Skip to main content

Nuclear Debate at the Daily Show

By

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.

Labels:

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.
March 21, 2012 at 8:49 PM
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/
March 22, 2012 at 6:28 AM
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..."
March 22, 2012 at 1:14 PM
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.
March 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM
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.
March 23, 2012 at 9:44 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

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

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more