The Atomic Show #166 – Nuclear Energy Advertising

PopAtomic Studios has taken a conversation regarding a lack of nuclear energy advertising that occurred on a private email list frequented by both amateur and professional nuclear energy communicators and decided to run with the inspiration. The Nuclear Literacy Project was approved by the PopAtomic Studios board yesterday. The new web site is not yet up and running, but PopAtomic Studios has an existing educational outreach program that will be a part of the nucleus for the effort.


On this show, several of us got together for a brainstorming exercise discussing what we could do to help get that initiative moving and develop its own critical mass – so to speak. The speakers on the show include the following:

Rod Adams – Publisher, Atomic Insights

Suzy Hobbs – Director, PopAtomic Studios

Andrea Jennetta – Publisher, Fuel Cycle Week

Nancy Roth – Managing Editor, Fuel Cycle Week

Dan Yurman – Publisher, Idaho Samizdat, Contributing reporter, Fuel Cycle Week, contributor, ANS Nuclear Cafe.

About Rod Adams

4 Responses to “The Atomic Show #166 – Nuclear Energy Advertising”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Jim Scherrer says:

    Glad to help this wonderful team accelerate its mission. Nuclear needs to advertise!

  2. Rasmus Kiehl says:

    There are some good examples of short nuclear commercials: the Areva Funkytown clips.

    Old: (2000s)

    New: (2010s)

  3. Rod Adams says:

    The Funkytown clips are not half bad, but they including only 10 seconds with a view of a nuclear plant and it is surrounded by wind mills and solar panels, putting those relatively useless and unreliable power sources on an equal footing.

    The word nuclear is not included in the voice over. There is no reason to be ashamed of being in favor of nuclear energy and no reason to obscure the support with distractions like wind and solar.

  4. Reese says:

    Thanks for this. I agree that the Areva Funkytown ad is okay. I especially like the one truck move of the mining. But I’m also bugged by the almost useless (I guess that means slightly useful) windmills.

    I wonder what the political demographics are for people pro/con nuclear power. One of your participants raised the issue. Apparently she’d be surprised who makes up, say, Greenpeace and that “concerned scientists” bunch.

    I’m a (USA) Republican, an association I’m usually but not always happy with.

    I’m pro energy, like you, Rod– read my pitiful undergrad essay– the advancement of civilization is proportional to energy production/use, which seems to have a positively logarithmic scale where people are free to utilize said energy. And cleanliness of that energy is co-related, wood/wind/animal to coal/hydro/oil to (as far as I know) the ultimate in cleanliness and density: heavy metal supernova(e) remnants.