, physicists and specialists in nuclear medicine, the author urges closed-minded organizations like the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace to emulate real environmentalists like Stephen Tindale, James Lovelock and Stewart Brand, who had opposed nuclear power, but now support it as the safest, most efficient way to produce the 24/7electricity we must have to effectively combat Climate/Ocean Change.

Please do what you can to spread the word about electricity from safe, efficient nuclear power and the politics that have prevented its growth. If you have a website, please upload the PDF or insert a connecting link. PDF attached and embed instruction link below.

Thank you.

Rick Maltese

Founder of Energy Reality Project



You will find embed instructions here 



A New Fire is Spreading

 The New Fire 
A Film by David Schumacher

Review by Christopher Bergan
This is an incredible documentary: possibly the first of a kind as far as shining a positive spotlight directly on advanced nuclear power. You read that correctly. Though this was the directorial debut for David Schumacher, this pro-nuclear film is a collaborative project by persons who have previously won awards for making films and other audiovisual content.

I was fortunate to be able to attend the premiere at the Heartland Film Festival in Indianapolis, Indiana back on October 14, 2017. There was a light breeze on this partly sunny day in Indianapolis, though I drove through a couple rain showers back in Illinois to get there. The film has since been shown in Cambridge, UK; and in Zürich, Switzerland. It will be shown several other places back in the USA through 2018.

NOTE: This event at the Heartland Film Festival had nothing to do with The Heartland Institute. It’s common to find a Heartland-something-or-other in nearly every county of the mid-west United States – which locals consider to be “The Heart of America”.

There was a tent just outside the mall, with room for about 100 attendees to chat and take selfies in between sips of local craft beers. Inside the theater there were specific lines for the various film festival attendees. It seemed to be a well organized event. I should also mention that this showing had sold out, though there were a few empty seats in the theater. Apparently unanticipated road construction delays and at least one nearby university homecoming celebration disrupted traffic enough to severely delay a few attendees.

The tent just outside of the Heartland Film Festival, Indianapolis

The actual film was nearly what I expected, though many of the specific details still surprised me. This documentary was centered on people and their passions, as any good tale should be. Here their common concerns include energy poverty, climate issues, and improving the human condition. Frustration with sharing this vision has driven each group of self-admitted science geeks to embark on a journey to fan the entrepreneurial fires of change – with the flame-less fires of neutronic activity.

This emerging industry took some in Washington by surprise, and brought lots of attention to the huge economic and security benefits of advanced nuclear. But here’s the thing… we aren’t the only country trying to commercialize advanced reactors and reap their rewards. Just check out the links at the end of this review!

There are several angles by which this documentary could be marketed. There’s the obvious Women in Nuclear tie-in which greatly supports girls involvement in STEAM education. There’s the entrepreneurial angle where young persons (women & men equally!) start a business with university-honed credentials. Or some may take a more traditional route, getting hired by a cutting edge multi-national company. Some will appreciate the zero GHG angle of climate change environmentalism. There’s even an advocacy-by-opera moment! One of many enjoyable moments was hearing nuclear scientists discuss characteristics of a vehicles’ automatic doors – something a few in the audience might relate to.

For the Q&A immediately after the film producer Ross Koningstein was on hand to lead off.

The Q&A session at The New Fire Premiere

Also present were cast members Dr. Per Peterson, Eric Meyer, Dr. Nick Touran, and Tom Blees. The director arrived a few minutes into the Q&A session, as he had flown in from a private engagement connected with this film in another state.

Though not planned, this documentary about new, advanced reactors is an excellent follow-up to the 2013 documentary Pandora’s Promise by Robert Stone. Personally I’m looking forward to the eventual DVD release of The New Fire: the DVD extras just might be the best part of the project, as they were for Pandora’s Promise (at least in my opinion).

There is at least one other pro-nuclear documentary in the works as well. The industry seems to be greatly  changing from what it was a decade ago – from all angles. Despite the huge impact these advanced reactors will have on both climate efforts and industry when they start hitting the market in less than a decade, we already have a few images to help us understand where and how they’ll fit into our communities.

I hope that The New Fire will be seen by many people and become a point of discussion between those persons who are interested in clean energy sources. Just as there are many types and sizes of automobile engines, there are many possibilities for clean, planet-friendly energy sources. These various advanced nuclear concepts are a few dozen of the many options we need to rationally assess and implement a better future.


Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear  (GAIN)

Additional information about The New Fire cast and advanced nuclear-power.

On The Ecomoderist Podcast, Rick & Gabe interview Emmy-winning director David Schumacher on his new documentary, The New Fire, which tells the story of the scientists and activists who are trying to save the planet by promoting nuclear power. One of the featured scientists, Dr. Leslie Dewan, is also interviewed.

On another edition of The Ecomodernist Podcast, Gabe & Rick talk with Rauli Partanen and Janne M. Korhonen, co-authors of Climate Gamble: Is Anti-Nuclear Activism Endangering Our Future?. This is a highly insightful book tackling one of the biggest problems of our time, climate change; and one of its most misunderstood solutions, nuclear power.

How will changes in the US government impact the advanced nuclear industry? This video has Oklo co-founder Caroline Cochran discussing issues of advanced reactors with NuScale Power’s John Hopkins and Southern Company’s Nick Irvin.

China’s first Gen IV reactor is scheduled to go online in 2018 – the Chinese pebble bed!

Dick Engel & Syd Ball discuss their time at Oak Ridge National Laboratory where they built and operated a proto-type Molten Salt Reactor – back in the 1960’s!

Tireless nuclear energy advocate Scott Medwid says “I used to oppose nuclear”!

Dr. Sunniva Rose at TEDx speaks out for interdisciplinary approaches to life, which for her includes nuclear physics and the color pink!

Skeptic Thomas Jam Pedersen explains at TEDxCopenhagen how he became a reluctant fan of Thorium.

Urs Bolt, Director of the Swiss chapter of Energy for Humanity, was a guest on ANC Headstart (a Morning Show in the Philippines) 7 November 2016.

How Thorium can save the world: Salim Zwein shares a friendly lecture at TEDxBeirut 2012.

Ted Rockwell’s interview from 2002; during the early days of the Manhattan Project, nuclear was never just about the bombs. He also explains how radiation is everywhere & is quite safe in moderation.

Author and inventor Christopher Carson gives a very nuanced & slightly technical talk about nuclear energy and how he views the many facets of nuclear issues.

Overview of US Territories Energy Infrastructures

With the infrastructure of Puerto Rico recently devastated (October 2017), this might be a good time to review the other four US territories. After all, they could be hit next year! In a nutshell, lots of imported oil and hopes about RE. The good news is that none of them use LNG or coal! They currently rely primarily on diesel gas/oil imports though, just as they have since vacuum tubes were considered modern technology.

This tends to leave the whole energy infrastructure (electricity, transportation, & local industries) of each territory exposed to the price fluctuations inherent in sometimes volatile oil prices.

Propane tanks on St. Croix Island, Virgin Islands. These eight tanks hold about 19 days worth of power.

The following US Energy Information Agency (EIA) data was updated in September 2017 – weeks before the US Territory of Puerto Rico was devastated by Hurricane Maria.
Be sure to browse the three tabs on each EIA link; Overview, Data, & Analysis.

American Samoa Quick Facts

  • American Samoa uses imported fossil fuels for almost all of the territory’s energy needs, including transportation, water treatment, and most of its electric power generation.
  • A significant amount of American Samoa’s electricity is used to pump and treat drinking water and to collect, pump, and treat wastewater.
  • Electricity prices in American Samoa vary with world petroleum prices; in mid-2017, they were 2.3 times the U.S. average, and comparable to Hawaii’s rates.
  • In 2016, the largest island in American Samoa’s Manu’a group, Ta’u, converted to 100% solar PV electricity generation, replacing the use of about 100,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year.
  • American Samoa Renewable Energy Committee has adopted a goal of getting 50% of American Samoa’s energy from renewable energy resources by 2025 and 100% by 2040.

Guam Quick Facts

  • Largest island in Micronesia, is located about three-fourths of the way from Hawaii to the Philippines. Guam has no fossil energy resources and meets nearly all of its energy needs, including electricity, with petroleum products shipped in by tanker.
  • To meet its energy needs, Guam imports petroleum products and uses its wind and solar resources to generate electricity.
  • Guam’s population is estimated to be about 162,000, plus more than 12,000 military personnel and their families. The U.S. military plans to move some personnel from Okinawa (Japan) to Guam, bringing a substantial influx of people to the island.
  • Guam has set a goal of cutting petroleum consumption by 20% from the 2010 level by 2020.
  • In 2016, the number of Guam Power Authority’s customers exceeded 50,000 for the first time.
  • Two of the four generating units at Guam’s main power plant were destroyed by an explosion and fire in 2015.
  • Wind turbines requires special engineering to cope with Guam’s earthquake and typhoons.
  • Two ocean-based technologies being investigated are Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and Sea Water Air Conditioning These applications may be limited by pipe impacts on the fragile coral reef surrounding Guam.

Northern Mariana Islands Quick Facts

  • The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) meets nearly all of its energy demand by importing petroleum products, including 22 million to 24 million gallons of diesel fuel annually to run the islands’ electricity generating plants.
  • The Commonwealth Utilities Corp. is looking at long-term alternatives to petroleum-fired electricity generators, which are aging and cannot run at full capacity.
  • Active volcanoes make the CNMI–particularly the islands of Pagan and Saipan–unique in Micronesia in having significant geothermal energy potential.
  • The CNMI’s renewable portfolio standard requires the islands to get 20% of their net electricity sales from renewable energy if cost-effective resources are available, but, so far, only small-scale wind and solar resources have been built, mostly at government and school facilities.

