Patrick Moore Profiled in the Wall Street Journal

Today's Wall Street Journal profiles our friend, Dr. Patrick Moore of Greenspirit Strategies, and highlights his support of nuclear energy.

That's a current picture at inset. And believe it or not, that's Dr. Moore under the "P" in Greenpeace in the larger photo.

My how things change.

And other folks are beginning to notice.

UPDATE: To read the views of others following Dr. Moore's story, click here.

Comments

Matthew66 said…

Until there is a leadership coup at Greenpeace, we needn't expect any change in their attitude toward nuclear energy. Same is true of Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club etc.

February 13, 2007 at 1:44 PM

Brian Mays said…

Of course. The most likely and desirable scenario is that they (like NIRS) continue to become increasingly irrelevant.

February 13, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Norris McDonald said…

Invisible once again.

February 13, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Anonymous said…

oh, did you intentionally leave NIRS out of the conversion to nuclear power's second coming?

You guys forget, actually, if you think its about "leadership coup," you don't have a clue; good leadership makes sense and has the trust and support of its clued up mass membership.

You think "Greenpeace" for clear cut logging or toxic dumping is going to build a mass movement? Ask Mr. Moore how he's doing on that one.

Same's true of his phony "Go Nukes" ad scheme-concocted and funded from the polluters' boardrooms.

If Mr. Moore had a book title to his credit at least we could try to get him on the Colbert Report.

How's "Our Friend the Atom: The Rerun"?

Think he'd be interested? NEI can ghost write it, right?

gunter, nirs

February 15, 2007 at 6:39 PM

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...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog