Messaging strategy for nuclear power (in their own words)

[kristopher]

I'm sure this "message" is a familiar one to DU/EE readers. This comes on the tail end of a rather 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 that will produce the waste his company can profit from.

...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"?

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.

From presentation:
"Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance"
Dr. Raul A. Deju Sept. 2009
Chief Operating Officer
EnergySolutions, Inc.

EnergySolutions is one of the world’s largest processors of low level waste (LLW), and is the largest nuclear waste company in the United States...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergySolutions

In fact, if we build nuclear power it *actively* discourages BOTH renewable energy policies and development AND energy efficiency policies and efforts because the goals of the two strategies are mutually exclusive. One succeeds by selling more energy, the other succeeds by going the other direction so each undermines the economics of the other.

This is a very real, very 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.

Their strategy depends completely on an unaware public being suckered into supporting enough nuclear development that it makes the economics of renewables impossible. What makes it insidious is that this will not become clear to the public until we've hundreds of billions in the nuclear pipeline and it becomes impossible to walk away from the sunk costs of that investment.

Only 8% of people prefer nuclear power to renewables and that 8% could care less about either climate change or any other aspect of sustainable energy and the environment. Their goal is to continue the system where all energy must go through their hands before it gets to the public. Such a system represents political, economic and military power on an incredible scale and they are willing to hoodwink as many people as they need to in order to continue business as usual - which is precisely what replacing coal with nuclear amounts to.

Nuclear power advocates know this, and you should to.

[HillbillyBob]

1. We live on a fixed income that is dropping, my partner had to take a large cut

so we found a house we could afford...if the power bills were not to high and they were.
In almost 4 yrs here we have invested about 3800 on energy improvements, mostly 'low hanging fruit'.
We painted the roof with Henrys' Kool Seal 287, it even works on shingle roof, knocking the summer cooling need down from a 50,000btu heat pump to a 15,000 btu window unit. It cost 40$ to run the window unit compared to 350$
Insulated curtain liners, work winter and summer, in winter I open the sunny side and close the off side, in summer open the shaded side etc. 20 25$ per window. I cook in covered pots unless reducing or it has to boil, most things do not need to be boiled. I use a toaster oven instead of the big one most of the time.
We have replaced Incands with CFLs then when LEDs started to become available at lower cost, we have replaced all the most used house lights with cfls. One at a time, same with washer, dishwasher and deep freeze. We have reduced our power use from 3300 kilowatts to 1200 or so..still too high, but we are kind of stalled until we get solar water heating and pumping on line. We are in the country and have our own deep well. We are not sitting in the dark and cold and we did not go broke. The next things will be more expensive, but our goal is to be off fossil fuel for at least the house. If everyone did as we have and its easy, small projects you can save a bundle and we would not need nukes or to add any coal plants.

[kristopher]

2. That's a great laundry list. Mind if I borrow a couple?

The curtains in particular are something I'd completely forgotten about...
We love soups and stews so in the winter most of our cooking seems to be in a crock pot or pressure cooker.

[diane in sf]

3. Great strategy! I cut my power use by around 40% by buying a new fridge and putting in 4-5

CFLs where color wasn't critical. I rent a flat that's around 1200 sq feet. Don't have to do too much heating in the winter and use a swamp cooler and fans when it gets really hot. I also have a low flow shower head and aerator on the kitchen sink, have a Toto low flush toilet courtesy of my landlord (they pay the water bill). My wish is that the landlord would insulate the attic and seal the ducts for the forced air heat--something I avoid running because its dusty and ineffective. The insulation is really more critical when we have heat waves--it has been 106 degrees (for days!) in my office when we have a summer heat wave. The summer sun angle is high so the sun beats down on my flat, dark-colored, tar paper roof--the attic is only about 18 inches high. Heat waves in the fall--no biggie.

Here in San Francisco you could run a house that would barely require heating or cooling with a modest amount of insulation and solar planning. Most homes here in the city do not have air conditioning.

[kristopher]

8. My wife went to high school in SF.

She often tells me the same thing you wrote about in an attempt to induce me to move there. I tell her that more than a decade is more than enough of earthquake country for me, thank you very much.

