Nuclear energy – Clean air energy made in America

This is terrific. Now it needs to be played as frequently as possible in as many venues as possible. My dream would be seeing it several times during the Final Four this weekend, but something tells me that is a true fantasy.

Way to go, NEI. A few more ads like this one and I might start taking back some of the things I have said about a lack of good nuclear energy marketing.

Update: I just looked more carefully at the posted date – April 8, 2013. This has been available on YouTube for a year and only has 913 views. Really?

There is a 30 sec version of the ad. It has garnered 569 views in the year since it was posted.

About Rod Adams

33 Responses to “Nuclear energy – Clean air energy made in America”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Eino says:

    Rod:

    This was a good start, but the cartoon P&ID type people are not as effective as what is shown in the following template. One picture is worth ten thousand words and I think it hits harder. A lot of us let the words wash through us, but the pictures leave an imprint.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YBtspm8j8M

    Are they targeting all of us or just some of us?

  2. Eino says:

    Here’s another 2 cents, maybe a whole nickel.

    First – Some of us will be reminded of power point presentations by this ad. The cartoon figures are not that different than the stock Microsoft figures that many of us have seen over and over again. The Microsoft figures are faceless and so were these cartoon characters. Hmmmm – The face of nuclear power is none.

    The ad describes what “he” is doing and what “she” is doing and then tries to enlist us in the talk by using “we.” They are using techniques that nuclear managers use to try to get the rest of us to “buy in” to what they want us to do. Then it goes on to describe the good things of nuclear power.

    The word safety is given at least three times. If someone stresses to you that something is safe, it raises questions in your head. A single mention would have been enough.

    Basic Dale Carnegie teaches that if you want to sell something, the person is most interested in “me.” The ad does not do a superb job of meeting my interests.

    What are those presenters of that bland power point material really interested in? Before and after the power point, you’ll see screen savers of their spouses, kids and even the family dog. The ads could be very effective if they stressed how nuclear power can help provide for you and your families needs. This is what people are interested in. Many don’t give a hoot about nukes and even the environment.

    All those multiple Thorium videos that now abound on the net do a really good job. They sell you a dream for your future and the future of your loved ones. This power point cartoon did not.

    The ad was made for nuclear managers and plant employees. It will make them feel good.

  3. Atomikrabbit says:

    I would really like to know the amount the American Natural Gas Alliance has been spending on their campaign: http://anga.us/media-room/videos/advertising#.U0BfXie9KSM

    Or the ubiquitous American Petroleum Institute ones featuring the Black-Pantsuited Blonde?
    http://www.api.org/news-and-media/industry-advertisements?types=TV

    $100M/year? That’s about what the remaining 100 American nuclear plants spend on INPO.
    $440M/year? The annual NRC basic license fee per reactor is $4.4M each.
    Level playing field? You tell me.

  4. Twominds says:

    I agree with Eino. It’s a start but feels rather amateuristic.

    Is the Final Four the football finals? That makes me think about an effort the american (and by extension international) knitting community made to have an ad for a yarn shop to be aired in the commercial breaks, in the football or other main sport finals. IIRC one or a couple of ads can be chosen to be aired by submitting a candidate and then trying to collect as many votes as possible. In the community social media, calls went out to vote and to remind people that they could vote once every day. They almost made it, I saw their ad have the most votes several times in the weeks before the finals. Only there were two or three similar ads competing with each other, otherwise I wouldn’t be surprised that a yarn ad would have been aired for tens of millions of people.

    The nuclear community and sympatisers could try something similar. Not this year I guess, the voting takes months, but for next year. And with a better ad, something that looks more like the Bruce Power ads.

    I’m very far removed from the american nuclear community, but I think I’d look at ANS first to try to organise such an effort.

  5. Dogmug says:

    A good example of how to do it? The marijuana pro-legalization effort. Similar to the pro-nuclear movement, it’s a campaign against decades of heavily-funded FUD and cultural warfare.

    The fact that it’s a social group that is often anti-nuclear is of no matter. Think process, not content. They’re another group of (often) social pariahs agitating for acceptance.

    The differences are also significant, and point to things we should take pains to not repeat. They claim that cannabis is completely without risk and that it has miraculous powers from healing to energy production; our claim is that nuclear energy has risks, but the risks have been exaggerated by the antis. We pro-nukes assert that the fossil fuel industry has a financial interest in keeping nuclear energy hobbled; many of the pro-MJ people are out-and-out conspiracy theorists.

    Of course, each of our movements contain both rational and wacky members. We may have fewer, but they all hold us back.

    In spite of their excesses, the grass legalizers are making progress. The simple fact that they’re opposing a ruinous “Drug War” is a big factor, and compassionate medical use of marijuana is also a winning issue. It has given the Libertarianism movement wide credibility it otherwise would not have had. (Many Libertarians, it should be noted, oppose nuclear energy because of government involvement in it.)

    Likewise, concerns over human-caused climate change are driving much of the cultural Nuclear Renaissance. And the issues of relieving poverty and affording less-developed countries the opportunity to enjoy material prosperity (and the advance in democracy that comes with it) are still untapped by our movement.

    By drawing comparisons between the War On Drugs and the War On Nukes, we may be able to make our own narrative more powerful, and reach a wider audience.

    I’m not a fan of marijuana myself, but I am a fan of effective educational campaigns. No, nuclear energy development isn’t much like marijuana, but we should learn from whom we can.

    So, dudes — Don’t Bogart the Atom!

    • Rod Adams says:

      @Dogmug

      I like it. As an aside, I agree with the Libertarians: the government should not be as involved in nuclear energy as they are. The technology really is good enough so that it no longer needs support – as long as we can achieve a sensible regulatory system without so many powerful hooks for meddling opponents. Public participation is a mantra and I don’t have any real issue with honest exchanges of information with the public focused on ensuring projects are properly sited and pay attention to safety and esthetics.

      However, it is currently possible for dedicated opponents to achieve goals of adding enormous costs and unpredictable delays that almost completely discourage investment. That has to be addressed.

    • PissedOffAmerican says:

      “A good example of how to do it? The marijuana pro-legalization effort.”

      Well, with a different foreseeable outcome, I hope.

      I am in contact with my old hippie friends that didn’t have the good sense to quit using pot habitually over the years, and it ain’t pretty. In legalization, we will lose many good minds that might otherwise have been productive and constructive. Make no mistake, there will be a heavy cost to society in taking this path.

      • Rod Adams says:

        @POA

        To paraphrase someone for whom I am gaining more and more respect: In terms of lost minds, how would legalization lead to any different results than our long lasting and failing “war on drugs.” What makes that path so different in helping people to self destruct?

        • PissedOffAmerican says:

          “What makes that path so different in helping people to self destruct?”

          Well, I don’t know how it is now. But I recall peers of mine in the sixties, who, unlike myself, were actually intimidated by the illegality of using pot, so they abstained. And in abstaining from pot, it followed that LSD, coke, downers, etc, were also shunned by these wise people.

          Granted, to those such as myself, it didn’t faze us. And with that willingness to skirt the law, came the insidious dependence on an altered state of mind. Of course, not all pot smokers became damaged by its usage. But I can say with some certainty, that those of us that became dependent on pot also developed dependencies on other substances, much to our detriment. It truly is a gateway drug, even if the casual pot user may disagree. Some of us are simply predisposed to habitual abuse and addiction.

          Legal or not, I have no idea how to counter this predisposition to addiction and self destruction that many of us have. Education surely. Timely intervention as well.

          But make no mistake, we are sacrificing a certain segment of our population when we facilitate the ease by which they can self medicate thier discomfort with real life, and the emotions and challenges that real life entails.

  6. Mitch says:

    On Youtube it’s a start but still more made for a school audience. Cartoons look too kiddie and unserious. Look at natural gas ads. No cartoons, just adult gas lady getting her point across and it works! Nuke best follow her lead!

    • PissedOffAmerican says:

      Along these lines, anyone notice BP’s “green and sunny ” logo they adopted post gulf spill? Graphical insinuation, visual nuance designed to sink a bit deeper into the psyche than conscious consideration.

      Frankly, I’m torn. So much of effective marketing breaks down to deception, or, at the very least, skirting very close to the edge of the truth. That is, has been, one of my concerns with the claims of the pro-nuclear folks. I’m an example of what you’re up against. It isn’t just distrust of the nuclear industry that you have to overcome, it is a general distrust of ALL huge corporate, governmental, or industrial narratives. We have been BS’d so long, and so completely, by big business interests and the Washington pimps that peddle thier wares, John Q has a predisposition of distrust against ANY marketing campaign representing the interests of the energy sector.

      Will the nuclear industry pursue the same kind of insidiously disingenuous insinuation with its logoing and format as BP has adopted in its lies about the full “recovery” of the gulf? Why should “we” trust the same kind of claims coming from your industry about events such as Fukushima? Aren’t “you” just as capable of deception in marketing as the fossil fuel guys are? In the end, doesn’t it all really just break down to profits, and the protection of profits, by any means available? What makes you different?

      • PissedOffAmerican says:

        If I remember right…didn’t Disneyland, in the late fifties, have a ride that was atom logo’d?? Can’t remember, was it the sub ride, or the cars???

        • Atomikrabbit says:

          Here is a detailed (if somewhat cynical) account of Disney & The Atom:
          http://www.awn.com/mag/issue3.1/3.1pages/3.1langerdisney.html

          • PissedOffAmerican says:

            Atomikrabbit….

            Thanks for that. An interesting read. I rode on one of those subs as a youngster shortly after Walt’s voyage. And I seem to recall there was a heavy “message” contained in the running narrative that accompanied the experience, touting the utility and future of our partnership with the almighty atom.

            As an aside, when my dad had a business called “The Powder Horn”, Walt became interested in an invention of my dad’s; the trigger guard safety lock for firearms. Marketed under the name “Saf-Gun”, it was a great product. Cast in alloy to actually fit the trigger guard configuration of whatever model firearm, then blued or nickel plated, fitted with a Master keyed tumbler assembly, it was way ahead of its time. Sears quickly jumped into the fray with a cruder version that only required a two prong “key”. But both products failed as gun safety was not near the issue it is today.

            But as a result of Walt’s interest in the product, my brother and I were able, as youths, to enjoy a dove hunting trip with Walt and my dad. I recall how awed I was by the man, being a huge youthful fan of the Disney show.

            When Walt died, it seems the Disney octopus lost a bit of its soul, and became just another anything-goes entertainment entity and corporate monstrosity.

          • Engineer-Poet says:

            OT for the blog, but topical to the subthread:

            Disney is ruining my kid.

          • PissedOffAmerican says:

            Eng-poet….

            Thanks, interesting read. As I’m working on this remodel in Bev Hills, I am spending nights at a motel during the week. Soooo…..I must admit I get more than my fair share of TV time. I should probably spend more time reading, but if I read, seems I fall asleep way too early having had just finished a full work day that ends at 3:30 PM. A couple of times I’ve channel surfed into the Disney shows mentioned, and I have been surprised at the imagery and content. That ain’t the Disney I remember growing up, for sure.

            I remember shows such as The Rifleman, Rawhide, Father Knows Best, etc, where integrity and good vs evil were woven throughout the scripts….

            The times they are a’changin’.

            (Is this where I relay how I walked ten miles through snow and sleet just to get to school? Hmmm. Can’t. Grew up in Southern Cal, a block from my elementary school. Damn.)

          • Rod Adams says:

            @POA

            Grew up in Southern Cal, a block from my elementary school.

            I’ve got you beat. I grew up in South Florida, just four houses away from the elementary school, which was at the end of the block. I didn’t see snow until I was 12 years old.

      • Rod Adams says:

        @POA

        That current green and sunny BP logo precedes the Gulf Oil spill. It was created in 2000 when British Petroleum decided to run a marketing campaign aimed at convincing the world that BP stood for “Beyond Petroleum.”

        http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/our-history/history-of-bp/special-subject-histories/bp-brand-and-logo.html

        • PissedOffAmerican says:

          “That current green and sunny BP logo precedes the Gulf Oil spill”

          Interesting. Its amazing how many opinions are shaped on assumption. Pondering where I developed the assumption, I am at a loss. Could it be that prior to the gulf spill, BP’s PR efforts here in the states were largely deemed unnecessary?? I really don’t remember giving BP much thought prior to the spill. Certainly, I don’t recall any marketing efforts on thier behalf being aired here on mass media.

          However, I was well aware of Halliburton, due to thier despicable performance in Iraq. Made me see Cheney for what he is, too. Amazing how association can turn on some lights. The character and integrity of entities such as Haliburton are definite reflections on the character and integrity of those who run these entities.

          I’d love to be able to pic the logos of some of these entities. Halliburton with Cheney at the helm? How ’bout a smiley face, red, with horns.

          • Rod Adams says:

            @POA

            Certainly, I don’t recall any marketing efforts on their behalf being aired here on mass media.

            You apparently do not reside in Washington, D. C. or in a major metropolitan market. Here is one of several posts I wrote about the “Beyond Petroleum” campaign.

            http://atomicinsights.com/bp-versus-exelon/

            I need to look some more. I think I recall posting one that included photos of posters plastered all over a DC metro station, but that memory might have been about a Shell campaign.

        • Australian physicist says:

          BP have had a few attempts to move away from petroleum. They have invested heavily in uranium in the past, such as providing funding to start mining at Olympic Dam in Australia during the late 1970s. BP has abandoned theses efforts mostly because they just haven’t had the return on investment that you can get from oil and gas.

      • David says:

        @ POA

        Basically, because the technology can be made walk away safe. It is already the safest industry ever created by humans and it is able to be made even safer and simpler. I live in some of the most corrupt areas of the world. So your point is one I have deeply considered.

        When you look at a pebble bed reactor you basically have a can with a bunch of tennis ball sized graphite balls. These have hot “air” moving over them. If something goes wrong you can simply walk away and nothing happens. Well, you might loose some money, but in terms of danger to the community nothing, nada no way. The design is inherently safe.

        This is on top of the fact that the danger of radiation or contamination is vastly overblown by another industry that makes money from scaring people.

        So, yes we can use this technology everywhere.

    • Rod Adams says:

      @Mitch

      Are you suggesting that the nuclear industry marketers should learn from “best practices.” What a concept!

      • Mitch says:

        But it ROYALLY works and not just for the gas lady! Who’s spitting at BP Oil Gulf today? Can’t say same for nukes! Use it or lose it!

  7. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “UN to issue report supporting Nuclear Power this week”

    Does this sort of report actually spark investor interest??

    • NP says:

      LOL, ROI sparks invester interest, And a best case of 2% for new nuclear don’t cut it.

  8. BobinPgh says:

    Rod, surely you know somebody in the Navy who made films. Why don’t YOU do a pro-nuclear commercial? From another article here, you are a sharp dresser. If you want to, you can make a Navy recruiting nuclear power commercial too.

    • Rod Adams says:

      @BobinPgh

      I know several film makers who are up to the task. However, I pay currently bills on savings and a retirement pension. This site, however, is striving to be an instigator of change that can become more effective as it gathers more resources. How about visiting the donation button on the front page and giving whatever seems comfortable to you, instead of making snide comments about my attire?

  9. Sean McKinnom says:

    I just had a revelation thanks to POA.

    When I think of Nuclear Power I think of the technology, engineering, and science that makes it possible. I think part of the problem is a large part of our society sees nuclear power as large, faceless, corporations subsidized by the government (which we know they are not) they see the Tepco’s, GPUs, and Edison’s not the technology and the promise of it.

    I think finding a way to put a face on it and show that nuclear power is more a benefit to society than a benefit to some CEOs in boardrooms.

  10. John T Tucker says:

    German coal industry underpins renewable push ( http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26820405 )

    Note the IEA graph and the relative sizes of energy sources. Its also no wonder food prices are continuing to climb.