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
Thank you Rod, I read Ted’s article and was a little convinced by it. I did wonder why he he…
Rod, this is very compelling insight. When I read Ted Nordhaus’ recent piece opposing Marzano, I found it fairly compelling…
I am also long on my SMR. Several friends also have some. Their recent press release outlined actual construction of…
Hi; Rod: As in the other ‘comments’, I am collaborating with Spacex to develop a compact megawatt-class mini-nuke for use…
Come on; these people are all flash, and no substance! Like so many of the “new, advanced nuclear” companies out…
I have done some reformatting of the graph of non combustion energy sources in the US during the period of 1949-2006. Following the suggestion of Kirk Sorensen, I put wind, solarPV and geothermal on the bottom of the chart in an attempt to better illustrate their growth. Feedback is welcome. Source of the data is…
According to the BBC, – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4130532.stm – oil prices in Asia have reached $62.69 per barrel on August 8, 2005. Though there will be plenty of commentators that minimize the impact of that very high price by referring to the inflation adjusted prices from the early 1980s, the fact remains that oil prices are nearly…
I apologize for the lack of recent articles. Since the last week in May, the headquarters of Atomic Insights has been hosting a family summer camp for three really happy and energetic children ranging in age from 2-7. During rare and short free time, I’ve been engaging on Twitter or moderating comments here, but finding…
I’ll admit it. I am a child of the 70’s and actually liked doing the Bump when I was in high school. I even wore a leisure suit and polyester shirts with long pointed collars. I just stumbled across a web site that had me laughing out loud. The site is sponsored by Friends of…
It is earnings season – that time of the quarter where publicly traded companies issue their quarterly reports. The third quarter ended on September 30 and it normally takes a few weeks to close out all of the transactions and produce the numbers. While perusing reports in the Wall Street Journal from companies that interest…
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has posted a Policy Issue Information document dated March 28, 2010 titled POTENTIAL POLICY, LICENSING, AND KEY TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR REACTOR DESIGNS. The document number is SECY-10-0034. It is a fairly typical redundant, bureaucratically phrased work, but it contains a number of important statements, planned processes, and…
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.