Skip to main content

Patrick Moore In Showdown With Anti-Nukes

Later today, Dr. Patrick Moore of the CASEnergy Coalition will take part in a panel discussion sponsored by the Society of Environmental Journalists at their annual conference. The title is, "Is Nuclear Power the Solution to Climate Change," and he'll be joined on the panel by Peter Bradford, former Vice Chair of the NRC and now with the Union of Concerned Scientists as well as Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace.

Two anti-nukes and Patrick Moore, I guess that's what SEJ thinks of as "fair and balanced".

If I sound a little skeptical of SEJ's motives, there's a reason, one that David Bradish hinted at earlier this week: SEJ has agreed to allow the anti-nukes at the Grace Energy Initiative to Webcast the panel. In isolation, that's not a problem. The problems started when Grace Energy worked to actively deceive the public into thinking that they were the sponsors of the panel.

Here's an excerpt from a press announcement they issued earlier this week:
The live GRACE Webcast:

"Dirty Power -- —False Promises: Nuclear Power & Climate Change -- is a panel discussion from the SEJ Conference called --— "Cradle to Grave: New Nukes and Old Radioactive Waste"”
Kind of nice, hijacking somebody else's event and putting your own name on the proceedings.

To SEJ's credit, they contacted Grace and got them to issue another release. But all credit here goes to Patrick Moore. Despite the fact that it appears that some anti-nukes are attempting to set a trap for him, he's moving forward regardless.

The Webcast is today at 11:15 a.m. U.S. EDT. Click here for the feed and watch the fireworks. We've got some NEI people on the ground in Burlington at the conference, so look for some first person accounts later on.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

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…