It's helps to look at insider talk about the messaging strategy for nuclear power; these ideas are always more credible when they are delivered in the words of the individuals doing the planning.
The part of the presentation (delivered at a nuclear industry conference) quoted below comes after a dismal assessment of public support for nuclear power. It is a given that by "sensible energy policy" the author is referring to one that includes the nuclear power to produce the waste by which his company can profit. However he feels justified and honest because, in accordance with the study in post #7, his values and beliefs guide his perceptions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112794302#post7
From the presentation:
"Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance" by Dr. Raul A. Deju
Sept. 2009
Chief Operating Officer, EnergySolutions, Inc
...how do we use the results of public opinion to develop a sensible energy policy
• Leadership and unity of message need to be the top priority.
• Acceptable messages need to cover the diversity of group thinking.
• Developing confidence on having a solution to nuclear waste issues and non-proliferation requires leadership messages and social support more than scientific support.
And what are those "acceptable messages"? Continuing Dr. Raul A. Deju's presentation:
Energy Messages:
• Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a combined offering. • Concerns regarding energy security and energy independence can only be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable standards, and nuclear energy.
In fact, if we build nuclear power it *actively* discourages BOTH renewable energy policies and development AND energy efficiency policies and efforts because they undermine of the economics of nuclear power.
The data tells us there is a simple clear economic choice folks - if you advocate for nuclear power you are undercutting the efforts to build our renewables, if you support renewable energy and energy efficiency, you are denying nuclear power the market share they MUST have to be viable.
A quick review of the UK's conservative government disastrous die-hard push for nuclear over the past 5 years provides a clear-cut, real world case study confirming the conflict. They have dismantled their extremely effective energy efficiency program and turned away from any serious support for renewables in order to supposedly focus on building a new fleet of nuclear reactors. Never mind that the electricity from those far-future plants would be 3X the price of providing the same services with renewable/efficiency, never mind that no one wants to finance the nuclear rebirth, never mind that the conservative government is trying to break-up the EU over the issue of state support for nuclear - it is something the war-mongers and agents of fear absolutely MUST have.
Why?
See post #7.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112794302#post7
Those pushing the all-nuclear or we-have-to-include-nuclear are talking through their hat - and it is advisable to look into the motives.
= new reply since forum marked as read
