This is the kind of TV spot that we need the public to see at least as often as they see ads for “clean natural gas” or “100 years of energy right under our feet.”
I realize that utility leaders have been taught that advertising is a cost with unmeasurable returns. For some odd reason, an exception seems to be a willingness to spend money running ads with the express purpose of trying to convince people to stop buying their product, but that is a topic for another commentary.
However, perceptions matter and repetition works. The public needs to see the friendly faces of nuclear professionals telling them that we do what we do because we are proud of our technology’s ability to reliably provide a valuable product that does not harm the environment.
Way to go, Bruce Power. Congratulations on contributing to a power grid that has some of the world’s lowest cost electricity and lowest levels of CO2 emissions per unit of power (39 grams/kilowatt-hour for the current mix on May 2.)
Note: The above link brings you to a table that will show you the current rate for whenever you follow it.
3 things that are of interest:
Candus are used
2 reactors were mothballed for 20 years and refurbished recently
Bruce Power is the biggest nuclear plant operating in the world today in terms of capacity
The province next door, Quebec, has a new moratorium on uranium mining.
Bruce Power is one of my company’s customers. I say horray for Bruce Power. Thanks, Rod!
I was so excited by this video that I cross-posted it on Facebook. Thanks, again, Rod. A devout friend of mine in the Church who lives in Canada responded as follows:
“Go Nuclear, stop wind turbines and solar panels! Do you work with Darlington as well?”
It seems as though Canadians – at least some of them who aren’t even “nukes” – don’t necessarily share our apathy toward (if not antipathy against) all things nuclear. This is heartening but given what Daniel pointed out, sadly not universal or “catholic”. Sorry, folks. I simply couldn’t help the pun. We all need humor this morning! 😉
Good point Rod about utility advertising that urges customers to use less. It’s that legacy that is part of the reason for the gap in public knowledge about energy choices. People think electricity is bad, even if the electricity comes with emissions that are measurably much lower than the alternatives. And — surprise surprise — the purveyors of the alternatives are not at all shy about selling their product.
Here in the USA, we often see the utility advertising urging people to use less electricity because it is part of the requirements in rate adjustment cases when those utilities go to their state utility commissions.
@donb
And what leader allowed that to happen without a strong battle defending the right of any corporation to advertise the benefits of its product? Sometimes I wonder if there are any business people in utility companies.
@Rod Adams
Good question. If there are any business people left in the utility companies, they have to face up to the state politicians who paint themselves as ‘greener than thou’ with the conservation promotion requirements. And the utilities have to just grin and bear it because the utility commissions have significant control over the utility’s purse strings.
Hi all,
Rod was mentioned in the NY Times, according to Bill/William Tucker !
Why am I the last one to know ?
Here is the link:
http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/william-tucker-finally-some-sense-from-the-epa/
Here is the quoted text:
But the NY Times even took the trouble to balance its story with a comment from our own dear Rod Adams of Atomic Insights. “A former engineering officer on a nuclear submarine who favors nuclear energy, [Adams] cited studies that argued that areas around Fukushima should be reoccupied, and wrote on his blog that while the new proposed limits are virtually unchanged, ‘the limits could be relaxed by a factor of 50 and still keep the public safe.’” Times are changing.
It is worth observing that Ontario’s emissions intensity of electricity generation is less than the 50 g/kWh recommended by the UK government’s Climate Change Committee as a 2030 target if overall emissions targets are to be met.
There may be some chance that the UK can achieve that if it can get new nuclear build under way. As a comparison, Germany has no chance at all of achieving 50 g/kWh by 2030.
Semi-offtopic, but anyone who wants to voice their opinion on the future of San Onofre can go to http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/apr/30/nuke-plant-future-uncertain
For a long time there were 104.
With the loss of Crystal River 3 there are 103.
On May 7, losing Kewannee, there will be 102.
If Arnie has his way with San Onofre 2&3, there remain 100.
Time to make a stand.
This just in: http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/duke-will-lay-off-585-at-crystal-river-nuclear-plant/2118779
The replacement gas plant will employ 10% as many workers as CR3 (but it sure will burn a lot of clean safe fracked methane run in through a thousand miles of barely-regulated high-pressure pipelines).
I wonder how the suits who made the self-repair decision made out?
Re: “For a long time there were 104…If Arnie has his way with San Onofre 2&3, there remain 100.”
Truly alarming and dismaying that it was just 104 for so long! I can see antis warping this into; “See, jittery America? We’re having an affect!! Join us so your kids can sleep peaceful and nuke-free!”
James Greenidge
Queens NY
I’ll bet less than a thousand people in the world know about this recent disaster at a large power plant. Just imagine the media uproar if it had occurred at San Onofre, or any nuclear unit: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/3572876/1099419821/name/SC%20Bowen%20Loss%20Event%20-%20rev%201PDF.PDF
I should have said “less than a 1000 people outside the utility industry or the Atlanta media market”.
There was some local coverage, but nowhere near the frenzy always generated by pushing the magic “nuclear” ratings-booster button.
Like the explosion in a coal and biomass power plant last year in Nijmegen the Netherlands. Not as destructive an accident as in the Atlanta plant, though I don’t know what it looked like inside. A steam pipe was overpressured, leading to a boiler explode or rupture. It did make the national news, but was already almost forgotten the next day. Now if it would have happened at our NPP in Borssele, it would still be in the news.
Messed up the link, I see. It should say: Like the explosion in a coal and biomass power plant last year in Nijmegen…etc. The link itself does work.