coal2nuclear.com            Calming the Storms of Climate Change
►to Home Page       >  ENVIRONMENTALISM'S HARM  page.             

Part 1    Supersizing Global Warming.
Part 2    Are Environmentalists to Blame for Global Warming?
Part 3    Radiophobia - Keeping Us Afraid of Ending Global Warming
Part 4    Sierra Club Made Global Warming Worse.
Part 5    We Love Sunlight But Fear Nuclear Power.
Part 6    Nature's nuclear reactors.  Simpler than a Wind Turbine. 
Part 7    Rod Adams' SMOKING GUN series
Further Information.

WEB LINKS   NEWS ITEMS    for this subject.

Environmentalism's Harm.  Part 1:  Supersizing Global Warming.

Environmentalism's Harm.  Part 5:  We Love Sunlight But Fear Nuclear Power.

Rod Adams' "Smoking Gun" Series

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10    11    12    13    14    15    16    17    18 

Smoking Gun Part 2

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Smoking gun - part 2 (Direct anti-nuclear political comment from coal supporter)

by Rod Adams

Back on 14 January 2006, I posted a comment titled "Smoking gun - part 1" in which I told you that I would be on the look out for nuclear opposition that can be directly tied to the desires of competitive industries to maintain their market share. Though there is enough circumstantial evidence out there to convince me that fossil fuel interests are often behind anti-nuclear groups, there is not a good source of evidence that can persuade those that doubt my assertions.

Here is a second installment, in an article published on Thursday, 16 March 2006 by ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company) online titled Beattie urged to rethink uranium mining opposition.

Australia, owner of the world's largest proven reserve of uranium also has a very large coal mining industry with a large export market and a huge reserve base. Geographically, this store of coal is quite close to key markets in Asia and provides large quantities of useful currency from the international trade. As might be expected, this industry provides a substantial number of jobs, provides the income for some large and profitable companies and has a strong base of political support. One of the supporters is a man named Peter Beattie, the Premier of Queensland.

Despite strong arguments from industry and labor organizations that have tried to convince him that uranium mining and coal mining can coexist in his state, he remains opposed to uranium mining developments. Here is his quote from the article:

Mr Beattie says the coal industry has a long-term future with 300 years of deposits in reserve.

"If power is being generated by uranium we don't need enough coal. I mean this is ... black and white - I am a strong supporter of the coal industry, I'm a strong supporter of clean coal technology and I do not support the uranium industry because it will be a competing energy source," he said.

Well, that seems pretty darned clear to me. At least the man is honest in his opposition, which is always refreshing.

posted by Rod Adams

Smoking Gun Part 3

Tuesday, August 1, 2006

Smoking Gun Part 3 (Direct anti-nuclear comment from an Australian coal industry supporter)

by Rod Adams

I came across an informative article in the Time South Pacific edition (on-line of course) titled Plugging in to Nuclear. The teaser summary of the article was enough to grab my attention

As some greens learn to love atomic power, Australia weighs whether to use its abundant uranium at home.

Not only is the entire article worth a read for a balanced look at how various factions view nuclear power, but it also includes a useful paragraph at the very end that fits into the "Smoking Gun" series here.

For those of you that are new to the Atomic Insights Blog or who have simply forgotten about the smoking gun articles, this series is an attempt to document evidence of one of my primary theories. Based on about fifteen years worth of research, a little bit of understanding of human nature from life and literature, and a sideline of involvement in competitive businesses, I have reached the conclusion that a large portion of the financial and political support that has made the anti-nuclear movement a success comes from its competitors in the fossil fuel industry or its beneficiaries.

Here is the "Smoking Gun" passage from Plugging in to Nuclear

Cost. The two sides differ on how to compare the costs of nuclear and other power. Nuclear plants are hugely expensive to build: an average-sized plant costs about $A2.5 billion. But they need very little fuel—uranium yields up to 1 million times as much energy as the same quantity of coal. The ansto study found that, taking waste management costs into account, nuclear power from an advanced plant "is cheaper than generating it from coal or a [clean coal] station."

Unlike its uranium, Australia's fossil fuel reserves underpin huge domestic industries. Opponents say nuclear power would put thousands of jobs at risk. It's largely for economic reasons that the premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have vowed not to lift their states' nuclear bans. Queensland Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce agreed: "I can't see the logic of promoting competition to my state's major export."

Read that paragraph again carefully. A study shows that a nuclear plant can produce electricity more cheaply than a coal plant. Coal is a huge industry in certain regions. A politician from one of those regions clearly states that he will not support a competitor to that huge industry.