US Virgin Islands Quick Facts

  • The U.S. Virgin Islands is about 600 miles southeast of Miami, Florida. Like most Caribbean islands, the USVI has no fossil energy resources but does have some renewable resources.
  • The USVI imports petroleum products to meet most of its energy needs, including electricity and desalination of ocean water for its public water supply.
  • The U.S. Virgin Islands is shifting from fuel oil to propane to generate electricity and produce public drinking water.
  • The USVI has two separate island grids that must each maintain generation backup and reserves.
  • Distributed solar generation on consumer rooftops can provide up to 15 megawatts of capacity. The island has nearly 230 MW of electricity capacity currently.

Puerto Rico Quick Facts (before Hurricane Maria)

  • Petroleum products fuel transportation, electricity generation, and industry in Puerto Rico, supplying three-fourths of the energy consumed in the commonwealth.
  • In 2016, 47% of Puerto Rico’s electricity came from petroleum, 34% from natural gas, 17% from coal, and 2% from renewable energy.
  • Two wind farms supplied nearly half of Puerto Rico’s renewable generation in 2016; one of them, the 95-megawatt Santa Isabel facility, is the largest wind farm in the Caribbean.
  • As of June 2017, Puerto Rico had 127 megawatts of utility-scale solar photovoltaic generating capacity and 88 megawatts of distributed (customer-sited, small-scale) capacity. In the first six months of 2017, more renewable electricity came from solar energy than any other source.
  • Electricity fuel surcharges have decreased with world crude oil prices, but, in mid-2017, Puerto Rico’s retail consumers still paid more for their power than consumers in any state except Hawaii.



Additional Resources:
In the US territories, the average residential rate for electricity has been about $0.37/kWh—about three times higher than the U.S. national average cost of electricity.  www.powermag.com/marooned-how-island-power-systems-keep-the-lights-on/

Though running power lines hundreds (or thousands) of miles under the ocean might be a poor idea, utilizing these recently confirmed mid-ocean winds for islands seems like a possibility worth studying further.  https://carnegiescience.edu/news/huge-energy-potential-open-ocean-wind-farms-north-atlantic

Start-up companies which are working on SMRs using spent uranium fuel include the Bill Gates backed TerraPower, Transatomic, and Terrestrial Energy. Another start-up, Oklo, seeks to create 2-megawatt reactors that fit inside shipping containers to provide electricity for remote off-grid locations. Toshiba has worked on a micro nuclear reactor that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. www.off-grid.net/micro-nuclear-power-plants-gaining-acceptance/

Ta’ū Island is all of 44.3 sq km (17.1 sq miles), and the population has grown to about 800 in recent years. In the 1920’s well-known anthropologist Margaret Mead conducted her dissertation research here. A solar + battery system was recently installed, designed to power the entire island for three days without sunlight and fully recharge in seven hours. www.collective-evolution.com/2017/03/04/how-this-pacific-island-switched-from-diesel-to-100-renewable-energy/

The well known wind-driven hydro system of El Hierro Island (Canary Islands/Spain) has shown improvements, but can still vary wildly from month to month. As of the end of September 2017, GdV [Gorona del Viento] had supplied 42.3% of El Hierro’s electricity demand since project startup in June 2015, up from 41.5% at the end of August; and 9.7% of its energy demand, up from 9.6% at the end of August. http://euanmearns.com/tag/gorona-del-viento/

For a rather nutty look at renewable energy on an island, try coconuts! https://web.archive.org/web/20130607060110/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iwlwgv6YIwatWfk9HEp0bSjAiV-Q

8th Thorium Energy Alliance Conference Sends Message of Hope.

I think members crave the feeling of community when attending the Thorium Energy Alliance Conference (TEAC) each year. This event was no exception. Was there any take away for this conference? I would say it’s that we have a special group and we should not underestimate it. All of the members need to be even more engaged in activism for the revolutionary promise of nuclear energy. The power for change lies within our collective effort.

There have been excursions at previous TEACs but this one had a full Solar Eclipse

The Total Solar Eclipse of August 21, 2017 – fly along with the shadow! from Eclipse2017.org on Vimeo.

There were ten authors present at the conference.

The two day conference (Aug. 21st & 22nd) can boast a significant turnout with talks that introduced a new reactor concept by Ed Pheil’s company Elisium (see interview) that is a Molten Chloride Salt Fast Reactor.

There were appearances from other leading contenders Terrestrial Energy had founder David LeBlanc (President/Chief Technology Officer/Director) give a talk with a new projection date of completion for late 2020s. We are witnessing the reality effect. Its not easy starting a nuclear reactor company with a new design.

Robert Hargraves spoke twice at the conference. One about Thorcon and the other on Radiation.

