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
This is now three different reactor companies in Texas that are building economically viable reactors quickly. Last Energy, Aalo, and…
In my own little way, I have been using Deep Isolation as a reply when people ask about Nuclear Waste.…
Rod You’re welcome. Please check by here periodically during the next couple of weeks to see if there are any…
@Michael Scarangella From a technical perspective, ISFSI is fine. It has not convinced enough people to make it adequate from…
Ultimate disposal of high level waste is irrelevant – the status quo (ISFSI) is adequate – Deep Isolation focuses on…
As the second Atomic Age begins here in the United States, there are going to be a lot of conversations going on. I hope that more of them reach the quality of the one that has started in response to an article titled Nuke Plant Confirmed on the Argus Observer out of Ontario, Oregon. There…
In Northwest Alabama there is growing interest in the prospect of new jobs tied to the Second Atomic Age. According to an article titled Nuclear future published on November 6, 2006, there is the potential for 90,000 new jobs associated with building new reactors during the period from 2007-2011. The source of that estimate, according…
Dan Yurman over at Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes has published a detailed update on the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor project out of South Africa. The disappointing news is that the projected cost of the plants is quite a bit higher now than it was when I first started following this development in the mid 1990s….
In the past couple of days, I have noticed a significant increase in the amount of highly visible outdoor marketing in Washington, DC that is touting the benefits of burning methane, which is sold under the brand name of “clean, natural gas.” At the corner of 7th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., right across the street…
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…
Greenpeace has issued a press release claiming that the nuclear waste disposal site at Gorleben is a “powder keg” full of natural gas that could be ignited by nuclear waste storage containers whose surfaces could reach as high as 200 degrees Fahrenheit. The UPI has picked up the press release and published a story titled…
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.