Skip to main content

Communicating Nuclear Energy: You Don't Have to Do It Alone

By
Elizabeth Fako
The following is a guest post by Elizabeth Fako, a communications specialist at Entergy's River Bend Nuclear Station.

When people ask what my favorite part of my job is, the answer is easy: I get to spend every day working with people who think in a completely opposite way than me and I love that.

The operators, engineers and other “technically-minded” people I work closely with constantly challenge me to be a better communicator, nuclear professional and communications coach. As much as I love that aspect of my job, there’s something to be said for spending time with like-minded people. That’s one reason I found NEI’s Fundamentals of Nuclear Communication workshop so valuable; I not only got to spend three days working with other communications professionals, but also with other communicators from the nuclear industry – a career as unique as it sounds.

Our presenters included NEI representatives and industry experts, sharing a wealth of knowledge ranging from the nuts and bolts of reactor basics and Radiation 101 to practical on-camera media training and event response. As if nuclear technology isn’t complicated enough for someone with a public relations degree, we even bordered on the edge of brain surgery…okay, maybe just basic anatomy. Either way I was channeling all my neuro-knowledge from many seasons of Grey’s Anatomy to follow along with the diagram of how the brain processes fear to better manage risk communications. Although we only had time to skim the surface on tactical topics like employee communications, public opinion and social media, there was plenty of time to litter my notebook with asterisks to follow-up questions, items to look into further, ideas to bring back to my plant site and more.

The most valuable thing I took away from the course is an appreciation for the resources available, both information and people, to help us as communicators not only do our jobs better, but to help the nuclear industry as a whole.

Being a communications staff of one at a station with more than 600 employees can sometimes feel daunting. I left D.C. last week with a stack of business cards and new LinkedIn connections with individuals who not only understand my position, but have either lived it before or are living it now - and are more than willing to help. Each of us is in a position to represent our sites and companies, as well as to advocate for the nuclear industry as a whole. It’s comforting to know we don’t have to do it alone.

For that I say thank you to the entire NEI staff for this workshop and for all the resources you make available to us; to each of the presenters for sharing their insights and advice; and to my colleagues in the class for echoing my enthusiasm for this industry.

I truly believe nuclear is the future of energy and look forward to working alongside my colleagues to create that future.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more