There were two presentations that made rebuttals to Mark Jacobson’s Solutions Project. Mathijs Beckers went first on day one expanding on ideas in his book The Non-Solutions Project and Mike Conley partnered up with Timothy Maloney to present a Roadmap to Nowhere. I witnessed an enthusiastic conversation afterward on the break between organizer Jim Kennedy, Mathijs Beckers, Mike Conley, Timothy Maloney and later Ripudaman Malhotra joined in with some expertise. I hope this group collaborates somehow. That’s why these conferences are so great.

The new reactors category had talks by Ed Pheil and a NEW!!! “No Moving Parts” concept by Jonathan Shattke called a ThorMer. Thorium and Mercury play significant roles. The design uses accelerator driven neutrons, Magneto Hydodynamic Generation that enables no turbine or pumps. See his at home presentation as a preview before Gord McDowell has a chance to finish the edits. I still have a few edits to do myself of a few more interviews with Heather Matteson, Alan Medsker and Gary Kahanak and the Lunch time presentation by Alex Cannara.


The 8th Thorium Energy Alliance Conference Aug 21-22, 2017

The Thorium Energy Alliance conferences are not just about Thorium. The topics range widely but mostly about nuclear energy and how it will benefit society and rescue the environment. There is a lot of representation by North America’s most recent nuclear reactor companies and entrepreneurs. There is at least one presentation pointing out the flaws in the 100% renewable schemes, another about ocean acidification. I can attest to the great bunch of people, many of whom have become friends.

My attending the Thorium Energy Alliance Conference Aug 21-22, 2017 in St. Louis, MO will require funding. If I get enough funds I can attend and assist in video production and time promoting my book as well. Film maker Keith Rodan has some specific interview assignments to video while I am there.

Doing some interviews with the aim to reach the uninitiated is consistent with my recent efforts too.
I have seen half a dozen books come out in the last three years from various people in our circle and I feel mine still has something new to offer.

But if these interviews are designed to reach out to the average person they stand a better chance of being accepted on different cable and internet video channels. How anybody becomes an advocate depends on how effective the message is communicated and how dramatic and persuasive the content is to keep them engaged long enough to win them over.

Having attended 5 TEAC events since 2012 I think I have some valuable insights to offer.
I recently sent off my book to a publisher and am hoping we can make a deal this year.
My Energy Reality website and my own crowdfunding
http://patreon.com/energyrealist are both due for a story about TEAC 8 and a report on my book progress.

Time is running out but I think this is a worth while goal. Besides helping Gordon McDowell in his usual video shooting I expect to do much more. Whatever support I can get to keep Keith’s and my own costs down will be greatly appreciated.

Please consider donating on this page.

Rick Maltese – Founder of Energy Reality

Science March April 22nd and Climate March April 29th

This is going to be an interesting month. We have two marches less than a year after the first pronuclear march in June 2016 to keep nuclear plants open. March for Science Saturday April 22, 2017 and the Climate march April 29th

Ontario serves as an example of how coal can be eliminated with the right energy mix. Our three nuclear plants with 8 unit at Bruce Power, 6 of 8 units in Pickering and 4 units at Darlington enabled Ontario to fully replace the coal Ontario had been producing up until December 2013. I have my work cut out for me because a large number of those attending these marches are unaware of the role nuclear energy must play.

As you may already know I am writing a book named after this Energy Reality website about nuclear energy and the need for a grassroots movement. I have my crowdfunding effort to promote the book and share the ideas from the book. I also have begun co-hosting a podcast called the Ecomodernist Podcast You will find six podcasts so far. All of them providing a positive outlook on solutions to environmental problems we are all facing and ultimately responsible for fixing.

Making Nuclear Power an Environmental Topic

Written by Christopher Bergan

I have recently had my suspicions reinforced that all people can be like sheep (sheeple?) – and to be perfectly frank, I have sometimes been in that category also. I am not talking specifically about work or politics here, but just being a member of society. None of us really has time to become an expert in all things so we take mental shortcuts, which psychologists and philosophers call heuristics. No this isn’t an academic paper – more of a lament that many important issues like the environment, energy infrastructure, and climate change are only superficially understood by otherwise well informed people. Most will nearly always trust simplistic ideas or even gut reactions rather than explore any topic deeply for themselves.

What I’m trying to describe are issues in which a person is willing to donate time, money, or become otherwise proactive. Yet few ever take the initiative to actually learn about these issues on their own and confirm the information being presented to them. Generally people will make a conscious decision to trust what a knowledgeable person says, with little regard as to whether there might be any bias or hidden agenda. The hard questions almost never get asked.

