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

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 Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…