Well the view of the movie maker's opinion seems to try to place the majority into a supposed 'bubble of unreality'; it would seem now that the real situation is the reverse of this. There is for example not a 'crisis' and the attempt to present such as 'real' is why the 'Movie' is, well, a 'Movie'.

Firstly, it is becoming obvious that Uranium will be playing a much larger part due to the unreasoned platforming of greenhouse concepts, so let's look at the advocacy of reality in reply to 'the Gore':-

i) The (usual) mention of 'waste problems' would seem now to be commonly realised to be false, even politicians knowing that newer designs (using less Uranium) produce ~10% of the waste volume of the often mentioned older utilities.

ii) Another perennial 'mugging point' is of weapons production, and as here overlooks that the amount of energy needed to enrich Uranium TO 'weapons grade' needs a substantial amount of the energy OF an entire reactor unit, and is still a highly technical and costly process. It is NOT enough to ASSUME a reactor COULD be used for a weapon making process; there are far cheaper ways to make very dangerous 'large area of effect' non nuclear weapons with persistent or residual damage factors.

iii)Also, Uranium fuelled generation is now NOT 'costly', modular designs can be produced in less than 24 months now, and you would need far FEWER than any other form of Base Load generation utility. It would be CHEAPER to use Uranium for a large AND dense population.

iv)Perhaps 'fuel cells' might work in the Future, but after waiting for 20 years, the majority of installations being discussed NOW are for NOW+5 years. So there is only Uranium and {Coal, Oil or Gas}. The choice would appear to be Gas due to its easy use as a vehicle fuel also.

That is the major issue with the 'talkfesting' over 'renewable' concepts, and in general it has been overlooked that it is NOT a criteria for the development of a Generation/Distribution grid for electrical power. The criteria of first importance in such utilities is PERFORMANCE, without such there is no considerations of 'second', and this is in the pairing OF Generation and Distribution. Most likely however, if you have 'ethanol' you would combust it anyway, after 20 years, for example realising that Fuel Cells where used in the 'Apollo program', interest in further 'talkfesting' is very limited and ethanol still needs to produce electricity, no matter where it is sourced.

To close there is the (again) mention crisis and of a 'time before doom'. There is neither. It is movies such as this, and the OPINION platformed, that is made the path to Uranium so much shorter. It is almost that these 'movies' are only to make Uranium 'the only contender' in the now OBVIOUS (but seen by the astute for the last 5 years) juggle to replace those 20 year old utilities languishing behind the 'greenhouse wagon train'.

Your's
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod
hartlod@bigpond.com
(The word 'Hartlod' in the registered Trademark of Peter K Anderson.)