There’s a local group in Iowa which is very passionate about the environment, called 100 Grannies. Several members are well educated and many are semi-retired. They are willing to travel several hours to a protest, just to show solidarity with oppressed groups and occasionally get arrested. I do admire them for that tenacity. I found a post on their website about another environmental arrestee: Dr. James Hansen. The Grannies entry concerned Hansen’s trip to the COP21 meeting in Paris and his promoting of the Carbon Fee & Dividend as proposed by the Citizen’s Climate Lobby. The Grannies don’t mention Hansen’s views on nuclear energy – neither does the CCL site, even though they also quote him from COP21 – which is where he & three scientist friends specifically stated that nuclear power must be part of the solution.

I’ll add that the 100 Grannies usually meet only a few blocks from the Van Allen building on the University of Iowa campus, named after the university professor that mentored Hansen back when he was a student at U of Iowa. Ironic.

What did Hansen & friends actually say about nuclear at COP21? That video can be found with Energy for Humanity, a group co-founded by award winning documentary film-maker Robert Stone. EFH Director Kirsty Gogan introduced these Four Climateers (if I may be allowed to co-opt Victor Hugo’s term), and here are some of their statements:
There’s really only one technology that I know of that can provide carbon free power when the sun’s not shining or the wind’s not blowing at the scale that modern civilization requires – and that’s nuclear power.” Dr. Ken Caldeira

There are a lot of people who see this as an opportunity to advance one agenda or another….; but why are four climate scientists, who don’t have strong backgrounds in nuclear physics, here today talking to you about nuclear energy? It’s because we are scientists and we can do the math. If we truly are sincere about solving this problem – unless a miracle occurs – we are going to have to ramp up nuclear energy very fast! That’s the reality.” Dr. Kerry Emanuel

But the decisions we make in the next 5, 10, 15 years will determine what’s possible after 2030. So this initial period – ratifying the INDC, making sure we don’t just look for a Renewable Energy targets but we look for a clean energy target future – that’s the primary concern of this particular meeting.”
Dr. Tom Wigley

We have to use all of the things that we have at our disposal, and clearly nuclear power – next generation nuclear power especially – has tremendous potential to be part of the solution.” Dr. James Hansen

We can scale up solar and wind pretty quickly up to a certain limit, and then we run headlong into the barriers dictated by intermittency.” Dr. Kerry Emanuel

We shouldn’t be building new fossil fuel power plants. It doesn’t make sense.”
Dr. James Hansen

Sweden, for example, they have carbon free electricity. That’s the solution to the climate problem. If we had carbon free electricity in all countries, you solve the problem! Because we can make liquid fuels for transportation from energy if you have abundant, carbon free electricity.”  Dr. James Hansen

CO² / KWh

There’s also a blogger named Paul Beckwith who attended COP21 and filmed a different talk Dr. Hansen gave there. Mr. Beckwith is a physicist/engineer from Canada. I can almost understand Beckwith not mentioning any energy source as, in the three part video (which Beckwith recorded himself), Hansen doesn’t really talk about any energy source except to say that fossil fuels are bad for the climate. What is discussed in these videos is the magnitude of climate change, CCL’s Fee & Dividend proposal, and socio/political implications. So actually Hansen might be partly to blame for confusing his message by not mentioning nuclear energy as one of the climate solutions at every opportunity. But it has been a part of his climate change message for awhile now – just as carbon fee & dividend is. In my opinion it is only those that turn a deaf ear that can’t hear the nuclear aspect which many of the best informed & honest environmentalists advocate.

A Dutch acquaintance of mine named Joris van Dorp recently found a similar problem in his country. He wrote:

I had a discussion recently with some members of the Dutch Green Party. Here are my findings. The party has just unveiled its party program for the 2017 elections. It has made the immediate shutdown of Dutch nuclear power a central part of its political program, as well as a ban on new nuclear power plants.

As such, the Dutch greens have clearly torn-up the IPCC AR5 assessment of climate science, which states that a quadrupling of nuclear power is consistent with most assessed pathways to the timely and sufficient reduction of co2 emissions. They do this while continuing to claim that climate change is a priority issue for them. Obviously, it is not.

Interestingly, the party members I discussed this with eventually admit that they don’t personally agree with their party’s insistence on shutting down nuclear power.

In the past, I’ve grudgingly accepted the Green party’s open assault on nuclear power, because I knew that quite a few party members didn’t support the party line. In fact, the majority of the party’s scientific committee was in favour of new nuclear, even after Fukushima. I calculated that the 2017 elections might well include the greens on a pro-nuclear platform, especially since the IPCC made the importance of nuclear for climate clearer than ever before in its history.

Now that my hopes have been proven naive, and given the fact that there is no more time to wait for action on nuclear for climate, I feel I must now drop my traditional tolerance of the Dutch green party’s antinuclearism. In the coming months, during the political discussions I’m going to have, I’m going to be recommending that people do NOT vote for the greens, if they value the environment.

Any other party is better than the greens, where climate is concerned. Even the nationalist brown party is a better choice, mostly because they (alone) are actively pushing for an ambitious nuclear power program. They deny that AGW is a problem, but they do believe in the value of environmental protection and they fully accept the superior environmental performance of nuclear power.

