<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition tries to buy some green cred]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by GRLCowan http://www.grist.org/article/the-clean-and-safe-energy-coalition-tries-to-buy-some-green-cred/ Tue, 25 Apr 2006 03:11:30 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-clean-and-safe-energy-coalition-tries-to-buy-some-green-cred/1 It may be necessary to fight fire with fire

Government's fossil fuel interest makes promotion of nuclear energy a fighting-City-Hall exercise (and makes those who say government loves it very unpleasantly foolish).

Presumably everyone here is vaguely aware that a dollar's worth of uranium replaces crude oil that costs $70 or natural gas that costs $40. As all three prices rise and fall, this relation stays about the same. City Hall can't make up lost fossil fuel tax revenue on the uranium that replaces it; that's why nuclear energy is a left-versus-right issue where the left is on the take and the right, to a significant extent, isn't.

As another nuclear promoter said,

... [Moore's] article has caused 179 responses in the blogsphere.  That is a pretty big splash.  Moore has to be making a difference.  I don't know what the magic is - when I say the same things no one listens.  When Moore says it lots listen.  Weird, eh?  ;^)

And another:

... Nowhere in Moore's article does he renounce or expose the massive distortions of fact that the antinuclear movement has broadcast for the past two decades.  Moore has simply recognized that if the biggest environmental threat is global climate change, nuclear power, in spite of its risks, is preferable to coal-fired electric generation.  He generously concedes that in fact nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide -- something that is so obvious he should have known it all along.  He is indeed to be commended for recognizing the dichotomy faced by the environmental movement:  that one can't rationally be both anti-nuke and anti-global climate change at the same time...

... I am one who actually was forced out of the environmental movement, in an unpleasant, extended process that began in 1985 and continued through 2003.  Unlike Moore, I was merely a foot soldier in the wars to preserve the environment.  Also unlike Moore, I didn't get space for my nuclear views on any Op-ed pages.  Instead I was thoroughly trashed by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer  for being a turncoat.  Nor am I alone.

Moore and the NEI group aren't grass-roots; people like Randal Leavitt and Ruth Greiner and me are, but are paid little attention.

--- G.R.L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet

]]> It may be necessary to fight fire with fire

Government's fossil fuel interest makes promotion of nuclear energy a fighting-City-Hall exercise (and makes those who say government loves it very unpleasantly foolish).

Presumably everyone here is vaguely aware that a dollar's worth of uranium replaces crude oil that costs $70 or natural gas that costs $40. As all three prices rise and fall, this relation stays about the same. City Hall can't make up lost fossil fuel tax revenue on the uranium that replaces it; that's why nuclear energy is a left-versus-right issue where the left is on the take and the right, to a significant extent, isn't.

As another nuclear promoter said,

... [Moore's] article has caused 179 responses in the blogsphere.  That is a pretty big splash.  Moore has to be making a difference.  I don't know what the magic is - when I say the same things no one listens.  When Moore says it lots listen.  Weird, eh?  ;^)

And another:

... Nowhere in Moore's article does he renounce or expose the massive distortions of fact that the antinuclear movement has broadcast for the past two decades.  Moore has simply recognized that if the biggest environmental threat is global climate change, nuclear power, in spite of its risks, is preferable to coal-fired electric generation.  He generously concedes that in fact nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide -- something that is so obvious he should have known it all along.  He is indeed to be commended for recognizing the dichotomy faced by the environmental movement:  that one can't rationally be both anti-nuke and anti-global climate change at the same time...

... I am one who actually was forced out of the environmental movement, in an unpleasant, extended process that began in 1985 and continued through 2003.  Unlike Moore, I was merely a foot soldier in the wars to preserve the environment.  Also unlike Moore, I didn't get space for my nuclear views on any Op-ed pages.  Instead I was thoroughly trashed by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer  for being a turncoat.  Nor am I alone.

Moore and the NEI group aren't grass-roots; people like Randal Leavitt and Ruth Greiner and me are, but are paid little attention.

--- G.R.L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet

]]> Comment #2 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/the-clean-and-safe-energy-coalition-tries-to-buy-some-green-cred/ Tue, 25 Apr 2006 03:23:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-clean-and-safe-energy-coalition-tries-to-buy-some-green-cred/2 a bunch of hooey

GRL, coal-fired electricity is not the only alternative to nuclear. There's also energy efficiency + clean energy.

And the "emits no CO2" thing is a red herring. Lots of CO2 is emitted during the full nuclear life-cycle.

Grassroots nuclear advocates are ignored because their arguments are awful. Moore is not ignored because he's got lots and lots of money behind him and the Washington Post is determined to burn what little is left of its credibility.

www.grist.org

]]> a bunch of hooey

GRL, coal-fired electricity is not the only alternative to nuclear. There's also energy efficiency + clean energy.

And the "emits no CO2" thing is a red herring. Lots of CO2 is emitted during the full nuclear life-cycle.

Grassroots nuclear advocates are ignored because their arguments are awful. Moore is not ignored because he's got lots and lots of money behind him and the Washington Post is determined to burn what little is left of its credibility.

www.grist.org

]]> Comment #3 by Mr M http://www.grist.org/article/the-clean-and-safe-energy-coalition-tries-to-buy-some-green-cred/ Wed, 10 May 2006 20:43:12 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-clean-and-safe-energy-coalition-tries-to-buy-some-green-cred/3 playing with nuclear fire

If the US gets more nuclear energy what do you think the reaction will be of other countries?  How do you say to North Korea and Iran, you can't have what we have because we don't like that your fundamentalists are Muslim rather than Christian?

Energy policy in this country is in a mess with special interests like nuclear barking until frightened politicians run in the direction they want.

]]> playing with nuclear fire

If the US gets more nuclear energy what do you think the reaction will be of other countries?  How do you say to North Korea and Iran, you can't have what we have because we don't like that your fundamentalists are Muslim rather than Christian?

Energy policy in this country is in a mess with special interests like nuclear barking until frightened politicians run in the direction they want.

]]>