Skip to main content

FOEs of the Truth

Further to David’s post below, we thought we’d feature our old friends at FOE, that is, Friends of the Earth, using that discredited several year old default figure to gin up fear over loan guarantees.

Frankly, the idea - to link them to bank bailouts - is a good way to make something rather abstract to the public seem really sinister – not to mention the use of music that seems to come from The Shining – but we think it’s for naught. Using nuclear plants as fear engines just isn't a very successful ploy anymore.

As we usually find with FOE, the group does not really feel bound by truth and facts, preferring an approach driven by misinformation and fear. We really mean it: dislike nuclear energy to your heart’s content, but try to make your case with the best data possible and then put together scary ads.

We still won’t agree, most likely, but we’ll respect you more. Really.

Comments

D Kosloff said…
Doe the earth like to have dishonest friends?
Joffan said…
To any Friends of the Earth readers:

You may justify deception to yourselves by thinking that the case against nuclear power needs to be made strongly

.. BUT ...

If you need to use deception to make a case against nuclear power, shouldn't you stop and think about whether your opposition to nuclear power is really as earth-friendly as you are assuming?
Sterling Archer said…
If you need to use deception to make a case against nuclear power, shouldn't you stop and think about whether your opposition to nuclear power is really as earth-friendly as you are assuming?

Hasn't stopped the Creationists, and we've been fighting them for centuries.
gunter said…
That's rich.

If anything the default rate cited by the Congressional Budget Office Study in 2003 has only become more "significant greater than 50%."

Incredibly, CBO used $2500/kw for its default formula. Scott Peterson said on CSPAN in 2005 that it was $1500/kw. Is this your debunking of CBO? We should believe Scott is telling the truth?

It's now more like $7000 to $10,000/kw and still rising.
Fitch Financial figures $9000.


What's more believeable is that you seem to be neglecting the news from the various states shutting down or shutting out new reactors since Obama foolishly threw his environmental base under the bus to give the nuclear industry and Republicans a few billion dollar bone.

You can believe this-----
-MN Senate Committee gutted a bid to repeal the State ban on new reactor construction.
=WV voted down bid to repeal State ban on new construction.
-AZ bill to define nukes as "renewable" was sheepishly pulled when disclosed that it would have gutted the state's really renewable solar industry.
-VT Senate votes 26 to 4 to shut down Vermont Yankee in March 2012 amid Entergy's leaks, lies and scams.
Anonymous said…
Well, that little propaganda piece shows how clueless its creator is by showing a coal plant and calling it a nuclear plant just because it has cooling towers. Kind of hard to believe that the creator has a good understanding of the energy industry when they don't know the difference between two completely different types of power plants.
Sterling Archer said…
Ahhh, Gunter, we'd missed you! Life get's boring without your interesting version of reality to break the monotony.
Environmentalist said…
Gunter, shame on you.

"Obama foolishly threw his environmental base under the bus."

President Obama threw anti-nuclear activists under the bus.

I voted for Obama, I am an environmentalist, and I believe that we will not displace coal and save the climate without using nuclear energy.

The anti-nuclear activists who argue that negligible amounts of tritium should be frightening to the public, in a country where over 63,000 people die each year from respiratory illnesses caused by particulates from fossil and biomass combustion, are the intellectual and moral bottom-dwellers of today's environmental movement.
gunter said…
We all have our priorities--but I enjoy the banter on the line of this particular tug of war.
perdajz said…
It should be no surprise that the antinukes play fast and loose with modern finance, just like they do with anything else having to do with nuclear power.

The "50%" default rate is a hyperbolic attempt to sound credible and rigorous. First off, "50%" is not a rate. "50%/yr" is a rate. I would assume FOE means to say the default rate is 50%/yr, which is a ridiculous number to anyone familiar with credit risk, especially electrical utility credit risk.

There are three ways to calculate default rate: (1) from a history of similar default events, (2) from credit spreads, or (3) from credit default swap prices. None of these things exist in this instance.

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…