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 …

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 Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …