Skip to main content

Nuclear Debate at the Daily Show

Yesterday, Bloomberg News wrote a story on NEI’s ad campaign and highlighted one TV spot that will air on, among other programs, Comedy Central’s ‘The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.’ The Daily Show draws a younger, more liberal crowd, some of whom are skeptical of nuclear energy. Since the Bloomberg article appeared, there’s been a surge in commentary from all sides of the nuclear debate at the Daily Show’s Facebook page. If you haven’t been over to the page yet, stop by and add your two cents. The readers over there could use a different perspective on nuclear than from the usual crowd.

Comments

elfpltfn said…
I'm elated NEI is taking a more proactive role in nuclear public relations!
I'm a bit underwhelmed at the message though- saying "nuclear is safe, clean, and reliable" won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with us. Rather than farming this out to an advertising agency- let the plants' outreach centers develop short ads showing real people. (At a spent fuel pool showing the EAD.. for example).

Right or wrong- nuclear critics have specific complaints that make perfect sense to people who have never seen nuclear fuel. (Case in point: Diane Sawyer's lead into the SONGS S/G tube leak...)

I suspect an educational outreach program demonstrating plant operations/facilities would go much further to bolster confidence than repeating "clean and safe".

P.S. I'm jealous- this would be an incredibly fun project to work on.
Luke_UK said…
For the "younger, more liberal crowd" at the Daily Show, who are likely to be more concerned about climate change as well as more hostile to nuclear, you might have been better with Barry Brook's version. See discussion over at Canadian Energy Issues.
http://canadianenergyissues.com/2012/03/21/battle-of-the-nuclear-ads-brook-vs-nei/
gmax137 said…
@elfpltfn "...would go much further to bolster confidence than repeating "clean and safe"."

Well, the natural gas kings seem to be doing quite well with "clean...clean...clean..."
elfpltfn said…
@gmax137: Well, the natural gas kings seem to be doing quite well with "clean...clean...clean..."

True, but, they don't have to contend with Fukishima, Helen Caldicott or rampant public ignorance of radiation. People aren't threatened by the gas that heats their home in the same way they fear a nuclear reactor.
JD said…
"People aren't threatened by the gas that heats their home in the same way they fear a nuclear reactor."

Indeed. A strange phenomenon considering the actual relative risk.

Consider this story, the month before Fukushima:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41503700/ns/us_news-life/t/dead-after-massive-pa-gas-blast/#.T20mFNVmOk8

"A thunderous gas explosion devastated a rowhouse neighborhood, killing five people.."

Long forgotten now, but more deadly than Fukushima.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin