Skip to main content

Another Blogger for Nuclear Energy

Meet Jonathan Hodges:
I believe that nuclear energy is the only short term solution to the energy problem until solar power becomes more efficient and viable on a large scale. And one of Greenpeace’s founders agrees with my opinion, despite the organization’s opposition to virtually every currently viable form of energy. In order to reduce atmospheric pollution and to address the issue the waning fossil fuel supply, nuclear energy is the only viable source in which to turn. New reactor technologies (i.e. breeder reactors) since the last plant was built in the US (1970’s) means even more efficient energy production. Building more nuclear power plants would provide additional clean energy sources in a time when there are shortages in energy across the country along with increasing pollution primarily from coal burning plants.
It's amazing to see the effect Patrick Moore's op-ed has had on the Blogosphere. Click here to see what I'm talking about.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
um, hasn't patrick moore been outed as biased: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/moore.html
Eric McErlain said…
If you define bias as disagreeing with you...
Anonymous said…
no i define biased as being paid by one side or another. he makes his living as a consultant for the industries he now espouses.

on the other hand, james lovelock makes no money (that i know of) from interested parties and still touts nuclear as a solution.
Eric McErlain said…
Whether you believe he's biased or not, don't you believe honest debate means that you ought to engage the arguments he makes, and not simply dismiss him?
Paul Primavera said…
Why shouldn't Patrick Moore be paid for telling the truth? After all, people at NECNP, Riverkeeper, NIRS / WISE, CAN, Green Peace, etc., get paid for disseminating disinformation and downright fear and hysteria. In the case of the latter, they call themselves charities, yet they do nothing to actually help the poor in the communities where they exist whereas the utilities who supposedly finance Patrick Moore actually perform valuable charity work in the communities where they have nuclear power plants, always helping the poor.

If you tell the truth, then yes, you deserve to be paid.

If you tell a lie, then you deserve to be sued.
Anonymous said…
Everyone is, in some way, biased. So what he gets paid for what he says? As long as he says what he honestly believes in, who cares that someone sponsors him to say it?

There's no evidence that he only holds his beliefs because he's paid to. In fact, the article you supply states:

Nonetheless, he adds, he refuses to tailor his opinions to please a client. "People don't pay me to say things they've written down or made up. They pay me to tell them what I think." Furthermore, he maintains that his positions - with the exception of his take on nuclear energy (which he now favors) - have hardly changed since 1971. The rest of the movement, he says, has shifted around him.

It's your choice to believe him or not, of course. It would be impossible to prove beyond any doubt he is sincere. But I can see little evidence to falsify this claim, unless you have something other than that he gets paid.

On a side note, Greenpeace activists get paid too, but nobody says they are biased.
Paul Primavera said…
Anonymous,

You stated, “On a side note, Greenpeace activists get paid too, but nobody says they are biased.”

Actually, web site http://www.activistcash.com/ has a great deal to say about Greenpeace and its biases.

“Greenpeace was originally the brainchild of the radical “Don’t Make a Wave Committee,” a group of American draft-dodgers who fled to Vancouver in 1969 and, supported by money from anti-war Quaker organizations, got into the business of forcibly blocking American nuclear tests. Over the years the group has loudly made its feelings known on a variety of issues (nuclear testing, whaling, and global warming, for instance), and its Amsterdam-based activist moguls pull the strings on what is estimated to be a $360 million global empire….


“…With each cry of ‘wolf,’ Greenpeace seems to up the ante while ignoring the real-world consequences of its rhetoric. The group has warned that genetic crop engineering would cause new and horrible food allergies (it hasn’t), and that biotech corn would endanger monarch butterflies (whose numbers have increased substantially since the introduction of biotech corn). And completely forgotten by the ‘Frankenfood’ protesters is the tremendous potential for biotech foods to solve many of the Third World’s famine-related problems. Tanzania’s Dr. Michael Mbwille (of the non-profit Food Security Network) said it best. ‘Greenpeace,’ he wrote, ‘prints and circulates these lies faster than the Code Red virus infected the world’s computers. If we were to apply Greenpeace’s scientifically illiterate standards [for soybeans] universally, there would be nothing left on our tables.’

Here are its financials for the tax year ending 12/31/2003:

Income
$23,466,488.00

Expenditures
$19,600,176.00

End-Of-Year Net Worth
$6,416,285.00

Tax Status
501(c)3

What I have found fascinating is the contributions that the Rockefeller family has made to Greenpeace (remember that Standard Oil which is now Exxon-Mobil was started by John D. Rockefeller and his brother William Rockefeller):

Rockefeller Brothers Fund
$780,000.00
1997 – 2003


Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Grant
$150,000.00 in 2001

I also find it fascinating that one of the Rockefeller brothers is currently a Senator from coal-rich West Virginia.

Now of course I couldn’t find out how much stock the Rockefellers currently own in XOM (Exxon-Mobil), nor in the coal industry, and I am NOT accusing the Rockefellers of any crimes against humanity, but their interest in fossil fuel certainly isn’t zero and every contribution they make to anti-nuclear organizations only serves to enrich companies like XOM.

Oh, and yes, the Rockefellers have contributed mightily to RFK Jr.’s Waterkeeper Alliance, the parent to Riverkeeper which has for years been trying tooth and nail to shut the Indian Point Energy Center down. Look at what they have contributed:

Rockefeller Family Fund
$160,000.00
1998 – 2002

And here are the financials for Waterkeeper / Riverkeeper ending in 09/30/2004:

Income
$1,663,812.00

Expenditures
$1,544,816.00

End-Of-Year Net Worth
$399,801.00

Tax Status
501(c)3

Let’s see: Greenpeace, a supposed charity organization, is worth over 6 million dollars at year’s end and they aren’t biased?

So ask yourself: why would oil-rich, coal-rich Rockefellers donate so much money to anti-nuclear Greenpeace? The money and its origins speak louder than words.
Anonymous said…
Paul, this is a different person than the previous one and I agree with your point.

My statement in saying "nobody says they are biased" was one highlighting the hypocracy of those who try to say pro-nuclear/pro-corporate advocates are biased while not holding the anit-nuclear/anti-corporate advocates to the same level of scrutiny. The use of "nobody" was a bit imprecise, I admit.

Nonetheless, it is good to see exact facts and figures to back up my point.
Rod Adams said…
Paul:

Great data about Rockefeller Foundation activities.

There are plenty of other institutions with petroleum roots including but not limited to the MacArthur Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and the J. Paul Getty Foundation that provide plenty of money to the anti-nuclear activists.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…