Skip to main content

CASEnergy Coalition Kickoff

This morning at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy Coalition) held a public kickoff of its campaign to educate the American public about the economic, environmental and energy security benefits of the expanded use of nuclear energy.

From the Mission Statement:
The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy Coalition) supports the increased use of nuclear energy to ensure an environmentally clean, safe, affordable and reliable supply of electricity. Nuclear power enhances America's energy security and economic growth, helps attain cleaner air and improves the quality of life, health and economic well-being for all Americans.
CASE is co-chaired by former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore. As I'm sure many of you recall, Dr. Moore kicked up quite a fuss about a week ago with his op-ed piece in the Washington Post about expanding the use of nuclear energy.

The kickoff press conference was streamed live, and we'll have the archived video in a few hours that we'll share here at the blog as well as at Google Video and YouTube.

To join the coalition, click here.

Technorati tags: , , ,


Gunter said…

The fact that America's "first national grassroots effort to promote nuclear power" as Ms. Todd-Whitman framed CASEnergy, is wholly owned by the Nuclear Energy Institute is transparent in its sophistry.

We look forward to debate with NEI's "nuclear industry in grassroots clothing" at a time and place either of your chosing or by other subsequent means.

Paul Gunter, Director
Reactor Watchdog Project
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
6930 Carroll Avenue Suite 340
Takoma Park, MD 20912
Tel. 301 270 6477
Paul Primavera said…
Paul Gunter,

If you are serious about your offer to debate, then why is it that only two people in your 'circle' have the courage to remain debating us pro-nukers at:

(One is a co-moderator of that message board and the head of Unplug Salem - I respect him greatly for his principledness and courage.)

The remainder of you anti-nukes have apparently given up EXCEPT when you can obtain public relations points by a prejudiced news media (e.g., the Brattleboro Reformer or the Westchester County Journal News) that will sensationalize your claims and spin the facts away. You 'debate' when you have a rigged audience, but not when pro-nukers at Know_Nukes or elsewhere show the fallacies in your arguments.

You apparently do not debate on a truly level playing field, but only when the game is rigged by Al Jazeera - uh, I mean CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC.

So prove me wrong. Debate. Hey, I won't participate if that makes you happy. It'd amuse me to no end seeing some of the pro-nuke folks at Know_Nukes or elsewhere simply 'trash' (no offense intended) your arguments.

BTW, you've been away for a few weeks. I missed our little exchanges. The more humor I can get in my life, the better! ;-)
RBiz said…
There was some fairly scathing anti-nuclear commentary on NPR's marketplace yesterday from a writer for "the Economist".
Paul Primavera said…
NPR / PBS = CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS by another name.

While I routinely listen to NPR while in the car on the way to and from work simply because they are less biased than the other American Al Jazeera networks, I refuse to donate any money to them because they are nevertheless irrevocably biased towards liberalism and anti-nuclearism.

Fox News is the only different one, but they are no paragons of either unbiased political reporting or unbiased nuclear energy reporting.

The anti-nukes only debate when the cards are stacked in their favor. When it's dispassionate reason, science and engineering against their fear-mongering and hysteria, they always give up and go away (unless there's a crowd of anti's to cheer them on).

That's why Amory Lovins testified before the Senate recently:

< >

and wrote an article on the Energy Pulse web site about how his mighty mice were going to stop new nukes:

< >

But when the facts came out debunking his article, he had nothing to say in rebuttal. Why? Because he KNEW that without an audience of grovelling politicians intent on re-election and a crowd of anti-nuke well-wishers, he had lost the debate.

Mighty mice indeed! How about 10 to 50 MW small nukes to power ships and trains! Those are the mighty mice we need.

BTW, why aren't all these 'inherently right' anti-nukes debating John K. Sutherland's article
"The Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks" at:

< >

Can it possibly be that the anti's recognize the truth in John's quote from JFK:

"Mythology distracts us everywhere. For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, contrived and dishonest. But the myth: persistent, persuasive, unrealistic."

It's a pity that JFK's anti-nuke brother Teddy and nephew RFK Jr (both of whom oppose wind mills off Cape Cod, too) buy into such mythology.

BANANA - Build Anything Not Anywhere Near Anyone.
gunter said…

The webcast archive of this press conference is entertaining, at best, but about as meaningful and fulfilling as watching pornography.
I dont think I'll waste my time going over it.

The biggest question we've encountered is what's the going rate to be a rent boy for the nuclear industry.

The New York Times reported 04/25/2006 that its query was rebuffed.

And this from the Daily Kos:
"Bluntly put, Patrick Moore is a paid consultant for the mining, logging, biotech and energy industries, and putting him out as "ex-Greenpeace" is a lot like calling Scooter Libby an "ex-Hill staffer."

Patrick, Christy and NEI make quite the threesome.

Paul Primavera said…
Paul Gunter,

No offfense, but "The Daily Kos"? - now THERE is a paragon of journalistic virtue, right along with the NY Times and Al Jazeera.

As I already wrote, "The anti-nukes only debate when the cards are stacked in their favor. When it's dispassionate reason, science and engineering against their fear-mongering and hysteria, they always give up and go away (unless there's a crowd of anti's to cheer them on)."

Now here is a threesome: 'No wind farm off Cape Cod' Teddy, 'No IPEC' RFK Jr., and 'take those $23 billion dollars for Yucca' Harry Reid.

BTW, why shouldn't Patrick Moore and Christy Whitman get paid for telling the truth. The anti-nuke organizations get paid for disseminating what is little better than mythology!

Let's read that quote one more time: "Mythology distracts us everywhere. For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, contrived and dishonest. But the myth: persistent, persuasive, unrealistic."
Paul Primavera said…
Every once in a while Westchester County's Journal News does publish something besides disinformation. The following letter from Jim Knubel is instructive:

Public can rest assured about Indian Point
< >

One brief quote suffices and could well apply to our other nuclear power plants:

"Indian Point is a critical component for improving New York's air quality. On March 22, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that New Yorkers breathe the dirtiest air in the nation and have a higher chance of contracting cancer from dirty air than do residents of any other state. Without Indian Point's emission-free power, counties in the lower Hudson Valley and New York City, already in non-compliance with federal clean air standards, would be much worse off. A 2002 study by the TRC Environmental consulting firm found that if Indian Point's power could somehow be replaced by a mix of other sources, air pollution would increase by more than 14 million tons annually."

So are we worried about an extra .00002 millirem per year from 'leaks' at IPEC when background dose is 360 millirem a year, or are we worried about 14 MILLION TONS of toxic refuse dumped into the air we breathe annually from replacement fossil fuel?

That's the point, Paul Gunter.
Paul Primavera said…
Here is another respectably balanced editorial in today's NY Times. I wish they were always this balanced.

The Nuclear Option
< >

The two paragraphs at the end say it all:

"In 1986, the average American nuclear plant produced electricity barely 57 percent of the time. In 2004, the average plant was running productively more than 90 percent of the time."

"This improvement has come just in time. The effects of global warming are disturbingly obvious, and yet the United States has fallen dangerously far behind its response. If we're to get into step with the world effort to reduce greenhouse gases, we are going to need to rely more, not less, on carbon-free nuclear energy."

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

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…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…