Skip to main content

Indie-Filmmaker Answers Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth

Ruth Sponsler has found a recent college grad who isn't afraid to take on the conventional wisdom being spouted by Al Gore on nuclear energy:
Robby Tinker, an Oberlin College graduate and indie filmmaker, has teamed up with a physics prof, Dr. John H. Scofield, to do a film. It's Robby Tinker's first production.

No, it's not not one of those old filmstrips about inclined planes, gravitation, or the derivative of velocity.

The film is a documentary sequel to An Inconvenient Truth. Robby Tinker believes that an acceleration in use of nuclear energy is one of the best ways to effect a large-scale displacement of CO2 emissions. Dr. Scofield makes cameo appearances in the film, which is titled The Nuclear Option.
If you're in the Washington, D.C. area, you might want to think about catching one of two local screenings this weekend.

Comments

Carl Glick said…
It is my great hope that the conversion and use of nuclear waste as another form of energy supply, will be developed and implemented soon. There are just too many states in the USA saying, "Not in my backyard!".
Julien said…
I live in Paris, France. The movie seems very interesting and I would like to see it.
Is there anyway I can see it form Paris ?
Thanks for your help, and congrats for this work.
Robert said…
Hi Eric,

Thanks for posting this - I just kind of stumbled upon this blog in a google search.

Julien- Right now the film is being entered into several film festivals and in the next year you'll hopefully be able to get a copy from Amazon.com or whereever.

Carl-My film does look at reprocessing/recycling and Fast Reactors. I interview Phillip Finck who works at Idaho National Labs - the leading facility in our country that is just now restarting the efforts to develop a Full Nuclear Fuel Cycle. (This has been shut down since the Three Mile Island Accident)

With regards to the "Indie-Filmmaker Answers Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth" title of this blog - I actually sent a copy of the movie to Mr. Gore two days ago and I'm really interested in his reaction. I do think Al Gore is doing important work in talking about efficiency and conservation, but think that you have to address the energy production side of the problem too.

Well, I guess I've said enough. Thanks for your interest.

-Robby
Anonymous said…
I´m from Spain. I would like to see the movie. When it will be possible to see in Internet?
I think nuclear power will help to solve some problems in the future.
Thanks
crispi said…
ey hi!
Im really looking forward watching the movie, but i dont know how? where can i get it?? Ive already looked for it in amazon and im not able to find it! helppp!!
I dont think id find it in any store in my country (Spain)
thanks you very much

crispi

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…