How To Campaign For Clean Air While Eating Plenty Of Brownies
It is heartening to take note of all of the distributed efforts being made around the globe to push nuclear energy back into the conversations relating to current and future energy supplies. For far too long, one of the most amazing, high potential scientific advancements of the 20th century has been demonized and marginalized.
Many fine people who have expressed their support or sense of wonder about releasing vast quantities of useful power from tiny quantities of uranium, plutonium or thorium have been shouted down and labeled as evil shills for greedy corporate entities. They have been accused of not caring about children, burdening future generations or even irreversibly harming the health of the planet that we all share. Some very shrill, almost maniacal antinuclear activists have even gone so far as to call nuclear advocates “baby killers.”
The tides are turning and those kinds of discomforting accusations that can silence most well-meaning people are becoming more rare, though they have not disappeared altogether.
San Francisco, CA June 24, 2016
Now that the trailblazing efforts have been done in many places to make it socially acceptable to come out as a nuclear energy advocate, I’m detecting growing interest among the silent majority to learn more about how to effectively express your true feelings and take action that will help move the needle in the direction of stronger public support.
When anyone asks me how they can be a more effective atomic advocate or even graduate into full fledged atomic activism, I point them to an incredible little book titled Campaigning for Clean Air: Strategies for Pro-Nuclear Advocacy. Available in both Kindle and paperback, it is a genuine how-to book written by an expert who has actually tested the techniques she describes.
Avingon, France. June 2010
Full disclosure: Meredith Angwin, the author of Campaigning for Clean Air is one of my best friends. We met each other during an incredible tour of Areva’s production and research facilities in France during June of 2010. We didn’t know it at the time, but that trip turned out to have occurred at the tail end of a very optimistic period called The Nuclear Renaissance.
Meredith is one of those delightful people who is both self-effacing and incredibly accomplished. Perhaps it’s because of our initial introduction on a train trip in France, but I’ve come to think of her as a real life Miss Marple. She doesn’t solve murder mysteries, but she is an accomplished, resourceful woman who presents an outward appearance that causes some to underestimate her. I’m still learning about some of the things she has done during her career; she’s almost apologetic about sharing her success stories.
Meredith is a physical chemist who entered the energy field as a pollution reduction expert for geothermal energy plants in California. Her experience taught her that renewable energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal might be able to move the needle and slightly change our energy production system, but by themselves they were incapable of replacing very much of the fossil fuel that powers our modern society.
She sought ways to apply her skills as a chemist to nuclear energy, and became an expert in the control of steam generator corrosion. She eventually worked her way up to become one of the first female project managers at the Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI. Later, she founded an ran a small, successful consulting company.
Aside: Somehow, Meredith and her husband, George, also managed to raise a couple of very accomplished offspring. For example, Some of you might have seen their daughter Julia being interviewed about cyber security or the surveillance state or remember her work in the Wall Street Journal from 2000-2013. End Aside.
Throughout her technical career, she maintained a deep interest in writing. In the introduction to her book she describes writing as “more than an avocation.” The skills she learned as a participant in writer’s clubs, as an aspiring novelist and in technical writing help to make Campaigning for Clean Air readable and enjoyable.
Like the best how-to books, Meredith’s little instruction book for budding nuclear advocates is punchy, filled with practical exercises, gives step by step instruction with options and provides pointers to additional sources of help and information. It’s well organized and motivating; there are times when you want to simply put down the book and take one of her recommended actions to see how it works and feels. Then you can jump back into the next chapter to learn another technique worth trying out almost immediately.
If my design of this post has succeeded, you should be anxiously wondering – “but what about the brownies?” One of the more useful and enjoyable tips that Meredith offers stems from her observation that many local antinuclear groups have a well established social support aspect. The people involved get together frequently and build friendships around the activities related to their efforts to halt the use of nuclear energy. When they get together, it’s not all work, they enjoy snacks, beverages and wide ranging conversations.
As a pro-nuclear advocate in Vermont, Meredith noticed this fact and often felt a bit deprived. She determined that there is a “brownie deficit” between the supporters of nuclear energy and their opponents. She wants to help eliminate that deficit by giving nuclear advocates permission to have fun, share snacks, talk about topics outside of their interest in nuclear energy and build a supportive community.
Pick up her book. Read it. Apply the lessons that seem to best fit your personality and interests. Then, as you get more comfortable as a visible advocate for a technology that is powerful enough to save the world, try out some of the actions that might stretch and expand your existing comfort zone.
Thanks Rod, for a wonderful review of Meredith’s book!
Thank you for your supportive review of Meredith’s new book.
Here on the central coast of California, we are making preparations for Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP dot org) THIRD annual rally to support the continued safe operation of nearby Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) on Friday, 17 March 2017 (St. Patrick’s Day) at the plaza in front of the San Luis Obispo County building complex at the County Government Center, 1055 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 from 11 AM to 1:00 PM.
