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…
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.
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.
Alex Matthiessen, President of Riverkeeper, has written a letter to the editor of the New York Times with his suggestions for replacing the 2045 Megawatts of emission free electricity produced by the Indian Point nuclear power station. Because letters to the editor sections of commercial newspapers often are not reliably archived an available for future…
An article titled “US sweetens pot to study siting for spent nuke fuel storage” was published in the January 26, 2023 edition of the Washington Post. The article included a paragraph that credited “environmentalists” as being the main source of opposition to construction of consolidated interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities that are either licensed…
John Hofmeister’s book Why We Hate the Oil Companies should be required reading for people who aspire to engage in the energy conversation. It helps to explain so many things. I do not agree with his proposals or even the point of view that Hofmeister expresses; the reason that I want people to read the…
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…
Watch the latest business video at video.foxbusiness.com Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute, a self proclaimed libertarian think tank, recently visited Fox Business to explain his opposition to nuclear energy. The episode was on the Stossel Show and is called Nuclear Power: Republican Junk Economics?. If you listen really closely, you will hear him using…
It’s been quite a while since my last smoking gun post on Atomic Insights. It may be time to revive the series to remind nuclear energy advocates to follow the money and know their opponents. In the battle for hearts, minds and market share it is always useful to know why vocal opposition exists, but…