Some local reporters are taking advantage of the critical mass of nuclear energy professionals in San Francisco for NEA 2006 to put together some stories. Click
here for a piece from the city's ABC affiliate, and
here for a piece from the
San Francisco Chronicle.
For President Bush's video address to NEA 2006, click
here, or use the viewer below:
Comments
While I disagree with certain policies of President Bush (many of which are nothing more that corporate socialism), he is the first President in decades to have the courage to openly support the only environmentally-clean source of base-load electrical power: nuclear energy.
As I have written before, both liberals with their anti-nuclearism and conservatives with their fossil fuel interests are equally to blame for the current state of the country's energy infrastructure and the war in Iraq. At least President Bush is trying to break away from fossil fuel dependency, however much I disagree with his other politics and the war in Iraq.
And yes, if the race between the new JFK - John F. Kerry - and George Bush were held again today, I would still hold my nose, bite my tongue and vote for King George. It's too bad that no Libertarian candidate has a chance in hades of winning.
BTW, I really admire and respect a man who does NOT acquiesce to every whim and fancy of public opinion. Say what you want about King George, but unlike his 2004 challenger he is a real man.
Very interesting, Mr. Primavera,
I could not have better described nuclear power's cozy relationship with any number of governments (US, France, UK, Russia, China to name some) right from the inception here in US when the AEC solicited corporate America for the opportunity to cogenerate electricity in the production of weapon grade plutonium. That was October 1952, well before the emergence of the so-called "Peaceful Atom."
You guys have that white paper over at NEI?
the tax breaks and subsidies given to renewables is a far better example of corporate socialism.
A better example yet is the non-level regulatory playing field where coal gets to externalize the costs of its pollution and kill 30000 people every year in the US.
But 30000 dead from coal pollution that nuclear energy can obviate appears to be of little consequence to NIRS / WISE.
Nuclear Power And Politics
by John K. Sutherland, Chief Scientist, Edutech Enterprises
< http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=360 >
A brief excerpt suffices:
"At the same time, the various anti-nuclear activist groups, which have sprouted in the last thirty years, recognized that if public and political support could be turned away from nuclear power (they believed that the end result would justify their avalanche of dishonest tactics), the spent fuel reprocessing option in the nuclear power fuel cycle would be abandoned; the cycle could not be closed; and the follow-on breeder reactor program would probably be significantly delayed if not stopped entirely. Their energy, environmental, and social agendas could then be more likely put into play. Following this, the continuation of nuclear power as an energy resource would be at least severely limited, if not - they hoped - ended. At the same time, others of them waged a less focused, and less effective, but nonetheless damaging campaign against the development of domestic oil, coal, and hydro. They recognized also, that anything which drove up the price of energy (regulations on everything) and especially of electricity, and limited their expansion, would make alternative high priced 'renewables' seem increasingly cost effective, even if they could not deliver. Their efforts, when added to the dismal record of political appeasement of the far left, ensured that this cheap source of energy and electricity was so hampered by needless regulations and construction and licensing delays, ended up losing its massive cost advantage and became merely competitive or less than competitive in areas of political rigidity."
Now guess who economically benefits from such anti-nuclear activities? Coal. Oil. Natural gas. A Ccmmunist dictator in Venezula. Islamic fanatics in the Mid-East. The Russian Gazprom.
And look at the organizations who have funded so-called environmental groups: Pew, Rockefellers, etc. Big names in big oil and coal.
Harry the Dog on the Hudson months ago asked rhetorically if it was a conspiracy. I don't think so, but the money does point in one direction.
BTW, guess who gets rich off fossil fuel taxes? Politicians.
Corporate socialism? There's a lot of it on the left as well.
Chernobyl Politics and Market Share
Possible Motives Behind Emphasis
< http://www.atomicinsights.com/apr96/Politics.html >
A brief excerpt tells the story:
"...With all the talk about national energy policies, renewable energy goals, efficiency and conservation, people often forget that selling fuel is a huge and profitable business.
"When nuclear reactors are shut down or when planned reactors are converted to fossil fuel power plants, one predictable result is increased revenues for the company or country that sells replacement fuel...
"Since the price of fossil fuels is determined by supply and demand balances that are maintained by production quotas enforced with varying degrees of success by international cartels and government bodies, increased sales from replacing nuclear output can improve the profitability of all who are involved in the business.
"There is little doubt that fossil fuel marketers and their political friends understand this supply and demand relationship. There is also little doubt that there are highly trained public affairs specialists employed by the companies and their industrial associations who know the value of press attention to the perceived weaknesses of the nuclear industry."
QUESTION:
Who benefits from the anti-nuclear activism of NIRS / WISE?
ANSWER
Coal. Oil. Gas. And the politicians who receive the tax revenue therefrom.
Talk about corporate socialism!