My point in this series is to get people to "follow the money" and question the source or motivation of any anti-nuclear commentary that you find. There are plenty of sincere people who do not like nuclear power, but there are some very powerful people that have ulterior financial motives for their stance.

posted by Rod Adams

Smoking Gun Part 6

Friday, May 18, 2007

Smoking Gun 6 - Chesapeake Energy Strategy

by Rod Adams

I love honest people. Engaging in straightforward discussions and even arguments is one of my favorite pastimes. This morning, I opened up my copy of Chesapeake Energy's annual report and read the following clear statement of objectives:

Some of the great public debates of the next 10 years will focus on how we should meet America's growing need for more electricity. Presently, coal meets 52% of our electricity needs, nuclear 21%, natural gas 21% and hydro, wind and other renewables about 6%. It is imperative for our company and industry that natural gas be seen as the preferred solution (emphasis added) to meeting the twin challenges of generating more electricity in the years ahead while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Chesapeake Energy demonstrated part of how it intended to meet that objective during the recent discussions in Texas about TXU's plans to build new coal fired generation right in the heart of Chesapeake's primary production areas - the US mid-continent. During that discussion, Chesapeake Energy set up a group called the Clean Sky Coalition and ran a series of TV ads with the theme of "Face it, Coal is Dirty". (See, for example, a story by John J. Fialka in the April 27, 2007 issue of the Wall Street Journal titled Coalition Ends Ad Campaign Bashing Coal)

The letter from the Chairman in the annual report provides a good look at what I believe is a strong strategy for making a good profit. There is, after all, a reason why I receive the annual report - I have been an investor in the company for quite a number of years. However, I do think it is important for my pro-nuclear colleagues to enter the battle with open eyes. Here is an important part of the stated strategy:

Today we see policymakers promoting alternative fuels such as wind, solar, biofuels, and nuclear. These are all legitimate alternatives (though some much less so than others), yet none can offer energy in great abundance at reasonable price anytime soon. On the other hand, burning natural gas instead of gasoline, diesel or coal reduces greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 50%. We believe the evidence clearly demonstrates that natural gas is by far the most practical solution to the problem - it is abundant, affordable, reliable, clean burning and domestically produced.

To spread the word about the positive attributes of natural gas, Chesapeake has recently helped establish a foundation based in Washington, D. C., called the American Clean Skies Foundation (www.americancleanskies.com). This foundation will become a leading voice in the debate about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid abrupt climate change. The foundation will encourage conservation of all types of energy, but will primarily advocate the increased use of natural gas in the U. S. and around the world.

Read that last sentence carefully again and see if you see the contradiction.

Labels: Chesapeake Energy, natural gas, smoking gun

posted by Rod Adams

Smoking Gun Part 7

Monday, July 30, 2007

Smoking gun Part 7 - Australian mining union targets nuclear as a job threat

by Rod Adams

The 'smoking gun' series on Atomic Insights provides links to articles that describe a direct anti-nuclear statement from someone who is openly supporting a competitive energy source. This afternoon, I received an anonymous tip with a link to an article in The Australian dated July 30, 2007 and titled Nuclear threatens our jobs: union. Here is the smoking gun part of the article:

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union mining division boss Tony Maher warned yesterday that nuclear power would jeopardise job security for coal miners and power workers.

As his union launched an advertising campaign attacking the Howard Government's greenhouse policy, Mr Maher said: "The real threat to coal miners' job security and power workers' job security is 25 nuclear reactors in Australia.

"That's the harsh reality. A solar farm down the road is not going to close down a coal-fired power station. But 25 nuclear reactors will," he told the Ten Network's Meet The Press program.

I have a different analysis to offer. The nuclear industry's need for employees who are willing to work hard and follow strict safety rules makes it likely that most, if not all coal mine and power workers would be able to find good jobs in a growing nuclear industry. If the union members take a hard look they will find that many of the jobs that the industry will create are terrific blue collar jobs that are often held by union workers.

The real potential losers in a growing nuclear industry are the capitalists that control equipment and land that is far less adaptable for new uses than human minds and hands. I started to use the word "own" instead of control in the previous sentence, but the fact is that a good deal of the capital equipment in the fossil fuel industry is heavily leveraged against future earning potential. If nuclear power was growing and taking market share, it would also pose a significant financial threat for the lenders who financed that equipment, land, and mineral rights.

Labels: nuclear versus coal, smoking gun, unions

posted by Rod Adams

Smoking Gun part 8

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Smoking Gun Part 8 - (Gas industry firing at coal with Sierra Club assist)

by Rod Adams

Every once in a while I come across articles that directly support the notion that much of the energy source debate is really a marketing battle, though the stated topic might be "energy security", "environmental concerns", or "global warming".

To their great credit, most engineers and scientists that I know are very straightforward people; they do not "get" my message that the real power behind the effort to slow the development of nuclear power has been the established energy industry. These fact minded people just do not understand the business world where competition exists, and where the fight is often sneaky and sometimes dirty.

On October 23, 2007, the Lawrence Journal World and News (LJWorld.com) published a fascinating article titled An advertising power play: Natural gas company behind anti-coal media blitz that describes how Chesapeake Energy has been running advertisements and paying for targeted polls that emphasize the environmental damage caused by burning coal. There is a section in the article that really begs some serious questioning:

Bob Eye, an attorney representing the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club, said the ads were “understandable although unfortunate.” Coal interests and natural gas interests are in a “zero-sum” battle, he said.

Days before the Sebelius administration issued its ruling on the Sunflower project, the Sierra Club commissioned full-page ads that touted the benefits of wind and natural gas.

Eye said the campaigns of both the environmentalists and Chesapeake helped each other but were not coordinated.

Chesapeake also paid for a statewide poll in which it said most Kansans preferred energy produced by a combination of wind and natural gas as opposed to coal.

Some people - believe it or not - have the inherent ability to look others in the eye and say things that they know are simply not true. My experience has been that many public relations types fit that mold.

Disclosure: I have owned stock in Chesapeake Energy for a number of years. I actually kind of like their anti-coal message and believe that the company is doing the right thing for its stockholders by working hard to increase their market share. On the other hand, I am not a member of the Sierra Club and I am not certain why they believe it is in the interests of their donors to promote the burning of natural gas. Anyone have a good list of major contributors to the Sierra Club handy?

PS - I almost forgot to explain why this story qualifies as a "smoking gun". Normally, I use that key word when I find articles that directly support the notion that the fossil fuel industry is supporting efforts to hamper the development of atomic energy. I expect that most of you can understand that the battle in Kansas is not about clean air; if a nuclear plant was the proposal instead of a coal plant there would be similar attempts to use public opinion influencing in order to protect or gain market share for natural gas.

Labels: Chesapeake Energy, Sierra Club, smoking gun

posted by Rod Adams

Smoking gun part 9

Friday, November 30, 2007

Smoking Gun Part 9 - Carbon Sequestration advocates share an interesting funding source

by Rod Adams

A good friend sent me a link to an interesting diary on Daily Kos titled "Clean Coal"'s Dirty Hands?. That diary entry used an article written by Peter Montague, titled INSIGHTS: Carbon Sequestration that provides some very interesting documentation of grants provided by The Joyce Foundation to a number of mainstream environmental organizations.

The essential thrust of the article was that carbon sequestration was an untested and potentially risky endeavor that was being supported by a surprising coalition of groups that shared some of the same funding sources. I personally think that Mr. Montague was a little off in his analysis - in my opinion carbon sequestration will never be implemented on a major scale - but he has done a great job in contributing valuable information to an important discussion.

I recommend that you go visit "Clean Coal"'s Dirty Hands? and participate. It should be an interesting source of opinions and information about how fossil fuel interests use their extensive financial resources and those of long established foundations with huge investment portfolios.

For example, the article talks about the activities of The Joyce Foundation. I did a little poking around and found out that Joyce was originally endowed with a $100 million bequest from a lumber industry heiress in 1972. It now controls an unrestricted portfolio of nearly $900 million. After giving away about $40-50 million each year, they have still grown that endowment by about $35 million per year for the last few years. It can do a lot of very good charitable work and still enable some nefarious and sneaky anti-nuclear activities to protect its interests and those of its donors and leaders.

PS - I had to grin about the magic of Google Adsense when I posted this comment. The link that showed up was titled Energy From Coal. It leads to an interestingly titled organization called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices. Its main point is that coal is essential, affordable and increasing clean. Note: I did not put a hyperlink in this postscript - go ahead and click on the ad link. That is more advantageous to Atomic Insights.

Labels: clean coal, Joyce Foundation, smoking gun

posted by Rod Adams

Smoking Gun Part 10

Monday, January 14, 2008

Smoking Gun Part 10 - Scottish government signals support for reopening Longannet

by Rod Adams

In the midst of the debate about whether or not the UK should include new nuclear power as one of its major options in a new energy strategy designed to lessen the island nation's dependence on imported coal, oil and gas and to meet its obligations as a signatory of the Kyoto accord, the Scottish government has made a number of statements indicating that there was "no chance" that there would be any new nuclear power stations welcomed in their corner of the "slightly" United Kingdom. (See, for example, Our leaders blow hot and cold on energy published on January 12, 2007 on the Telegraph.co.uk web site.)

The headline reasons for this stance is that Scotland is a land with lots of wind, tidal and wave energy that is sufficient to meet its own needs without the "risk" associated with using atomic fission and storing the left overs.

Here is a story that provides a different motivation - apparently the government has been providing positive signals that it supports large subsidies aimed at reopening a flooded coal mine called Longannet in Fife. The story, titled Campaigners claim government positive over Longannet reopening qualifies as a smoking gun where active campaigners against nuclear power indicate that part of the reason for their opposition is that the have financial or political reasons for supporting fossil power instead.

The written text of the story might not include as direct a comment as I normally like, but the timing of the discussion and the contrast between "no chance" for nuclear and support for outmoded coal is hard to ignore.

Labels: Alex Salmon, smoking gun

posted by Rod Adams

Smoking Gun Part 11

Monday, August 25, 2008

Smoking Gun Part 11 - Scargill, National Union of Mineworkers, blasts Monbiot for acceptance of nuclear

by Rod Adams

Arthur Scargill, former leaders of the UK's National Union of Mineworkers, published a commentary on August 8, 2008 on Guardian.co.uk that qualifies as one of the clearest examples of a professional coal advocate trashing nuclear power for economic reasons.

Here is Mr. Scargill's view of nuclear power and his reaction when a long time critic made a statement that accepted that nuclear power might not be worth fighting if it could meet a series of key tests:

Has George Monbiot sold out on his environmental credentials or is he suffering from amnesia? In his article on these pages last Tuesday he states that he has now reached the point where he no longer cares whether or not the answer to climate change is nuclear - let it happen, he says.

Has he not read the evidence presented by environmentalists such as Tony Benn and me at the Windscale, Sizewell and Hinckley Point public inquiries? Is he unaware that nuclear-power generated electricity is the most expensive form of energy - 400% more expensive than coal - or that it received £6bn in subsidies, with £70bn to be paid by taxpayers in decommissioning costs? Is he unaware that there is no known way of disposing of nuclear waste, which will contaminate the planet for thousands of years? Has he forgotten the nuclear disasters at Windscale, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl?

And here is the contrasting summary of Mr. Scargill's view of coal power:

We are facing a monumental energy crisis, yet we live on an island with more than 1,000 years of coal reserves from which we can provide all the electricity, oil, gas and petrochemicals that people need, without causing harm to the environment. Britain - despite its massive indigenous deep-mine coal reserves - has never had an integrated energy policy based on coal and renewables, and as a consequence we are now facing the worst energy crisis in our history.

Are you convinced yet that at least some of the opposition to nuclear power comes not from "Environmentalists" but from fossil fuel promoters?

Labels: Scargill, smoking gun

posted by Rod Adams

Smoking Gun Part 13

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Smoking gun part 13 - Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

by Rod Adams

Many observers of the nuclear industry will point to the disestablishment of the Atomic Energy Commission as one of the major turning points in the development of nuclear power as growing alternative energy source. For nearly 30 years from 1946-1974, the AEC was a focused agency responsible for all aspects of nuclear power research, development and regulation. After the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the research and development responsibilities have been reorganized several additional times while the regulatory responsibility has rested with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Though the NRC is now considered to be one of the best places to work in the federal government, and though it has developed a strong staff with both technical and legal expertise, it has a legal mandate to only focus on preventing hazards associated with nuclear power and radiation. It is not allowed to balance the risk of insufficient energy or to acknowledge the likelihood that failure to build or operate a nuclear power plant will result in the construction or operation of potentially riskier forms of power like 1950s vintage "grandfathered" coal plants.

In a lengthy discussion with Drbuzzo on Depleted Cranium on a post about energy policy, we began talking about how this agency reorganization - which we both agree was focused on hindering the development of nuclear power - came about. You have to dig pretty deeply into the comments, but Drbuzzo became quite animated in his expression about the hurdles that the NRC placed in the way of building new nuclear plants.

As part of my discussion with Shannon Love on the subject of Fantasy Energy I was challenged to come up with evidence of my contention that fossil fuel interests have been involved in the focused effort to slow nuclear power development. I put together a comment that included some interesting information on the history of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 that I thought would be worth preserving as part of the "smoking gun" series.

Here goes:

Shannon:

Just in case it has gotten lost in our give and take, the postulate that I am trying to advance is that people associated with fossil fuel and desiring to maintain its market share played at least as large a role in the slowdown of nuclear power development as "the leftists" that you blame.

You wrote:

For which you have zero evidence save for your dubious argument of economic motive. You don’t have public statement, confessions of people who regretted their actions, canceled checks, autobiographies, meeting notes etc. I on the other hand have all those things in abundance.

There are many books and articles on the subject of nuclear power development - I once spent a couple of years worth of free time perusing several aisles worth of such material in the US Naval Academy library. (Yes, I am a real bore in person.) Unfortunately, that period was before I owned a laptop and my notes are in random paper binders and hard to search or catalog. I also no longer have much free time available for library visits.

Fortunately, the world now has Google Books. I did some searching and found Congress and National Energy Policy by James Everett Katz, published by Transaction Publishers, 1984. That book includes details about the evolution from a focused Atomic Energy Commission with full responsibility for nuclear power development to our current situation. We now have a regulator with no responsibility for the risk of insufficient energy supplies or the risk of pollution caused by coal, oil and natural gas and a Department of Energy that has competing interests and budgetary priorities between all forms of energy.

Here is a quote from page 39-40 under the heading of

Atomic Energy: A Growing Problem

"The lack of a strategic approach to energy policy and distorted energy research and development priorities were among the elements that led to rising congressional displeasure about the heavy stress the federal government had given to atomic energy. Atomic energy - because of its dramatic quality and importance to national security - had from its inception received concentrated attention and support from the federal government."

Later on page 40 the book continues:
"During the 1970s this independence was increasingly attacked, both from within the government and outside. During the 1973-1974 energy shortages criticism was augmented by supporters of competing energy sources and by public interest groups"

On page 51, after more details about the various interests and leadership in the effort to reorganize federal energy policy, the book goes on under the heading of

Curbing Nuclear Energy

Congress had led the White House into reorganizing the government’s energy research and development responsibilities by replacing the “anachronistic” AEC with a broad-based energy research agency. The new agency’s degree of commitment to nuclear power, as opposed to other energy sources was hotly contested, but the basic concept of reordering the structure met with little resistance…
Before ERDA could be properly established it had been necessary first to disarm the JCAE (Joint Committee on Atomic Energy), which had traditionally hampered reorganization efforts that might slow atomic energy development or diminish its fiefdom - the AEC. Partly because of congressional concerns about overemphasis on nuclear energy, the JCAE began to lose its once awesome influence…
Virulent public attacks had also weakened the JCAE, which was seen as being “outmoded,” forcing an “overconcentration,” and fostering “proprietary interest” in nuclear energy at the expense of other “more promising” sources of power…
Because much of the effort to overcome the nuclear lobby would have been wasted if it were allowed to dominate the newly formed ERDA, the Senate included safeguards to assure that all energy technologies would receive ample consideration. The Senate report of the ERDA bill sought “balance and meaningful priority-setting among the competing energy sources…

Finally, (for this comment, but certainly not the end of the evidence) page 54 provides a fairly clear summary of a couple of years of bureaucratic infighting and competing testimony.

ERDA (Energy Research and Development Agency) was an awkward conglomerate of competing interests in possession of a nebulous mandate and diffuse goals and faced with an antagonistic combination of clients…
Such eclecticism resulted from ERDA’s need to satisfy four constituencies. The atomic establishment wanted to push for nuclear energy development in every available format. Those generally interested in energy policy wanted a central mechanism that could rationalize and plan energy research, develop long-range objectives, and oversee the pursuit of these ends. Nuclear power opponents wanted a new nuclear safety agency split off from energy development because AEC could not realistically be expected to both promote nuclear energy and be circumspect about controlling, regulating and evaluating it. Finally, proponents of other energy forms - such as coal, solar, and oil - sought an institutional structure that would promote development of their favored energy form. To continue with only a pronuclear establishment, these three latter constituencies argued would result in an imbalance of government R&D efforts.

I am sure that those last three constituencies had a lot of meetings and discussions to hash out the final agreement that led to the passage of legislation that probably had more to do with the slowdown in nuclear power than any other - the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

One of the major consequences of the disbanding of the JCAE, which Katz includes as part of reorganization effort, was to eliminate the congressional and senate staff expertise on the value of nuclear power for such applications as ship propulsion.
The US did not just stop building nuclear electric power stations, we also stopped building nuclear powered cruisers and destroyers and never did get around to building nuclear powered amphibious ships. We even decommissioned our few nuclear ships early rather than invest in the maintenance and upgrades of what were fairly unique designs without many following units.

We did build about ten carriers and continued building submarines. However all the rest of our naval vessels have been oil fired despite the proven tactical value of endurance and speed provided by nuclear power. Certain congressional committees and Navy budget submitters liked oil fired ships because they could be built for a somewhat lower initial cost.
The Navy liked getting more ships, even if they required refueling every few days. From the mid 1970s until just recently, it has been generally easy for Navy budgeters to convince Congress to provide operational funds for fuel each year and more difficult to educate them on the investment benefits of nuclear power. (BTW - please do not attempt to accuse me of ignorance on this particular issue.)

Interestingly enough, in the 1970s, the SINGLE largest customer for the oil industry in the US was the US Navy.

Labels: AEC, competition, Energy Reorganization Act 1974, ERDA, fossil fuel

posted by Rod Adams

Smoking Gun Part 14

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Smoking Gun Part 14 - Peter Hartley Claims Natural Gas is Cheaper Than Nuclear

by Rod Adams

Eric Berger, writing for the Houston Chronicle, published an article on Friday titled Nuclear power's core of support gains strength. He provided some opposing view commentary from Peter Hartley, a man he describes as "an energy expert at Rice University". Here are some of the quotes from the article:

“I just don’t think there will be a big renaissance,” said Peter Hartley, an energy expert at Rice University. “I believe the new administration will be much tougher on nuclear energy. Even if they implement carbon dioxide controls, I think the result will be primarily more natural gas plants, rather than wind.”
...
"Add in capital costs, Rice’s Hartley said, and nuclear energy becomes more expensive than coal or natural gas."

With the help of my favorite search engine, I was shocked, shocked I say, to learn that in December 2007 Rice University's press and public relations department wrote the following about Professor Hartley

"Peter Hartley, professor of economics, has been named the George and Cynthia Mitchell Family Chair in Sustainable Development and academic director of the Shell Center for Sustainability (SCS)."

Another cut and paste of the words "Shell Center for Sustainability" into the Google search box led me to verify that

"The Center was launched in early 2003, with funding from the Shell Oil Foundation and subsequent funding from the Shell Oil Company."

One more cut and paste revealed that George and Cynthia Mitchell earned their ability to fund academic chairs after George

"started an independent oil and gas company, Mitchell Energy & Development, that he sold to Devon Energy in 2001 for $3.5 billion."

