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

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…