BTW, our twice-monthly meetings, which are open to the public tend to include yummy pastries! 🙂 CGNP is an intervenor in the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Proceeding A.16-08-006 and opposes plant owner PG&E’s plans to abandon the highly-functioning DCPP in 2025. Simply put, there is no way to replace DCPP’s emission-free 18,000 GWh of abundant reasonably-priced (2.71 cents/kWh in 2015) power with a capacity factor greater than 91% without relying on dirty power from Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s PacifiCorp, which has zero nuclear and token solar, wind, and hydro resources. Instead, PacifiCorp has about 6,000 MW of really dirty coal power and about 3,000 MW of dirty natural gas as generating resources coupled to their “Energy Gateway.” See CGNP’s 140 pages of direct testimony submitted in January, 2017 in the above CPUC proceeding here: http://www.cgnp.org/CGNP_Written_Direct_Testimony_01-27-17.pdf
The dynamic you describe, clean nuclear being replaced by dirty fossil, is EXACTLY what this administration hopes to accomplish. And Pruitt is just the man to do it. And even if this administration throws NE a bone, the deregulation of the fossil fuel sector will undoubtedly offset any environmental positives to be gained by NE usage.
@Jon Hall
I am more confident in the capabilities of nuclear technology and in the demands that customers will place on fossil fuels. Actions of the EPA are not what has made America cleaner and greener since 1970, it is the actions of thousands of engineers and operators who honestly want to serve American energy needs with the best product they can provide – while making a profit doing it.
The engineers serving corporate energy needs are for the most part salaried employees, doing the bidding of their employers. To forward the premise that large corporate energy entities are driven by altruistic motives and values is a departure from reality. The EPA did in fact rein in the big five, as well as major PP polluters, and only through regulatory oversight and enforcement were they able to do so. I cringe thinking what our environment would be like had we not of had the EPA tempering the corporate abuse of of our environment. Frankly, your Ayn Rand depiction of our energy sector is extremely far fetched and unrealistic. In fact, I’m suprised you offered such an argument.
Thank you, Rod. Thank you.
Good Morning Rod,
Thank you for Meredith’s new book, an excellent tool for NOT ONLY Clean Air, but a resource for almost every type of Campaign.
Continued blessings upon both Meredith and you Rod (Atomic Insights).
Jon Hall stated, “The engineers serving corporate energy needs are for the most part salaried employees, doing the bidding of their employers. To forward the premise that large corporate energy entities are driven by altruistic motives and values is a departure from reality.”
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
Mr Hall made a very good point. Anyone who has worked for one of these large corporations know not to bite the hand that feeds for the other hand holds a big club. Many may think it best to stay away from their sensitive politics. The best support may come from those not tied to the nuclear industry in any way.
“Campaigning for clean air” is an effort that is not exclusive to nuclear energy. The disdain and animous I’ve seen here for competing clean air technologies actually does the opposite. And certainly, this fledgling administration has shown no interest in supporting any energy technology other than that offered by the fossil fuel sector.
If you are to campaign for clean air, in this political environment, then direct opposition to this administration’s contempt for science must be your starting point. Otherwise, all you are really doing is campaigning for NE as a business interest you wish to market for capital gain. Supporting science denial and fossil fuel deregulation pretty much exposes motives that have nothing to do with clean air. If thats what you are doing, at least be honest about it.
@Jon Hall
Feel free to have your own opinions. However, real science requires minds that are open to evidence and reason. Scientists worthy of the title do not retreat into consensus or statements like 97% of us agree.
I accept the evidence that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is rising and that oceans are absorbing more CO2, causing their Ph to move in the acidic direction. These facts can be confirmed by replication. Their cause is quite apparent in light of the 30+ billion tons of CO2 emitted each year by industrial uses of hydrocarbons and the unmeasured effect of burning forests, ripping out trees, and flooding valleys.
What I question are the predictions of future catastrophic sea level rise and planetary warming. The models seem to be missing some variables because they are not able to accurately predict trends. That’s okay; models always need refinement with data.
The non-nuclear emission-free sources of energy like wind, solar and geothermal are weaklings that cannot provide much reduction in fossil fuel use. IMO, that is why they are so widely supported and promoted by fossil fuel interests. They cannot provide the kind of comfortable living humans want and deserve.
Biomass is definitely not clean or emission free. It is rather inefficient combustion that uses inferior fuels and operates at lower temperatures than available with better, more refined fuels.
Hydro, on the other hand, is a well proven, reliable, low operating cost source of ultra low, nearly zero emission power. Most renewable advocates discredit hydro and refuse to allow it to be counted in renewable portfolio standards. Some of the most radical renewable energy promoters actually work hard to destroy existing reservoirs and energy production systems.
I am open and honest about my effort to share information about nuclear energy and my firm, well reasoned insistence that it MUST be allowed to flourish.
Yes, I have financial interests in the sector. I am building a business as a specialty author and publisher with a focus on the sector and topics that affect it. I also have a small portfolio of individual stocks that includes companies that will prosper when nuclear energy prospers. It also includes tech companies that I understand pretty well.
The vast majority of my assets, however, are in index funds and in a traditional pension plan with reasonably comprehensive medical benefits.
The negative effects of C02 do not have to be environmentally catastrophic to be measured as detrimental to our overall well being. Never mind sea level rises, or doomsday scenarios. Many times here I have seen the societal health effects of burning fossil fuels held up as sound reasoning for the expansion of NE employment. Do you deny that now, as well? (What changed the narrative here, other than this alarming transfer of power?) To premise that deregulation of the fossil fuel industry in regards to emissions is going to do anything other than add to the problem is at the very least naive and anti-scientific, and more likely purposely disingenuous. And to further opine that the EPA has had no positive effect on air quality in the last forty years is a full flight from reality.
The idea that industry will police itself is ludicrous on its face. All one need do is look to the countries that do not have the benefit of regulatory constraints on industry to see the effect such lack of constraints has on the environment.
If its truly clean air you want, theres more to it than simply marketing NE as a solution. By necessity, you need to become political. And it makes no sense to “campaign for clean air” by wedding yourself to policies and people that seek to dismantle the very agencies and policies tasked to protect the goal of clean air.
Jon Hall: “To premise that deregulation of the fossil fuel industry in regards to emissions is going to do anything other than add to the problem is at the very least naive and anti-scientific, and more likely purposely disingenuous. And to further opine that the EPA…”
I think the evidence, while largely circumstantial, is very compelling that the regulatory system has been and is being used by industry as a tool to hobble competition and shift costs to consumers (raise energy prices to create more profits). The green narrative of scarcity is designed to make consumers willingly acquiescent in the looting of their own pockets by energy commodity traders and subsidy vampires.
The NRDC has clearly infiltrated its people into EPA as much as Goldman Sachs has invaded other areas of the government, as shown by the NRDC’s Clean…I mean Obama’s Clean Energy Plan, which creates incentives to replace clean nuclear with fossile burning.
Hacking away at this corrupt and counter-productive regulatory institution is a welcome goal, even if pursued for the wrong reasons. The pendulum has long been too far towards the end that believes the EPA is actually working in the public’s interest.
The trick will be to not throw all of the baby away with the toxic goo that used to be bath water….
“Some of the most radical renewable energy promoters actually work hard to destroy existing reservoirs and energy production systems.”
This is especially odd since large hydro reservoirs are really the only large scale energy storage systems, so far, that are capable of buffering large amounts of intermittent wind and solar. Thus, large amounts of hydro would act to significantly increase the fraction of overall power that wind and solar (esp. wind) could practically provide.
It almost lends credence to the notion that these people really are serving the fossil (gas) industry’s interests. I mean deliberately. But my view has always been that those people are merely useful idiots.
Jon Hall: “If you are to campaign for clean air, in this political environment, then direct opposition to this administration’s contempt for science must be your starting point”
Why should that be one’s starting point? Why not the self-proclaimed “green” lobby’s contempt for science and its unrelenting opposition to a miraculous, clean, abubndant, affordable, dispatchable, scalable, and geographically compact and versatile energy source? If not for the greens and their allies and appeasers in the Democratic party, the USA’s CO2 emissions would be 28% lower (based on replacing US electricity with 80% nuclear) and would have been for a decade or two into the past. That’s an enormous accumulation of unnecessary CO2 emissions that I rarely see the greens get the blame for.
No I’ll put the first blame on this administration when they’ve done as much damage to clean air as the greens have. The blame should go to the most blameworthy, not the most currently visible.
(I feel it important to point out that those familiar with my postings know I’m neither a fan of Trump nor the Dems, nor a Republican. )
If the blame goes to the most blameworthy, then it would be wise for the NE sector to look inward. What kind of job have you done educating the public about NE? Thats the “greens” fault?
This administration is big oil. From top to bottom. You don’t hold the fossil fuel industry culpable for the state of our air? Seems to me I’ve read comment after comment here, from our host, and a myriad of others, decrying the health effects of burning fossil fuels.
And what of Perry, who has turned his state into the largest wind producing state in the nation. Texas produces more wind energy than most countries do. So, do you include Perry in your list of “greens” that have contributed to NE’s impending demise? He is now your overlord, having just educated himself on what the Energy Department actually does. Poor guy thought he was going to be overseeing fossil fuel energy issues, until someone tapped home on the shoulder and explained to him what the DOE actually does.
So. Here at Atomic Insights, the EPA has had nothing to do with reining in industry and transportion emmissions and environmental abuses. The actual industries have self policed themselves, and with relaxed regulations, will continue to do so. And its the evil greens that have beaten down NE, in league with the self policing fossil fuel industry.
Thats the starting point you advocate, when “campaigning for clean air”? I hope that strategy isn’t in Meredith’s book. But if it is, she’s written an excellent work of science fiction. Somehow, though, I expect Meredith has thought things through a bit more intelligently than that.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/nuclear-power-industry-revamps-climate-pitch-trump-era
Maria Korsnick, the new head of the Nuclear Energy Institute, told skeptical Wall Street analysts in New York today that supporting financially struggling, aging reactors is critical to curbing heat-trapping emissions, and that states like Illinois, New York and now Connecticut are stepping up with financial support (Energywire, Feb. 9).
But because the Trump White House doesn’t appear to have a “strong view” on climate change, Korsnick said, NEI’s federal lobbying is now focused on emphasizing baseload nuclear power to support the electric grid.