tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post8354342156727451978..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: CFR’s Balancing Benefits and Risks of Nuclear EnergyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-33487345309970377012007-05-09T16:51:00.000-04:002007-05-09T16:51:00.000-04:00Tom,Marv Fertel and Skip Bowman from NEI were apar...Tom,<BR/><BR/>Marv Fertel and Skip Bowman from NEI were apart of an "advisory" committee to help with this report but their input was not taken. If the report is "non-objective" then how come it leaves out the nuclear industry's input?<BR/><BR/>How am I mistaken if I think "nuclear is good?" It provides clean air electricity, it's reliable and it's affordable. Those aren't good enough reasons to think "nuclear is good?" Are antis "mistaken" who come into a debate thinking "nuclear is bad" as well?David Bradishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02439638522932781068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-741683812854895862007-05-07T20:40:00.000-04:002007-05-07T20:40:00.000-04:00So it's anti- nuclear and you get your pants in a ...So it's anti- nuclear and you get your pants in a twist. Geez.<BR/>Serious slant?<BR/>Sounds like you can't *deal* with a non-objective view. If you come into a debate thinking that there's one correct view (nuclear is good) then you're mistaken.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04573137046265740883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-48995771031597938132007-04-22T12:19:00.000-04:002007-04-22T12:19:00.000-04:00Overall, the foreign policy wonks at CFR have a di...Overall, the foreign policy wonks at CFR have a dim view of the prospects for nuclear power to impact global warming. Their advice may still travel far in Congress. It is ironic that the reported plans for 110 new nuclear plants in Asia suggest that CFR's global influence on energy issues may run out of gas once it reaches the US Pacific Ocean coastline.<BR/>http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2007/04/cfr-nuclear-is-not-solution-for-global.htmlSpace Fissionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05205432236787777330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-58281482035512621272007-04-21T06:28:00.000-04:002007-04-21T06:28:00.000-04:00The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has long be...The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has long been "non-partisan" in the sense that it has included members from all established political parties. However, from its very inception it has had an energy bias towards continued and expanding consumption of fossil fuels.<BR/><BR/>Its founders were members of the J. P. Morgan and John Rockefeller families who had serious vested interests in financing, owning, controlling and selling fossil fuels and the infrastructure associated with that enterprise. <BR/><BR/>Its members have included many of the shining lights of American foreign (oil) policy ever since its secretive and shadowy founding in the early 1920s. <BR/><BR/>I like having access to fossil fuels, and have no real issue with using them to make life better for people. I do have a serious issue with their history of use as a means of incredible wealth and power. As the subtitle of Daniel Yergin's seminal work "The Prize" says oil politics is all about "The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power".<BR/><BR/>As a student of American foreign policy I recognize the fingerprints of the pursuers of that quest all over our 20th century history. As a nuke with a questioning attitude and as a former literature major, I also recognize the slanted language used against the only source of energy that has ever successfully captured markets from fossil fuels. <BR/><BR/>I firmly believe that much anti-nuclear activity has been funded because nuclear fission demonstrated the potential for SERIOUS DISRUPTION of the wealth and power of the oil, coal and gas establishment. The circumstantial evidence, means, motive and numerous opportunities for this effort are obvious to all that really look at the issue closely.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly enough, NEI member companies have a split personality, which is why they often talk about balanced energy choices. They are members of the energy establishment yet they employ people who understand the technical merits of uranium fission. <BR/><BR/>This has often led to cognitive dissonance in their messaging - the best arguments FOR nuclear power have to compare and contrast the benefits of that technology against the hazards and disadvantages of the fossil fuel alternatives. As many NEI members have told me over the past dozen years or so, they have trouble promoting their nuclear business by dissing their coal, oil, gas and now wind businesses.<BR/><BR/>Pretty radical thoughts for early on Saturday morning. Hope they get through the moderator.Rod Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03652375336090790205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-25144733157980558402007-04-20T17:22:00.000-04:002007-04-20T17:22:00.000-04:00It has nothing to do with 'non-partisan.' It's the...It has nothing to do with 'non-partisan.' It's the rest of the line I have a problem with: 'Resource for Information and Analysis.' It should say something more like 'Resource from One Side of the Story for Information and Analysis.' Guess I should have spelled it out more clear.David Bradishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02439638522932781068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-22394988499290105122007-04-20T12:03:00.000-04:002007-04-20T12:03:00.000-04:00Why is IEER considered more partisan than NEI? IEE...Why is IEER considered more partisan than NEI? <BR/><BR/>IEER opposes nuclear power, NEI supports it. Both have an agenda, but apparently, according to this blog entry, it's only citing IEER publications that jeopardizes the 'non-partisan' nature of the CFR report...not having NEI officials on the committee reviewing the report.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com