Skip to main content

Winning the Public Relations Battle One Mind at a Time

A few days ago, I noted a post from Steven Aplin about how Ontario's achievements in carbon emissions reduction are being purposely ignored by environmental activists.

Then again, there are others who understand the need for new nuclear, like David Goodings of Burlington, Ontario, who wrote the following in a letter to the editor in the Toronto Star:
Like the proverbial generals who continue to fight the last war while preparing for the next one, Greenpeace Canada's Dave Martin continues to tilt against nuclear power with 30-year-old arguments – despite the fact that the world around him has dramatically changed.

An entirely different opinion was recently expressed by the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, who had this to say in a May 11, 2007 article in the Hamilton Spectator: "When I helped found Greenpeace in Vancouver in the 1970s, my colleagues and I were firmly opposed to nuclear energy. But times have changed. I now realize nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy Canada's growing demand for energy."

Environmentalist James Lovelock has also recognized nuclear energy's contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Three years ago, he wrote: "We cannot continue drawing energy from fossil fuels, and there is no chance that the renewables – wind, tide and water power – can provide enough energy and in time.... Only one immediately available source does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy."

As society shifts away from coal, oil and natural gas, it is inevitable that demand for electrical power will grow, despite efforts aimed at conservation and energy efficiency. It is fortunate that public opinion in Ontario, the U.K. and elsewhere appears to be moving rapidly toward accepting nuclear energy.
Looks like a battle that's going to be won one person at a time.

Comments

And how will it be won, one person at a time?

Does it not require the internet age equivalent of a phone tree, chiefly among young people, and chiefly on campuses around the country? And how shall we do this?

I have no silver bullet answers to the above questions; I simply wish to put them out for consideration.
gunter said…
Speaking of Lovelock and young people, did anybody else notice the today's UK news story of the results of a May 2007 poll conducted right around release of the government energy white paper where support for nuclear power has fallen to around 35%. The percentage opposed has remained roughly the same so the supporters must have moved into undecided and "don't knows". More than a third of the UK public doesn't have a view on nuclear pro or con the poll found.

Chief among the growing disenchantment with nuclear power was women and a newly discovered shift in opinion of young people age groups up to 44 years of age.

Clearly nuclear power can lose a mind one person at a time, as well and even by whole age brackets.

gunter
Randal Leavitt said…
People who think that nuclear power is good are going to have to do some work. There are lots of opportunities. Currently the UK government is asking for input concerning its future nuclear power policies. People should use this to write some overpowering statements about nuclear energy. The UK government will read them. The request for input is here:

http://nuclearpower2007.direct.gov.uk/

I am developing my response here:

http://positiveenergy.blogspot.com/

Speak out, and encourage others to do the same.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…