Skip to main content

Friends of the Truth

stein We normally don’t spotlight our comments section: that’s your area to have at the topics addressed on the blog without a lot of pushback from us – though we’ll drop in to clarify a point now and then. But we were struck by the comments left by Nick Berning of Friends of the Earth about our post below:

Contrary to your post's assertions, our release was clear that not all of the $50 billion is necessarily going to the nuclear industry. What we said is "much" of the money is "likely" to go to a nuclear industry bailout. The veracity of this claim is underscored by your organization's interest in ensuring the bailout is included in the final bill.

This is a real head-scratcher, since Berning seems to think that weasel words like “much” and “likely” mitigates the actual quote from their President. Take it away, Brent Blackwelder:

"Senators are supposed to be fixing the economy but instead they’re offering the nuclear industry a $50 billion gift that will create virtually no near-term jobs. It's unconscionable.

Well, is it $50 billion or “likely” “much” of it or, as we said, split between a smorgasbord of energy-related industries? We think we “likely” come “much” closer to the reality. Berning and Blackwelder should get together and decide just how villainous the nuclear energy industry is and the nature of the villainy, then try again.

Let’s see if we can help them. Berner considers it damning that NEI and the industry wanted nuclear energy to be included, but so did every other industry that was (and some that probably weren’t) included. We’re reasonably sure FOE has things they’d like to see in the stimulus and advocate vociferously for it, as well they should. But good infrastructure and workforce build out projects are exactly what this bill is supposed to be about and what the nuclear industry can contribute. It doesn’t prove the veracity of FOE’s claim at all.

FOE simply wants to paint the nuclear industry as blackly as possible under the guise of an inexact populist outrage and a shaky grip on an easily verifiable truth. FOE seems to believe nuclear energy is so wicked, no precision in their arguments (“Bail-out!” Fah!) is necessary as long as it vanquishes the wickedness. But, in this case, to quote Gertrude Stein: There is no there there.

Picasso’s portrait of Gertrude Stein. Stein also said, “Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense.” And she has a plate of brownies she’d like you to try.

Comments

Jack Spencer said…
And for a different perspective on the LG's.

I started to leave a comment in the responses to the last blog and it quickly turned into a treatise. So since we have our own blog at Heritage I just posted it there. But in a nutshell, I argue that while limited LG's and other subsidies can have a role in overcoming some initial uncertainty, the move now to expand them is detrimental to tax payers, consumers and the long-term competitiveness of the energy industry. To me, the question is not whether or not nuclear should get LG's but to what extent any energy source (or industry) should be allowed to build its long-term business plan around permanant subsidies. What are the ramifications for such a policy? Does it benefit the consumer? The tax payer?

Also, we get so cought up in who pays for the subsidy or LG, we forget that there are real costs outside of the administration of the program.

These are real questions that need to be debated.

We seem to be entering a whole new era where business models are based more on subsidies, preferences, and protections rather than on providing consumers with the best product for the best price.

I know that we all need to advance our own interests and I am all for that. But it seems to me that the consumer is sometimes left without representation and he's the one that will end up paying the bill.

Another treatise. Sorry.

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…