This avoidance of clean & powerful nuclear energy by environmental groups has become de rigueur. No doubt most find it easier to delete “uncomfortable subjects” rather than twist the truth. This is likely why the well known anti-nuclear advocate Helen Caldicott has said, “We don’t need to talk about nuclear as we all know it’s dangers”. I am not claiming any of these groups are actually evil or have nefarious agendas, but a few who are considered environmental leaders are also being disingenuous by ignoring nuclear as part of the solution. They should acknowledge and discuss all aspects of climate change instead of burying some topics under cheap and often unsupported assumptions. There are several environmentalists who have been through this process already.

A June of 2015 article in The New Yorker had a great phrase; “Conservation requires conversation; protecting nature while still using it to meet human needs is a paradoxical mission, …”. People tend to trust what organizations say, and when messages are severely edited proper solutions can become hidden for decades. It’s time to tell the whole message, whether gently or blatantly. Let’s move past the hand wringing and empty gestures to begin implementing solutions. If the human race can assess any progress along the way with honest and critical evaluations, poor solutions can be weeded out and the better ideas will remain. In the meantime the Energy Reality Project will try to share this whole message as best we understand it. It’s “the rest of the story”, as news commentator Paul Harvey used to say; and there are often a few more bits of vetted information that can be added to the tale. So please, leave any insightful comments below and be part of the solution.

It’s time to create an abundance of objective discussions. As Dr. Hansen recently wrote on his CSAS blog, “There is a dearth of objective discussion of the role of advanced nuclear power in the future of clean power and the phase-out of fossil fuels.”

Let’s include nuclear power as an environmental topic.

Additional Information:

https://youtu.be/Yy5f5RMR8Xc James Hansen Lecture at Univ. of Iowa Oct. 2014


Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers #322 – Special Edition – Nuclear Energy to the Rescue

Welcome to the 322nd Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers who are a necessary group of pro-nuclear advocates who recognize the importance of a transition to a more dominant role for nuclear power in our energy mix.

There have been a lot of firsts lately that point in a positive direction for the future of the nuclear industry and therefore the planet. I have made it no secret that Energy Reality supports nuclear energy mainly because it provides the best and perhaps only solution to irreversible tipping points that are forever events.

EnergyRealityProject.com : 1 Post by Rick Maltese

Thanks to the Power of Pickering Nuclear Plant We Replaced Coal

    There are still a number of people who believe false things about Pickerng Power Plant. It has to do with reports of minor mishaps being blown out of proportion.


Yes Vermont Yankee: 1 post by Meredith Angwin

The New York Clean Energy Standard

    A quick description of attending the New York Public Service Commission meeting in which they voted for the historic Clean Energy Standard which supports both nuclear and renewable power. Links to other posts and to a video.


Forbes.com: 2 posts by James Conca

Climate Guru Tells California Governor Not To Close Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant

    On Thursday, Dr. James Hansen and the leading climate scientists in the world sent a letter to Governor Jerry Brown of California, about how nuclear energy was essential to fight global warming. The letter was prompted by a recent announcement by Pacific Gas & Electric Company to close its well-running, low-carbon, low-cost nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon because of political pressure from the state of California and especially its Lt. Governor. New York addressed this issue just last week when it passed a true Clean Energy Standard that supports both renewables and nuclear. But, strangely, California doesn’t seem impressed by the threat of global warming.


Exelon Buys Fitzpatrick Nuclear Plant, Setting The Standard for US Carbon Goals

    With New York’s passing of a true Clean Energy Standard this week that supports both renewables and nuclear, Exelon Generation has agreed to assume ownership and operations of Entergy Corporation’s James A. FitzPatrick nuclear power plant in Scriba, New York. This will save 7 billion kWhs of carbon-free electricity a year, $500 million for the local economy, 600 high-paying direct jobs and over 1,500 indirect jobs. It should serve as a guide to other states, especially Illinois, that are facing similar conundrums of warped markets closing carbon-free nuclear plants and threatening each state’s carbon goals and local economies.


AtomicInsights.com: 1 entry by Rod Adams

New York’s environment progressed one step forward

    Rod Adam’s reports on the apparently successful rally by a coalition of pro-nuclear environmental groups with a special thanks to Environmental Progress rin by President Michael Shellenberger


EnvironmentalProgress.org: 1 entry by Michael Shellenberger

Climate Scientists urge Governor Jerry Brown to let Legislature, not PUC, decide Diablo Canyon’s Fate

    The situation has recently shown more promise for the future of the nuclear industry in the U.S. Michael Shellenberger reports about the steps that would prevent a seriously grave decision from taking place.


NeutronBytes.com: 1 entry by Dan Yurman

Utah Utility selects Idaho site for Nuscale SMR

    There is a positive news story that a new kind of nuclear plant has been given a green light for a location to a modern Small Modular Reactor. Now it’s a matter of waiting for approval from the NRC that takes 3 or 4 years.


