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: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Grace Energy

Comments

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog