Every once in a while I come across articles that directly support the notion that much of the energy source debate is really a marketing battle, though the stated topic might be “energy security”, “environmental concerns”, or “global warming”.
To their great credit, most engineers and scientists that I know are very straightforward people; they do not “get” my message that the real power behind the effort to slow the development of nuclear power has been the established energy industry. These fact minded people just do not understand the business world where competition exists, and where the fight is often sneaky and sometimes dirty.
On October 23, 2007, the Lawrence Journal World and News (LJWorld.com) published a fascinating article titled An advertising power play: Natural gas company behind anti-coal media blitz that describes how Chesapeake Energy has been running advertisements and paying for targeted polls that emphasize the environmental damage caused by burning coal. There is a section in the article that really begs some serious questioning:
Bob Eye, an attorney representing the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club, said the ads were “understandable although unfortunate.” Coal interests and natural gas interests are in a “zero-sum” battle, he said.
Days before the Sebelius administration issued its ruling on the Sunflower project, the Sierra Club commissioned full-page ads that touted the benefits of wind and natural gas.
Eye said the campaigns of both the environmentalists and Chesapeake helped each other but were not coordinated.
Chesapeake also paid for a statewide poll in which it said most Kansans preferred energy produced by a combination of wind and natural gas as opposed to coal.
Some people – believe it or not – have the inherent ability to look others in the eye and say things that they know are simply not true. My experience has been that many public relations types fit that mold.
Disclosure: I have owned stock in Chesapeake Energy for a number of years. I actually kind of like their anti-coal message and believe that the company is doing the right thing for its stockholders by working hard to increase their market share. On the other hand, I am not a member of the Sierra Club and I am not certain why they believe it is in the interests of their donors to promote the burning of natural gas. Anyone have a good list of major contributors to the Sierra Club handy?
PS – I almost forgot to explain why this story qualifies as a “smoking gun”. Normally, I use that key word when I find articles that directly support the notion that the fossil fuel industry is supporting efforts to hamper the development of atomic energy. I expect that most of you can understand that the battle in Kansas is not about clean air; if a nuclear plant was the proposal instead of a coal plant there would be similar attempts to use public opinion influencing in order to protect or gain market share for natural gas.
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.
The old “smoking” industries are not the only ones who have a direct financial incentive in shutting out the nuclear competition. Here is a quote from a March 6, 2009 article on Energy Daily titled Analysis: Nuclear vs. renewable in Germany: In 2020 renewables are to satisfy 47 percent of Germany’s power mix — more…
Yesterday morning during my commute, I listened to the May 31 edition of Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=20050531) and heard an interesting interview with Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. He made a couple of statements that seemed rather incongruous. On one hand, he described his focused efforts since his election to pass legislation banning uranium mining on…
As an undergraduate, I was trained to read between the lines and to interpret the words on the page in context with the author’s background and intent. With that in mind, I see an interesting marketing plan in between the following words from page 31 of ExxonMobil’s 2012 The Outlook for Energy: A View to…
In the midst of the debate about whether or not the UK should include new nuclear power as one of its major options in a new energy strategy designed to lessen the island nation’s dependence on imported coal, oil and gas and to meet its obligations as a signatory of the Kyoto accord, the Scottish…
In 1993, after I had made a decision to resign my active duty commission and design a small atomic engine, a colleague warned me that “the oil companies will never let you succeed.” At the time, I was pretty naive, so I didn’t heed his warning. Over the years, I have gradually learned more about…
I have always tried to be clear when I talk about how fossil fuel interests have been responsible for much of the success of the organized anti-nuclear movement. Many people in various discussion forums have misinterpreted my words “fossil fuel interests” as meaning just major oil companies, but I am trying to encompass a larger…