As a guy who has been involved in the grant application and review process at the university level, I can testify that professors never bite the hand of the grant makers. Any commentary about nuclear energy by an economics professor claiming to be an energy expert should clearly disclose when that "expert" is funded directly by oil and gas interests.

Labels: George Mitchell, Peter Hartley, Shell Center for Sustainability

posted by Rod Adams

smoking gun part 15

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Smoking Gun Part 15 - Roger Sowell, "Refinery Defense Attorney" Argues That Used Nuclear Fuel is an "Embarrassing" Legacy

by Rod Adams

If you have followed any of my recent Twitter posts, (atomicrod) you will note that I have been involved for a day or so in an ongoing discussion with an anti-nuclear California lawyer from Marina Del Rey named Roger Sowell on Joe Romm's Climate Progress blog. It has been an enlightening experience.

Here is one of the quotes from Mr. Sowell's recent comments:

I strongly oppose nuclear power plants and do all in my power to stop their proliferation. The toxic wastes including plutonium and other elements are being stockpiled by our generation, to be dealt with by future generations. This is completely irresponsible in my view.

Future generations will not thank us. Just imagine how we would respond if ancient civilizations had left a lethal substance that we could not see, nor smell, nor hear. The only way we found out about it was when archaeologists grew ill and died.

This became a smoking gun candidate when Mr. Sowell pointed me to the home page for his legal practice. Here are two direct quotes from his biography page:

Roger Sowell is a refinery defense attorney, and also advises those involved with operating and designing all process plants, including petrochemical plants, chemical plants, and natural gas plants. Legal topics include, but are not limited to, regulatory compliance under Clean Air Act, OSHA and NEPA, design liability, litigation due to process upsets and catastrophic events, construction disputes, advanced and optimization process control issues, and evaluating and protecting intellectual property rights, especially trade secrets.

He practices law after a successful 20-year career as a process consulting engineer world-wide.
...

More than 20 years world-wide engineering experience in the continuous process industries, including more than 75 oil refineries, petrochemical plants, and basic chemical plants. His vast experience led to a keen interest in improving process safety, both by design and careful operation.

Former employers include Diamond Shamrock Corp., Champlin Petroleum Company, Solomon Associates, Inc., Profimatics, Inc., Cryogenic Experts, Inc., and Roger Sowell & Associates.

Engineering experience includes process engineering, project engineering, construction supervision, startup and guarantee test runs, planning and scheduling, advanced process control feasibility and master plans, oil movement automation, front-end engineering design, grass-roots refinery feasibility studies, plant energy optimization, steam system optimization, advanced process simulation and optimization, and project economic analysis.

In other words, he has clearly stated financial interests in the continued market domination of the fossil fuel industry, and he pursues legal means to increase the cost and difficulty of employing nuclear fission power.

Reminder: In case you have forgotten or are new to Atomic Insights, "Smoking Gun" posts are about people who are directly associated with the fossil fuel establishment who work to oppose nuclear fission power. They are my tidbits of evidence gathered in building the case that the real power that has opposed nuclear energy is not "The Environmentalists", but the establishment fossil fuel industry that hates the idea of losing its addicts. You can find the articles by entering the words - smoking gun - in the search block next to the orange blogger logo at the top left side of any Atomic Insights page.

Labels: Roger Sowell, smoking gun

posted by Rod Adams

Smoking gun part 16

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Smoking Gun Part 16 - Leader of British National Union Of Miners Demands CCS and Nuclear Shutdown

by Rod Adams

I have always tried to be clear when I talk about how fossil fuel interests have been responsible for much of the success of the organized anti-nuclear movement. Many people in various discussion forums have misinterpreted my words "fossil fuel interests" as meaning just major oil companies, but I am trying to encompass a larger group that that. It includes coal and "natural" gas companies, pipeline companies, fossil fuel burning utility companies, railroads, many bankers, lawyers, and a large number of powerful unions whose members are often quite militant about protecting their dangerous, dirty, debilitating, but reasonably well paying jobs.

Many of the very large anti-nuclear demonstrations that some people may remember or have seen on video have been led by unions of miners or freight railroad employees.

A good friend sent me a link to one of the most direct smoking guns I have been able to post in quite some time. It is a YouTube video of an August 2008 BBC interview with Arthur Scargill, the former President of the British National Union of Miners. The occasion for the interview was Scargill's attendance at Climate Camp 2008. Please watch this brief interview to help you understand just what I am trying to say about the confluence of interest groups that might otherwise be considered to be very strange bedfellows that come together to oppose nuclear power plants.

Scargill has made the smoking gun series here before. One thing you have to admire about the man is that he is not devious about promoting coal while bashing nuclear. If you listen closely, you will find that he is very specific about the kind of coal he likes - it is deep underground, not from open pits and it is British, not imported. (Coal from open pits, South Africa or the US does not represent any employment for British coal miners.) Scargill is not a fan of imported oil and gas and emphasizes that British oil and gas are rapidly depleting.

If you spend much time studying the energy business and listening closely to the internal debates between oil, gas, coal, wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, biofuels, and even more exotic forms like fusion, you will hear a lot of bickering. Gas people talk about how they produce just 60% of the CO2 of coal, wind advocates claim that they are cheaper than solar, geothermal guys point out that they can be available round the clock, and fusion folks point to a point in the distant future where they will be able to power everything from nothing.

Like many large families, however, non nuclear energy interests unite when they confront a common enemy - fission - with the potential to make them all lose power, wealth and influence. Sometimes when I point out all of the people who have a vested interest in fighting nuclear, my fission fellow fission fans get discouraged. After all, there are some powerful forces at work.

My answer to that potential discouragement is to remind them that the energy consumers in the world are far more numerous than the establishment energy producers. When we open our pro-fission tent to all of the people who own lungs and have a vested interest in clean air, we can find a lot of friends to help in the fight.

Labels: nuclear versus coal, Scargill, smoking gun

posted by Rod Adams

Smoking Gun Part 17

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Smoking Gun Part 17 - German Renewable Industry Spokesman Presses for Nuclear Shutdown

by Rod Adams

The old "smoking" industries are not the only ones who have a direct financial incentive in shutting out the nuclear competition. Here is a quote from a March 6, 2009 article on Energy Daily titled Analysis: Nuclear vs. renewable in Germany:

In 2020 renewables are to satisfy 47 percent of Germany's power mix -- more than triple the share of today, which stands at 15 percent.

To achieve that goal, nuclear power plants need to be shut down, the industry claims.

"Sticking to the phaseout is a key prerequisite for continuing development of our sector. It's our investment security," Bjoern Klusmann, the head of a German renewable industry association, said Wednesday in Berlin.

"We don't need nuclear," he said. "Renewables fulfill best the energy-political triptych of supply security, economic feasibility and environmental sustainability."

Just in case you think of the renewable industry as a cottage industry full of people wearing pony tails and Birkenstocks, I highly recommend that you read Boomtown Bremerhaven: The Offshore Wind Industry Success Story, a fascinating article about the growing wind turbine industry in Bremerhaven, Germany.

There is money to be made in building massive wind turbines and associated equipment and installing them in both on shore and off-shore locations, especially if there is adequate financing and government mandates. I am sure that there are a large number of talented engineers and skilled laborers involved in the manufacturing process that enables the production, transport, installation and maintenance of turbines installed on 185 meter tall towers several miles off shore. Those machines have 100 m long blades, operate in harsh conditions and require massive, variable speed reduction gears and precision generators.

Of course, the goal of an energy industry should not be to produce impressive technical marvels, but to produce useful energy that is affordable and has the lowest possible impact on the environment.

It looks like the nuclear industry is finally beginning to fight back with logic and rhetorical weapons of its own.

The head of German energy company RWE, Juergen Grossmann, said in an interview with a German business magazine that subsidies for renewables are a "support program for Russian gas," calling wind power an unstable provider requiring gas-fired power plants that would have to supply base-load capacities.

His company would continue to build nuclear power stations outside of Germany, for example in Britain, he added.

As always, my point in bringing you these smoking gun stories is to work to undermine the "moral high ground" that has been assumed by many of the participants in the energy discussions. I have nothing against commercial enterprises working hard to sell their wares, and I fully recognize that one effective tool in marketing is to denigrate your competition. Those who battle nuclear power are often doing it for financial reasons that have little to do with providing the best possible energy choices and everything to do with providing choices that make the purveyors of other energy alternatives the most money.

Labels: smoking gun

posted by Rod Adams

Smoking Gun Part 18

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Smoking Gun Part 18 - An Oldie But a Goodie - Oil Heat Institute of Long Island Ad Using Scare Tactics to Fight Shoreham

by Rod Adams

One of the most famous battles against nuclear energy in the US, a struggle whose effects remain important to this day, was fought on Long Island. The saga involved nearly two decades of highly publicized effort marred by many failures in management and a well-organized opposition effort that successfully turned out thousands of people willing to march and hundreds willing to trespass and get arrested. Here are headlines from the June 4, 1979 issue of the New York Times:

Eventually, the plant was finally completed and obtained an operating license from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The project cost nearly $6 Billion.However, the battle did not end there; the story got even worse as the state of New York and local politicians continued to fight. Some refused to sign off on the emergency response plans. Eventually, the state bought the plant for a $1, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) declared bankruptcy, and the plant never operated to produce or sell electricity. The ratepayers, however, are still paying elevated electricity prices in order to pay off the loans and in order to purchase the fuel oil and operate trash burning incinerators that supply the electricity that they still need to use.

The memory of the defeat of Shoreham and LILCO in the battle over an attempt to supply Long Island with clean, reliable fission power has not faded. It, along with memories of WPPS and Seabrook, are some of the primary reasons why the idea of investing in large nuclear energy projects is still viewed as a potential company killing bet.

The mythology about Shoreham is that it was a triumph of movement politics led by dedicated - if somewhat misguided - activists who were protecting their local environment. Even one of my favorite pro-nuclear writers - Gwyneth Cravens - participated in the marches and protests before she went on the mind-changing journey documented in her excellent book titled Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy. Harvey Wasserman, one of the organizers of the NoNukes concerts, the marketer of a concept called Solartopia, and a guy who is still on the lecture circuit trying to convince the world that there really were people who were killed at TMI, points to Shoreham as one of his life's major victories - though he reluctantly gives some credit in his lectures to Senator Al D'Amato, a Republican politician from Long Island who also fought the plant.

What many people do not know about Shoreham is that at least some of the opposition literature used to scare people and fire up the troops was openly purchased by an organization called the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island. Here is a quote from one of a series of ads run by that group in the local paper during the long battle:

Sponsored in the public interest by the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island representing 225 independent businessmen who provide 2 billion gallons of oil a year to provide energy for 650,000 families and businesses in Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
LILCO is not the only authority on energy.
Our members have been supplying energy, heat and hot water to Long Island consumers for three generations.
We don't pretend to know all the answers, but one thing is obvious.
Nuclear energy is not the simple, open-and-shut case that LILCO says it is.
During the next few weeks, we will present the other side of the nuclear fission question so everyone can decide for himself and make his feelings known before it is too late.
Paid for by the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island, 132 West Cherry St. Hicksville, N. Y. 11501

The ad is a full page spread with a map of the island with an atomic symbol at the plant location and the names of all of the villages and towns on the island. The headline in large, bold typeface reads: "LILCO is building a nuclear plant in your backyard: Shoreham is just a few minutes away from anywhere on Long Island." The text of the ad includes most of the talking points that were frequently repeated during the first Nuclear Age; some of them still get used today. The ad claims that the insurance industry refuses to cover nuclear energy plants:

"Check your homeowners' policy and you'll find a "nuclear exclusion" clause. Every policy has one. For good reason.
A nuclear reactor offers the possibility of an accident far more terrible than anything in history."

The ad claims that LILCO and the nuclear industry are relying heavily on the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) which has -

Failed every test

"This system has never been fully tested in a major nuclear fission plant the size of Shoreham.
Six small-scale tests have been performed, and the Emergency Core Cooling System failed all six tests.
That's right. The Emergency Core Cooling System failed six tests out of six."
(Emphasis in the original.)

The ad then trots out the story of the three - out of an industry employing tens of thousands of people at the time - former General Electric employees and one former NRC staff member who began working in opposition to the technology.

"LILCO wants you to believe this subject is too complicated and technical for us to understand. "Leave it to the experts," LILCO implies.
But the experts don't necessarily agree with LILCO.
The nuclear industry has been rocked with resignations of engineers and technical experts.
The former chief safety evaluator of containment systems - the heart of a nuclear fission plant - and two other top engineers at General Electric resigned $30,000 a year jobs to campaign against nuclear plants.
They were joined a few days later by the U. S. Government's project director at Indian River III, just north of New York City, which will be virtually identical to Shoreham."

(Aside: 1. Containment systems are not the "heart" of nuclear fission plants. They are more like the suspenders worn by a guy who also has on a tight pants and a belt.
2. Four celebrated defections should not "rock" an industry employing tens of thousands of highly trained people, many of whom were world class scientists and engineers. In retrospect the phrasing in the ad is actually pretty accurate - this particular set of resignations did "rock" the industry in other ways by being used as a bludgeon for decades. The three former GE employees, Dale Bridenbaugh, Gregory Minor and Richard Hubbard built substantial careers as consultants out of their opposition, however principled it might have been in the beginning. The former NRC employee - Robert Pollard, has been called "the antinuclear movement's indispensable man". You can find his work easily these days using readily available search tools. End Aside.

The ad's final paragraphs should be familiar - they are still a commonly heard rallying cry of the dedicated anti-nuclear opposition:

The insurance industry refuses to insure LILCO's nuclear fission plant at Shoreham for more than a tiny fraction of the huge potential losses from a nuclear accident. The Government has to insure all the rest.
To protect itself, the Government has limited total liability to $560 million - a far cry from the $7 billion that its own experts say is minimum.
How safe can it be if all these experts refuse to touch it?
Now, how do you feel about having a nuclear fission plant in your backyard?

Here is the ad's call to action:

What you can do to help

• Make your feelings know so other people will become aware.
• Sign the petition below so your Assemblymen and Senators in Albany will know you want action now.

Here is the petition that the ad asks people to sign:

I, the undersigned, petition my representatives in Government to sponsor and actively support (1) a "Nuclear Responsibility Bill," and (2) legislation to develop safe, cost-competitivce energy sources (conservation, solar, tidal, wind, etc.)

There is also a cute graphic on the ad that would make Harvey Wasserman - Mr. Solartopia - proud:

Please do not forget the source of all of this "information" about nuclear fission; it was openly purchased by the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island. It was apparently part of a series of similar ads and "information" pieces. Wonder why the ad sponsors did not boldly ask people to tell their representatives that they wanted to keep buying and burning oil?

Labels: Shoreham, smoking gun, Wasserman

posted by Rod Adams