It is not hard to find examples of a serious marketing push by the natural gas industry in our nation’s capital. The industry recognizes that important decisions for the future of the industry and its long term profitability are going to be made within the next few months. I snapped a few photos of the messages that I saw on a Metro train ride this morning. Please forgive the quality – it is not easy to snap a phone based photo on a moving train.
Notice the simplicity of the message – “Clean, Affordable, Abundant, American. Natural Gas is the Answer.” (If natural gas is the answer, just what was the question?) Here is the sign on the other side of the train:
This one has a similar message “Clean, Affordable, Abundant, American. The Future Runs on Natural Gas.”
That message may be true, as long as the future only lasts about 100 years and usage does not increase at all from today’s levels. If you think humans should have a longer future or if you believe that energy demands are going to increase as the population grows and as our economy improves, then you need to keep looking for a better future power source.
These ads don’t bother me nearly as much as the fact that nuclear has no ads. The reason? No powerful economic interests stand to make money if nuclear (specifically) expands.
They’re either powerful but do not actually care about nuclear (Exelon), or they care but are not powerful. Uranium miners, as perhaps AREVA (specifically) are the only companies I can think of who’s future growth/profits are explicitly tied to nuclear. Other vendors and A&E’s care some, but they can make money on other energy projects just as well. They’re also often just a part of much bigger companies, like GE or Westinghouse.
We have no champion, so one would think our future looks dim. Frankly, given this, I’m surprised things are going as well for nuclear as they are. All that undeniable merit, I suppose.
There is more than a grain of truth in what you say Jim. The lack of industry support has always struck me as deafening in its silence, and the odd campaign I have seen were short and unimpressive.
There was an article in Energy Daily talking about the praise Congress has lavished on natural gas (especially hydraulic fracturing). It even specifically quoted Rep Ed Markey who is no friend of nuclear.
I also second Jim’s assessment. There are no large specifically nuclear companies to trumpet nuclear’s advantages.
A big difference between gas and nuclear advertising it seems are the origins of the ads. NEI for example is a group which represents a wide number of companies in nuclear, whereas these gas ads seem to be coming from companies that just drill for and sell gas. Gas sells in vast quantities every day, uranium customers come around once every 18 months for a 1/3 top off. Given the pace of nuclear is moving at a snails pace in the USA, maybe its suppliers see advertising here as a waste here when the growth is happening in Asia.
When I see my local utility advertising it is always free of promoting any specific energy technology. Most of their ads are aimed at saving energy or how they are a good corporate citizen in your community – PR stuff.
Advertising on a busy train reaches more eyeballs than NEI’s effort at the hockey arena. There might be 15-20 K attending at the hockey game for a few hours. The metro reaches 100’s of thousands of eyeballs. Areva had a nice PR ad with the “Funky Town” song and a lot of cute graphics to show the energy process, though it’s hard to say how many who saw that ad made the connection of what Areva does or the benefits of nuclear. It wouldn’t take much for nuclear to get out of this obscure and low key advertising approach, as we can see a simple ad on a train can be very effective.