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.
Comments are closed.
Recent Comments from our Readers
Michael Subsequent to the design certification document that you referenced, the NRC approved NuScale’s Topical Report titled “NuScale Control Room…
Good talk. Nuclear seems to like to make itself “custom” rather than “standard.” This mindset may punish those who attempt…
Very nicely done! I would enjoy reading a reply from Green Century, but of course one would have to wait…
This sensor story is new to me. I was under the impression the main issue with Ft St Vrain was…
@windborne Interesting suggestion. Though not often talked about, reactor power plants often have such external heat sources available during construction…
On 12 November 2005, Business.Telegraph published a story titled Power transfer for the people about the electrical power supply situation in South Africa. The story does a good job of explaining the economic and developmental reasons why Eskom is developing the PBMR. I have been following this technology project almost since it started in 1993,…
The RightDemocrat blog describes itself in the following manner: Right Democrat is the voice of Democrats who believe in economic populism and social traditionalism. This site is dedicated to revitalizing the mainstream populist wing of our party. For too long, both parties have ignored the concerns of working and middle class Americans. The blog’s author…
British Energy has been having some unscheduled maintenance difficulties in recent months. Combined with scheduled maintenance that cannot be deferred, the issues have caused the portion of UK energy provided by nuclear power to drop – temporarily – to approximately 10%. Since North Sea gas production is falling, natural gas prices in the UK remain…
As some of you know, I am of the belief that nuclear energy should be a non partisan issue that is able to gain support from both American political parties. It has benefits for both conservatives and liberals alike, though it also has characteristics that will anger people from all political points of view since…
Yesterday, Fortune Magazine’s Brainstorm Green blog published a story titled In nuclear energy, smaller is better. It is certainly an article worth reading. Here is an excerpt to whet your appetite for more: Earlier this month, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy signed a memorandum of understanding with Savannah River Nuclear Solutions — itself a triple partnership…
Climate Progress published a post on December 3, 2010 titled Sen. Lamar Alexander plans to nuke his own agenda that is sharply critical of Senator Alexander’s idea to build 100 new nuclear power plants. The post minimizes the potential benefits of high tech job creation, low cost clean energy, and productive new infrastructure that will…
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.