You aren't helping my side of that discussion at all...

[Kolesar]

4. if you advocate for nuclear power you are undercutting the efforts to build out renewables, ...

... if you support renewable energy and energy efficiency, you are denying nuclear power the market share they MUST have to be viable.

That's a thinker !

[bananas]

5. bribery and extortion scandal with Utah's Division of Radiation Control director

EnergySolutions was originally called Envirocare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergySolutions

Envirocare was founded by Iranian immigrant Khosrow Semnani in 1988. Semnani served as president of the company until May 1997, when Envirocare's largest customer—the Department of Energy—requested that he step down in the wake of a bribery scandal.<7> Semnani allegedly bribed Utah's Division of Radiation Control director, Larry B. Anderson, with $600,000 in cash, gifts, and gold coins over several years. Semnani alleged that he was extorted by Anderson, and the two sued each other in civil court. Semnani agreed to testify against Anderson in a plea bargain forcing him to pay a $100,000 fine for aiding in the preparation of a false tax return.<8> Anderson was convicted to serve 30 months in federal prison on tax charges.

[kristopher]

6. Remember last year when China executed the guy granting nuclear contracts to vendors

...for taking bribes?

On a related note, did you see this study and database?

Russia and at least a couple of its recent nuclear clients are among the most corrupt nations in the world.

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results



I'll be comparing it to this list from the World Nuclear Association:

Nuclear power is under serious consideration in over 45 countries which do not currently have it (in a few, consideration is not necessarily at government level). For countries in bold, nuclear power prospects are more fully dealt with in specific country papers:

* In Europe: Italy, Albania, Serbia, Portugal, Norway, Poland, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Ireland, Turkey.
* In the Middle East and North Africa: Iran, Gulf states including UAE, Saudi Arabia & Kuwait, Yemen, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan.
* In west, central and southern Africa: Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, Uganda, Namibia.
* In South America: Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela.
* In central and southern Asia: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka
* In SE Asia: Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand.
* In east Asia: North Korea
...

Some of the above countries can be classified according to how far their nuclear programs or plans have progressed:

* Power reactors under construction: Iran.
* Contracts signed, legal and regulatory infrastructure well-developed: UAE, Turkey.
* Committed plans, legal and regulatory infrastructure developing: Vietnam, Jordan, Italy.
* Well-developed plans but commitment pending: Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania.
* Developing plans: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Nigeria, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Morocco, Kuwait, Chile, Venezuela.
* Discussion as serious policy option: Namibia, Kenya, Mongolia, Philippines, Singapore, Albania, Serbia, Estonia & Latvia, Libya, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka.

* Officially not a policy option at present: Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Norway, Ireland.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf102.html

[kristopher]

7. It is worth examining the Energy Message points a bit closer

The entire presentation showed that generally the public doesn't like nor trust the nuclear industry because they do not believe the problems associated with waste disposal, plant safety and nuclear proliferation have been solved.

In order to foster the investment of government funds in nuclear the advice isn't to SOLVE the problems with "scientific support" but rather to develop "confidence" that they have "a solution to nuclear waste issues and non-proliferation" by the use of "leadership messages and social support".

Apparently the "social support" is found by trying to link nuclear power to renewable power (which has very high levels of support for funding).

By his own words the energy message he wants people to promote is: Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a "combined offering where energy security and energy independence can only be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable standards, and nuclear energy.

Note that his primary focus is ...energy security and energy independence; tradition values, not altruistic values.

What strikes me is how this relates to a continuing theme I write about where I point out that the values of those who embrace nuclear energy are not environmental. The view of he environmental benefits of nuclear are largely summarized in this line, "Stressing the climate benefits of nuclear energy positively influences one in ten people to be more supportive of expanding the role of nuclear power in the world."

Does climate change matter to them - yes I'm sure it does at some level. Is that the real reason they believe nuclear power should be built? I'd argue no, it isn't, that instead their PRIMARY MOTIVE is financial and the appeal to climate change is just a (to them) convenient way to get money from governments that their product cannot earn in the open market of ideas with the noncarbon alternatives of energy efficiency and renewables.

Does this make clear what I've been driving at?

[kristopher]

9. Kick