Skip to main content

Adorable Little Death Throes

By

This ad, from the British company Ecotricity, tries to make the case that Britain should dump other kinds of energy in favor of windmills. It seems to me adorable and a complete misfire because it is adorable.

The benign cartoon cooling towers that collapse into dust, waving their cartoon hands in dismay, is pretty disturbing and would seem to cast the windmills shown at the end into the role of malignant usurpers. This has to be the opposite of what Ecotricity wants to portray. Judge for yourself:

 

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Pretty annoying music, too, as well as being kind of violent and destructive. Ironic that they'd throw the "Time to move on" bromide in there. Move on to what? Windmills? That isn't moving on, its moving backward to ancient, ancient technology that re-enslaves mankind to the capricious whims of nature.
February 9, 2012 at 8:45 PM
Fan of predictable energy said…
Back before humans had enough energy to pump water out of aquifers, there was something called "famine" which occurred in those years when the annual variability in rainfall caused droughts. What a crazy idea to move to an energy source also has annual variability (as well as weekly, monthly, and seasonal variability), that would return humans back to this exact same dependence upon weather.
February 9, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Brian Mays said…
The effect that it had on me is that I'm starting to think it might be a good idea to paint smiley faces on cooling towers. You have to admit that they're kind of cute.
February 9, 2012 at 11:08 PM
Anonymous said…
I take it they don't want that cup of tea then...
February 10, 2012 at 8:08 AM
SteveK9 said…
@Fan Wind is variable practically down to the minute time scale.
February 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Anonymous said…
Not that we would do it, but can you imagine the outrage from the mainstream press as well as the windies and sunnies if some pro-nuclear organization put out an ad showing windmills or solar panels collapsing because they were uneconomical from being so unreliable and variable? They'd be shouting from the rooftops about those "haters". Heck, even now, if you bring up technical objections based on science or economics, they accuse you of wanting to "poison the world", and call you vile names like "vermin" and "rapists" (of the land). But here is an organization showing nuclear plants being blown up and people cheer about it. Bunch of hypocrites, the lot of them.
February 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM
Septeus7 said…
I find it funny that I can find a lot more video of collapsing windmills than I can of Stream Towers crumbling. Can we say projection?

Brain is right. The Smiley faces to make the Towers look a bit more friendly.
February 12, 2012 at 6:16 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

By
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 …
1 comment
Read more

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

By
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…
Post a Comment
Read more

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

By
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…
Post a Comment
Read more