Smoking Gun Part 10 – Scottish government signals support for reopening Longannet
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…
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.
Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.
Some of the earliest documented instances of opposition to the development of commercial nuclear power in the United States originated from designated representatives of the coal industry. They were the first people to mount sustained opposition to the use of taxpayer money to support the development of nuclear power stations. They testified against the implied…
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…
In 1972, an Exxon internal audit disclosed that Esso Italiana, Exxon’s Italian subsidiary, had been making payments to Italian political parties that were tied by amount to specific corporate objectives. One of the objectives that was listed on documents seized by Italian authorities was halting nuclear energy development in Italy in favor of burning more…
Conventional wisdom tells us that “Environmentalists” worried about one or more of the below complaints have influenced world opinion and encouraged the current negative investment perception that surrounds new nuclear power plants: Nuclear plants are not completely safe Nuclear energy technology leads to dispersal of nuclear weapons capability Nuclear energy plants are massive and lead…
It’s been a while since my last ‘smoking gun’ report so it might be worth a brief reminder of what that categorization means. For Atomic Insights, the tag ‘smoking gun’ means a story that includes evidence of fossil fuel related interests working to oppose nuclear energy development, usually at a specific project. Some of the…
In a break from its historical tactic of quietly enabling surrogates, the US petroleum industry has started to openly engage in battles to suppress use of atomic fission. The Ohio division of the American Petroleum Institute (API Ohio) recently issued a press release urging members of the “Ohio legislature to reject legislation that would subsidize…
This site uses a cookie for Google Analytics. Accept or decline — your choice.