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.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.
4 Comments
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.
It appears more and more likely that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) will be the victor in the bidding battle for control of Westinghouse Electric Company. On 7 January 2006 The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review published a story on the topic written by Thomas Olson titled Mitsubishi may acquire Westinghouse. The major highlights of the story are that…
Yesterday I pointed to some major news outlet articles about the newly announced joint venture between Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding and Areva. The JV will build large nuclear plant components in a location adjacent to the shipyard. I was not surprised to find follow-up article in a local new source from Hampton Roads, Virginia that provides…
One of the least valid and costly assumptions made by radiation regulators is that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation. In a world where there is, always has been and always will be radiation at various levels due to natural phenomena, that claim just does not pass the sniff test….
Steve Darden at SeekerBlog.com has some thoughts worth a read in his post titled CBO Study: Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. You might also want to visit the Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital Blog post titled Going Nuclear: Will Dems Support Nukes To Fight Climate Change?. That one contains some interesting comments that lead…
There is a lengthy and thought provoking article and comment thread at ProPublica titled Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated. It provides more data and support for a theory that I have been sharing for quite some time – much of what you hear and read about the benefits of increasing our dependence…
Back in 1980, politicians in Sweden offered the country’s voters a referendum on nuclear power that offered three options for implementing a gradual phase out of the technology, but no options on the ballot called for maintaining or expanding use. After nearly thirty years in which only two smallish plants at Barseback were shut down,…
This site uses a cookie for Google Analytics. Accept or decline — your choice.
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.