Thanks to the Power of Pickering Nuclear Plant We Replaced Coal

Pickering Nuclear plant went from a non-event to pre-event condition back in 2014. The not so “Clean Air Alliance” is trying to close down a perfectly good zero carbon energy source. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA) would like to take credit for shutting down coal and now they think they can shut down Nuclear plants. Coal dominated a very large portion of Ontario’s energy mix for many years. The abundance of power was daunting. Nanticoke Coal plant at one time Generated 4000 MW of power. It was the largest coal plant in North America. In 1981 it consumed 35,000 tonnes of coal per day. In 2007 it emitted 17,887,649 tonnes of CO2. Thankfully Ontario’s abundant Nuclear Power and Hydro allowed it to replace all the coal plants (bigger than average) by 2014. Pickering and Ontario’s other nuclear plants are in the habit of reporting such non-events, in effect, practicing for reports of actual incidents with updates – should there ever be a serious incident.

The OCAA thinks the Pickering Plant poses a threat letting irrational fear win over. They support a foolish and potentially disruptive solution to go all renewable. New York State just made an important decision to keep it’s Nuclear Plants alive. How else can the States reach their emission content goals? Why should Ontario be any different. Try replacing 14% if Ontario’s power with renewable energy. It would be terribly expensive and wasteful.

These OCAA people resemble over 200 other green lobby and special interest groups who can’t even look at their shadow without fear.

The worse thing is that their ignorance of science is revealed by the fact that adapting their policies in a time of climate crisis can actually bring on the tipping point even faster.

They also claim they will close down natural gas which is laughable… no coal, no nuclear and now no natural gas. The renewables certainly cannot match that abundant supply of nuclear which runs at about 60% of Ontario’s energy.

What does OCAA claim as the saviour?

Apparently Quebec who has never offered to give Ontario any of their so-called abundant hydro power is supposed to have enough to share with Ontario when in fact they have shortages in winter as it is. The 1998 ice storm cause the worst blackout in Quebec’s history. That was due to lengthy power lines collapse from the weight of the ice caused by the ice storm. The same kind of expensive powerlines would be needed for transmission to Ontario. This hypothetical situation is not sustainable. See Steve Aplin article from 2011.

The hydropower-from-Quebec fantasy resurfaces in Ontario gas-industry propaganda

Steve Aplin:

“Unlike hydropower though, nuclear involves land use that is, by comparison, barely noticeable. For example, Ontario’s 18 nuclear reactors occupy a total of 23.4 square kilometers (Darlington occupies 480 hectares, or 4.8 square km; Bruce occupies 9.3 square km; and Pickering, also 9.3.) Their total installed capacity is 12,530 megawatts. So the Ontario nuclear land-use footprint works out to 0.186 hectares—about a fifth of an average size city block—per installed megawatt…”

“Quebec’s hydropower land use footprint is 177.8 hectares per megawatt (30,230 km2 is 3,023,000 hectares; divide that by 17,000 megawatts).”

“For every patch of land Ontario nuclear power requires, Quebec hydropower needs 952 times that. This, among other reasons, is why Parizeau favoured nuclear power.”

“I mention this because, every now and again, somebody floats the cockamamie idea that Ontario should start importing clean hydropower from Quebec. Some advocates of this fantasy are self-styled environmentalists who haven’t done their homework and crunched the easy numbers like I have done above. Because of an unexamined and comically off-base anti-nukery, they think that the Darlington nucelar station should be shut down and that its 25 billion annual kilowatt-hours of electrical energy output should come instead from the Belgium-sized man-made lake in northern Quebec.”

“Nor do they appear to have considered what it would take, engineering-wise, for the Quebec electric utility, Hydro Quebec, to wheel 25 billion annual kWh of energy into Ontario from that lake. Quebec already wheels huge amounts of that energy out-of-province: to the U.S. northeast. American customers are served with Quebec hydropower on long term contracts; that was why Quebec built the transmission lines to the U.S. in the first place. What about those customers?”

“None of the Ontario advocates of Quebec hydropower appears to have ever taken the matter up with… Hydro Quebec. I’m sure the utility might have interesting things to say.”

“No serious person believes Ontario will ever import such massive amounts of electric power from Quebec. So why the sudden spate of media articles taking it up?”

“Well, it’s all about money. Specifically, the money that can be made by the fossil fuel industry if Darlington, which is slated for refurbishment beginning in less than a year, is not refurbished.”

“The main cheerleader for Quebec-hydropower-to-Ontario is the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, a gas-industry lobby group. The OCAA’s aim is to replace Ontario zero-carbon nuclear plants with carbon-heavy gas-fired plants. Given that the current concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the global atmosphere is just about 400 parts per million (see Item A1, above), you’d wonder why an organization allegedly advocating for clean air would want to add to those 400 ppm.”

