Skip to main content

A Tarantula As Big As a House

By

Well, we just don’t know. (click on pictures or here to see full size versions):

greenpeacebunny

greenpeaceelephant

These are ads created in Romania for Greenpeace and, although these are in English, they may be intended for Eastern Europe.

Mutations? Really? This went out of style after Universal Pictures grew tired of growing tarantulas and praying mantises to the size of houses in the 1950s.

Greenpeace can make all the arguments against nuclear energy they want, but dishonestly leads to a loss of credibility. We can’t imagine Greenpeace USA using these ads, but if this is their response to the vastly increased interest in nuclear energy in Europe, this is a battle they’re fated to lose.

Sheesh!

Labels:

Comments

Jason Ribeiro said…
If you haven't seen this greenpeace commercial already, it has the same theme.

In terms of negative ad campaigning this is a despicable low blow. It comes from the nightmares of Greenpeace's leaders.
March 18, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Anonymous said…
The unfortunate part is that other energy sources (such as coal, geothermal and even natural gas) release more radiation into the environment than nuclear -- but there is no warm/fuzzy way to demonstrate this that I can come up with.

Perhaps was is needed is a series of commercials, explaining the limitations of each renewable proposed by Greenpeace, each type in turn.

Let's begin with wind. The local weather forcaster in Texas is on TV talking about high temperatures. The guy watching TV comments about how hot it is in the room, and asks his wife to switch on the air conditioner. As she does, the picture cuts away to some wind turbines spinning down as the voice of the forcaster also mentions the calm winds. Just as the air conditioner comes on, the power goes off and everything shuts down.

The commercial ends as a narrator states that while wind can be used to generate supplimental power, nuclear can provide clean, safe power even on hot afternoons when the wind doesn't blow.
March 18, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Jason Ribeiro said…
I like your thinking donb. The nuclear industry does have a social intellectual problem to wrangle with in getting its message out. Your example shows how capacity factor can be explained without mentioning the phrase 'capacity factor' which would lose most people.

I also like the idea of doing a few low budget for the web only mini-infomercials. With a few people taking a few moments to explain and talk about nuclear topics with 3-10 minutes, you could do a lot that you couldn't with a normal tv spot. Maybe a few news clips might run them on broadcast TV as well if they attract attention.
March 18, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Finrod said…
"I also like the idea of doing a few low budget for the web only mini-infomercials. With a few people taking a few moments to explain and talk about nuclear topics with 3-10 minutes, you could do a lot that you couldn't with a normal tv spot."

Hmm. I have a Geiger counter and a deep voice. Unfortunately I as yet have nothing to measure with the Geiger counter, and if I've ever been described as photogenic, it was by a good-natured liar in poor lighting.
March 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Professor Dan(a) said…
My goodness. I live and attend school in Chicago, so there are frequently Greenpeacers on the street corners wanting to stop me. On the occasion that I do stop, I let them know that I can't support Greenpeace because of their official stance against nuclear. One guy told me that personally, he supports nuclear. Another girl tried say that Greenpeace is not anti-nuclear at all! I just walked away at that joke.

I don't know what to say about this. They're preying on decades-passed, unfounded fears about nuclear power and inventing issues. I think the only caveats left in the US are the start-up capital and waste storage.
March 18, 2009 at 6:50 PM
rsynnott said…
Remember their ad with the plane hitting Sizewell B? In terms of silliness, this is nothing out of the ordinary for Greenpeace.
March 19, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Joffan said…
Greenpeace's contribution to the first European Nuclear Energy Forum meeting was also cartoonish (including inflatable Homer Simpson) and belligerently dogmatic in nature. You can find it in the "presentations" zip file on that site.
March 19, 2009 at 3:32 PM
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