Effective long form advertisement describing Westinghouse AP1000
Westinghouse seems intent on taking advantage of the growing capabilities of the internet to distribute effective messages about the value of its products. It may be difficult to explain the benefits of a nuclear reactor producing 1,110 MW of reliable emission-free electricity in a 15 or 30 second TV spot. It might also be difficult to convince decision makers that paying to place those kinds of spots would be worth the cost of the airtime.
Westinghouse has broken the constraints of the 30 second format to produce 5 minutes of high quality video with clear graphics and explanations, used the low cost distribution capabilities of YouTube and convinced me to embed their video without asking for any compensation. Even just one additional sale would justify the costs of several dozen similar efforts.
Congratulations, Westinghouse. Keep up the creative work and keep building those clean nuclear power plants all around the world. I’ll keep embedding the promotional materials as long as you keep making them interesting and uncompromisingly supportive of new nuclear power plant construction.
Rod,
Danny Roderick is the CEO’s name. He pronounces nucular but digs nuclear.
We should call him maverick instead of Roderick.
He is making things happen.
I have seen Danny Roderick discussing nuclear on TV in Canada.
The guys face And voice And credentials Belong on those commercials.
Only 360p? Really? Even my year and a half old cellphone will record 720p video.
Good message, but someone in the social media marketing department should have caught that.
It’s universal. It’ll work well on grandma’s 1Mbps DSL download….. I didn’t notice.
Emirates Nuclear Energy has produced a few of these as well. Interestingly they did this as a way of getting the UAE population ready for this huge switch from fossil to atomic energy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc2DKSC9Mj8
This is great. The more we have of companies going straight to the end consumer with clear, informative, explanations of what benefits their products offer, the better a chance we have of the public embracing nuclear.
Working at that kind of plant, producing an abundance of clean energy would be a job you could and really should feel good about. Unlike all the clean energy technological bandwagons ive jumped on over the years, this works now. Thats the bottom line.
To those of you following the gas stuff : Today Natural Gas futures jumped 2 percent on hints of a storm moving into the gulf after being lower on (surprise) predictions for a warm winter. Also some Mexican issues I dont fully understand (they have resources) are coming into play that could prove important later.
The US still amazingly imports more gas than it exports.
Natural gas futures rally 2% with tropical storm activity in focus ( http://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/natural-gas-futures-rally-2-with-tropical-storm-activity-in-focus-253351 )
In sign of energy dilemma, Mexico runs low on natural gas ( http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/feature2/8299510-113/gas-mexico-natural-oil )
That storm could bring real disaster, not just to the region it impacts but to much of the east coast that has seen above average rainfall this climatologically odd year.
@John Tucker
You might enjoy reading my observations on the factors aligning to push US gas prices up.
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/10/01/how-painful-will-the-coming-spike-in-natural-gas-prices-be/
Youtube scales to the fastest speed automatically. Try running the ad full screen and you’ll get a pixelated mess.
Yes, I just did, thank you.
They have been playing it close for some time now it seems.
We still import gas and inventories are lower on increased demand and increased requirements as you noted. ( http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_stor_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm ).
I think prices could go up sooner rather than later.
I was just reading this article from 2010, which talks about how the price of these units has climbed, with the NRC (referred to as the Nuclear Rejection Commission by one commenter) demanding ever more safety and security measures, while the Chinese build similar units much more quickly, and cheaper, by not having to contemplate those pesky terrorists.
Are New Types of Reactors Needed for the U.S. Nuclear Renaissance?
“…But the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission may have just raised the price after it rejected the initial AP-1000 design for security and safety reasons, insisting that the power plant buildings need more structural strength.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-new-types-of-reactors-needed-for-nuclear-renaissance
Well, shouldn’t be build them rugged enough to withstand a meteor impact too? That’s probably a more likely scenario than terrorists ever flying a plane into one. Ooops, maybe I shouldn’t give the NRC ideas…
@GaryN
Well, shouldn’t be build them rugged enough to withstand a meteor impact too? That’s probably a more likely scenario than terrorists ever flying a plane into one. Ooops, maybe I shouldn’t give the NRC ideas…
Don’t worry about being responsible for giving the NRC ideas about studying the need to protect nuclear power plants (and no other parts of our infrastructure) from highly unlikely events. The Chairman has already determined that the agency should begin studying asteroid impact risks. I heard that from a very credible source during a recent DC meeting. It confirmed a throw away line I saw in a recent article about Moniz (McFarlane’s buddy at DOE) meeting with the Russians.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Sky_is_the_limit_for_US_Russia_cooperation_1709131.html
Good Point!
BTW if any of you haven’t, take a look at :
Nuclear and Gas Account for Most Carbon Displacement Since 1950 ( http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/nuclear-and-gas-account-for-most-carbon-displacement-since-1950/ )
And I think they were a bit generous to renewables here, counting intermittent generation that I dont believe was totally utilized.
Good find!
I want to see the Environmental Impact (!!!) Statement on nuking a 100-meter asteroid with a collision trajectory towards our planet.
If it isn’t entirely satisfactory to Friends of the Asteroids and the Union of Concerned Space Scientists, they’ll tie the whole thing up in court for years. Splat!
The good news about this video, it has a few pretty nice scenes. But it won’t do much to promote the nuclear energy we all so like. Now the bad news:
Boring. Too long. No action, no drama. No music. Too much jargon, too much things hard to explain. The fast motion is seen in lots of videos and is hard to look at. Westinghouse needs a new ad agency. The need a new logo and graphics and slogan (“You can be sure” makes people think of old washing machines)
For example, when they mention gravity, show a waterfall. For circulation show leaves blowing and for condensation, show rain falling. If I can think of this why can’t they?
Here is an example of why I think Disney should get involved. This is a not a commercial but part of the preshow to Mission: Space. In a minute, it has everything I would want: Gary Sinise does a dramatic delivery, he uses a model (visual aids) to explain the ride and the music is dramatic and makes you want to go on the ride. If you want to promote your energy, you need better commercials. Oh, and I don’t mind if you send this to Westinghouse too.
oh, heres the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsEMfu4KgM0
Rod, I thought I would tell you that your friend Arnie is using CGI for his video of a tour of Fukushima. They could be better (kind of crude) but he is using visual aids and people like you are not. Why is that?
But the problem with Westinghouse going with end consumers is that when people see the present logo they think of old Laundromats when they have not made appliances since the 70s. Westinghouse needs a new logo, new graphics, music, and informercials that are not boring and “you can be sure” is from the 50s. See the link below for something for a Disney video kind of what Westinghouse might be after. And who came up with AP1000? Not much of a ring for it and can’t anyone come up with a better name than that?
They should mention that *one* AP1000 @90% CF will produce about 9000 GWh of electricity, which is twice as much as all the solar panels in the United States combined did in 2012. It’s also more electricity than all of the windmills east of the Mississippi/Ohio river combined produced in 2012 as well.
But Zack, people will never know that if the commercial is such a bore. Right now, a pre-show to Mission: Space is more inspiring.