“The OCAA knows full well that the Quebec-hydropower-to-Ontario fantasy is just that—a fantasy. The OCAA is not actually advocating for Quebec hydropower to Ontario. What it really wants is business for its gas-industry clients. And those clients will get plenty of business if Darlington does not get refurbished. So it is striving mightily, with the cooperation of a mainstream media that today finds ad revenue increasingly scarce and gas-industry ad revenue increasingly valuable, to get us Ontarians to actually believe this Quebec-hydropower-to-Ontario nonsense. That way, they hope, we will be more amenable to letting Darlington, an enormously valuable clean-energy centre—and revenue generator for the people of this province—go idle. Yesterday the OCAA wanted us to believe that windmills and solar panels could do it. Today it’s Quebec hydropower. Tomorrow, who knows. Maybe a perpetual motion machine.”

“Jacques Parizeau got to see an example of nuclear’s vastly superior land-use footprint, right in his own province, and under his watch as PQ finance minister. During that tenure, Hydro Quebec built and commissioned Gentilly 2, a 635-MW CANDU 6 reactor. It was, until its premature shut-down in late 2012 (by another PQ government, sans Parizeau), Hydro Quebec’s biggest single generator.”

“The premature shutdown of G2 was undertaken by, as I said, a Parizeau-less PQ government. Parizeau disagreed with much of that government’s policies. I wonder if he disagreed with the G2 decision also.”

In a response letter to an article published in the Toronto Star by one of many antinuclear groups in Canada the President and CEO of Ontario Power Generation said this

“Re Too much trust in old nuclear plants, May 30”

“I read with interest the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA) opinion piece about Pickering Nuclear. The only ‘fact’ in the article that I was able to verify is that ‘Stairway to Heaven’ was released by Led Zeppelin in 1971.”

“The six nuclear units at Pickering were built to very robust standards and are operating safely, to the highest performance standards. The electricity from the six operating units provides about 13 per cent of Ontario’s annual demand, is free of greenhouse gas emissions and comes at a cost lower than almost all other sources of energy. Continued operations will save Ontario customers $600 million and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by eight million tonnes over the 2020-to-2024 period.”

“Both Pickering and Darlington nuclear stations enjoy strong community support, and a recent survey indicated 85 per cent of those polled supported the continued operations of the Pickering station.”

“Ontario relies on nuclear power to provide 60 per cent of its electricity generation. The plants at Darlington, Pickering and Bruce have excellent performance and safety records. Nuclear is Ontario’s best option for cost-effective, GHG emissions-free, reliable, base-load generation and have been a critical resource in ensuring clean air for Ontarians. We look forward to our nuclear fleet continuing to be part of the solution in the battle against climate change.”

Jeffrey Lyash, president and CEO Ontario Power Generation, Toronto”

On the same page is a comment by Don MacKinnon:

“Monday’s anti-Pickering Nuclear Station Extension editorial diatribe by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA) is typical of their ‘dreamweaver’-like campaigns — heavy with the spectre of environmental disaster and fast and loose with the facts.”

“The Pickering Nuclear Station is licensed and its operations, including emergency preparedness, are overseen by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), an independent regulator. The CNSC has 70 years of experience and is highly regarded internationally.”

“Additionally, the Pickering Nuclear Station, owned by Ontario Power Generation (OPG), a provincial Crown corporation, routinely provides information and consults with local communities about the plant’s operations.”

“When the province approved OPG’s plan to pursue the continued operation of Pickering beyond 2020 to 2024, it noted that final approval would be required from the CNSC. Pickering would continue to employ over 4,500 people in Durham region and 8 million tonnes of greenhouse gases would be avoided. Yes, extending the operation of the Pickering Station is about clean air.”

“The OCAA claims that cheap, low-carbon electricity imports from Quebec offer a superior option, but those claims have been disproven by a number of highly credible analyses, including Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator. Billions of dollars would need to be invested to build and improve the transmission interties and transmission lines in Ontario and Quebec. Ontario currently exports low-carbon nuclear power to help Quebec meet its winter peak and refill its reservoirs. Even if Quebec could supply, large-scale electricity imports would mean tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars flowing out of Ontario.”

“The only real alternative to base-load 24/7 nuclear in Ontario is fossil fuel generation, and we believe the OCAA knows that. Less nuclear generation in Ontario would mean dramatic increases in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution at a time when the entire world is transitioning to a lower carbon environment.”

Don MacKinnon, President of the Power Workers’ Union, Toronto”

I believe the OCAA has ulterior motives as both Steve Aplin and Don MacKinnon suggested. When you look at other Clean-Air NGOs such as the Clean Air Task Force they have a logical rational point of view when it comes to nuclear energy. Look at New York’s recent decision to go with keeping the Nuclear Plants in their state alive. All that emission-free energy is just too valuable to pass up.

Additional Reading on the subject: