“Funny thing. The climate alarmists’ favorite energies–wind and solar–have ruined the margins of nuclear to cause premature retirements and a lack of private funding for new construction. So the fossil-fuel haters in the nuclear camp find themselves victimized by the climate crusade. It sure is hard being ‘nuclear green’.”
Being active on social media with several thousand followers, I actively engage with my critics for fun and profit. I learn much, and those who have chosen to follow me (6,400+) might also. But I have also attracted scorn, some of the worst kind. My foes are typically wed to an energy dependent on special government failure. The ideological, deep-ecology, Church-of-Climate types spare little invective about how I am a threat to the future. Arguments failing, ad hominem often follows,
I employ plenty of analysis and link to a variety of sources. I easily refute the ad hominem that comes my way. I have little to hide and believe that history has been kind to my multi-decade engagement on energy and climate issues. I refer the reader to my 1997 piece, “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’” (commentary here and here) in regard to my views, then and now.
Background
Occasionally, a critic goes so far out of bounds of normal discourse that I post the exchange for the historical record. John Holdren, Joe Romm, and David Appell in the old days; Martin Porter (Greenpeace), Thomas Ortman, Lindsey Gulden, Andrew Griffiths/Steven Lord, Milton Howard, Brian Scott, and Gunnar Schade more recently.
The latest comes from a zealot (bully?) from the nuclear power industry. Note that commercial nuclear has been radically uncompetitive, and government-dependent, from the beginning (the 1950s). The problem remains, whether large scale or “advanced, small” fission or fusion. Kennedy Maize is a reliable source on the latest nuclear news, which is not good.
Simply put, nuclear is the most complicated, fraught, expensive way to boil water to spin the turbines to generate electricity. It is not the cost of the enhanced uranium, the most dense energy of all. It is the cost and time to assemble so many parts with the redundancy and strength to contain an internal nuclear explosion.
Is nuclear safe? It certainly is supposed to be, and backed by a paucity of catastrophes. But why does the industry lobby and receive the (oft extended, never-ending) Price Anderson Act cap on liability in case of an accident? Why this federal law in place of private insurance companies judging each and every reactor for pricing and liability maximums, past which the nuclear-plant owner would risk its capital? I have never gotten a good answer on that, and with $12 billion collected in a utility accident fund, surely a transition is affordable.
The Exchange
The social media discussion began with my comment to a post by U.S. Department of Energy head Jennifer Granholm. “Exit please, DOE,” I said. “Time to stop subsidizing inefficiency.”
One comment came from Vincenz Buhler:
Haha a Texas Enron director has a strong opinion for how to operate a power grid. That’s a good one; I needed this today.
I responded, linking to my Enron/Political Capitalism website:
Your ad hominem backfires. I fought Enron hard on the company’s climate alarmism, wind/solar rent-seeking, and ‘political capitalism’ in general.
Then a foe of my classical liberal view, one Adam Brown, self-described nuclear business and operations consultant, went nuclear:
You didn’t fight anything Rob. You were a willing participant in robbing Eron employees and retirees of their life savings for personal gain. Now you use a fake charity to earn tax free income promoting your fossil industry.
I responded:
Totally false and even libelous. Shame on you Adam Brown. You have a severe anger problem. Please, dial back the emotions and falsities.
Brown answered:
I wish I was wrong Rob but you came out of the Enron collapse way more than whole while your fellow Enron employees lost their life savings. How’d you manage that? And your charity has no contributions or funding to disadvantaged beneficiaries. Other than being a tax write off for you and your fossil industry donors, how it that “charity”?
I give you credit for surviving the Eron collapse on very questionable financial footing and prospering through use of our nations “charity” loopholes some people take full advantage of. But your “charity” was created to peddle misinformation on behalf of the fossil industry and its investors to the severe economic, environmental, and physical health detriment of the vast majority of people.
I admit the things you’ve done and currently do for personal gain does bother people with higher moral standards. I probably take it to an extreme that I shouldn’t and I do try to temper. If you reduce your trolling and posting of misinformation, I’ll reduce my responding comments.
And my response:
Your retreat here is not very convincing. How do you know my situation versus other people? I stood up for my convictions while at Enron and paid a price. I risked my job (read the memos). Your ad hominem is specious.
Principles has always come before money with me. A lot more money and reward on the other side, so well-funded by the climate industrial complex.
Note that I do not attack you for being in an industry based on the narrative of climate alarmism, an industry that is wildly uneconomic and dependent on government subsidies.
By the way, it is climate policy that is hurting the masses, not the gas of life, carbon dioxide that greens Planet Earth. Wind, solar, batteries–and nuclear–are not the answer but part of the problem.
Adam Brown responded:
Many People in the energy industry have a problem with you Rob. All of your personal claims of what happened at Enron and now your fake charity are countered by people that worked with or engaged with you. Lots of similar story trails. The worst thing you can do in any industry is burn bridges. You stood up alright…to get your piece of the pie and get out while the getting was good. Why was your exit so close to the end?
A person with principles doesn’t misinform people for a living. Like your hypocrisy regarding government subsidies and support. Fossil has received more government support over the span of a century than all other energy technologies combined. It’s not even close. And that doesn’t include the annual Billions the U.S. taxpayer is on the hook for the oil and gas industry.
“Gas of life”…the latest in a long line of fossil industry lies and misinformation. What kind of idiot believes that bullshit? ….
I responded:
Vague, ignorant argumentation and hate talk make you the suspect character. Having this conversation with you adds to the record that I want to preserve.
[Note: Brown is making things up like “Many People in the energy industry have a problem with you Rob” …. “All of your personal claims of what happened at Enron and now your fake charity are countered by people that worked with or engaged with you.” No documentation, just wild innuendo. And this from a professional?]
Brown responded:
Preserve all you want Rob. You can’t hide from your history and current activities nor change history. All you can do is attempt to rectify it which I’m sure you won’t do…there’s no easy tax free money in it.
I’d prefer not to have these engagements with you but you bring it on yourself. Your mission is obvious and that’s for our nation to regress, more of the same that has cost us beyond what we’ll ever fully recover from. Your mission for profit isn’t energy progress.
It’s funny how you never attempt to address my comments of what our countries thirst for oil and fossil fuels, and the associated greed, has cost us as a nation. You just ignore it because you can’t change factual history and the cumulative damage done. Your only solution to the problem of fossil is not to progress to something better or propose corrective actions for how to extract and burn fossil fuels cleaner and more efficiently…like a true “Energy Research” representative would. Your sole purpose is to push for more of the same, be part of the problem, disparage alternative solutions, and profit from it.
At least I envision a future that includes fossil fuels but shares the increasing world energy demand with clean(er) energy technologies.
I responded:
Eight billion consumers can’t be wrong–and a half-century of Malthusian false alarms against fossil fuels speaks for itself. Ad hominem and hate talk are not very persuasive.
And no, fossil fuels are improving in every way on the technology side to improve economics and the environment. It is nuclear, your energy, that cannot improve but seems to be going backwards. Read the links I have already provided you on these points.
Final Comment
“Hate hurts the hater more than the hated,” the adage goes. Adam Brown has picked a government dependent industry—nuclear power—that has always been a loser. (He claims a 40-year history of success, but can he tell us about the nuclear plants that were completed under budget and ahead of schedule? Maybe none–and just the opposite.)
And being so uneconomic, the nuclear industry has turned to climate alarmism to try to win support for its lack of competitiveness. Thus the current nuclear rush to government and the lack of progressing, viable U.S. projects.
Funny thing. The climate alarmists’ favorite energies–wind and solar–have ruined the margins of nuclear to cause premature retirements and a lack of private-side funding for new construction. So the fossil-fuel haters in the nuclear camp find themselves victimized. It sure is hard being nuclear green.
—————-
Appendix: Further Reading (Bradley and Enron)
In addition to my entry at politicalcapitalism.org, I have authored these articles about my history at Enron and at the Institute for Energy Research.
My Time at Enron: For the Record (again)
Institute for Energy Research (history)
IHS-Texas (predecessor)
SourceWatch on IER: Error Laden, Dated
Dear Wiki: Time to Correct (IER description biased, erroneous)