Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Nuclear industry PR through the ages...
The ideology of progress and the globalization of nuclear power
Byrne and Hoffman 1996
http://ceep.udel.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/1996_pe_atom_ideology_progress.pdf
Introduction
As an energy source, nuclear power was not technologically feasible nor economically viable when it was embraced by the U.S. in 1946. It did not originate as an invention of enterprise, nor was there a market for its supply. In fact, the U. S. committed itself to the development of the "peaceful atom” 11 years before it would be successfully demonstrated. The national government sought to discover the advantages of the technology and to discount its costs in the absence of knowledge of its economic or technical practicality. When Lewis Strauss, a former chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), announced that nuclear power would bring forward an energy supply "too cheap to meter," he signaled that, for this technology, social desirability would be decided in advance of performance, since his declaration of nuclear energy’s economicalness was 17 years before the opening of the first commercial reactor (Byrne
and Rich, 1986).
Despite the catastrophic accident at Chernobyl in 1986, the near meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, over 200 "precursors" to core meltdown accidents in the brief period of the technology’s commercial use (Adato, et al, 1987), and an industrial history worldwide of massive cost overruns, nuclear power continues to be evaluated in the "future tense",‘ that is, in terms of what it will bring rather than what it has already wrought or what it requires from society to maintain operation. While enthusiasm is expressed more modestly today than in the heyday of its early promotion, support for nuclear power remains strong in several quarters despite its authoritarian politics, its failed economics and its dubious performance history. Thus, Mr. Ryo Ikegame, executive vice president of Tokyo Electric Power Company, one of the largest electric utilities in the world, recently offered this assessment of nuclear power in the only country that has suffered a nuclear attack (Taylor, July 1992: 32):
Nuclear development plans for Japan reflect this belief: over the next twenty years, Japan intends to add 38 more nuclear plants to its existing stock of 49 (for a total nuclear capacity of 40 GWe); 5 of these plants are already under construction and will begin operation by 1997 (Nuclear News, August 1992: 60-61; March, 1995: 32-33; June, 1995: 40). Japan is not alone in its commitment to nuclear power: as of December 1994, 66 nuclear plants are under construction or on order in 19 countries, the majority of which are scheduled for completion by the year 2001 (Nuclear News, March, 1995: 27-42).
Below we examine the continuing worldwide momentum for nuclear power development. It is argued that support for nuclear power is embedded in first, the modernist ideology of progress that equates economic growth and technological power with social success; and second, the "nuclear consortium” comprised of the state, military, science and industrial apparatuses which must be integrated in order to develop nuclear technology (Camilleri, 1984; Byrne, Hoffman and Martinez, 1989). Together the modernist ideology of progress and the nuclear consortium are argued to constitute a political economy of technological authoritarianism" (Byrne and Hoffman, 1988). This political economy has been institutionalized in the core industrial countries and is now being "transferred" to the periphery and semi-periphery countries of the Third World.
Nuclear Power and the Industrial Idea of Progress:
The Case of the U.S....
Byrne and Hoffman 1996
http://ceep.udel.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/1996_pe_atom_ideology_progress.pdf
Introduction
As an energy source, nuclear power was not technologically feasible nor economically viable when it was embraced by the U.S. in 1946. It did not originate as an invention of enterprise, nor was there a market for its supply. In fact, the U. S. committed itself to the development of the "peaceful atom” 11 years before it would be successfully demonstrated. The national government sought to discover the advantages of the technology and to discount its costs in the absence of knowledge of its economic or technical practicality. When Lewis Strauss, a former chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), announced that nuclear power would bring forward an energy supply "too cheap to meter," he signaled that, for this technology, social desirability would be decided in advance of performance, since his declaration of nuclear energy’s economicalness was 17 years before the opening of the first commercial reactor (Byrne
and Rich, 1986).
Despite the catastrophic accident at Chernobyl in 1986, the near meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, over 200 "precursors" to core meltdown accidents in the brief period of the technology’s commercial use (Adato, et al, 1987), and an industrial history worldwide of massive cost overruns, nuclear power continues to be evaluated in the "future tense",‘ that is, in terms of what it will bring rather than what it has already wrought or what it requires from society to maintain operation. While enthusiasm is expressed more modestly today than in the heyday of its early promotion, support for nuclear power remains strong in several quarters despite its authoritarian politics, its failed economics and its dubious performance history. Thus, Mr. Ryo Ikegame, executive vice president of Tokyo Electric Power Company, one of the largest electric utilities in the world, recently offered this assessment of nuclear power in the only country that has suffered a nuclear attack (Taylor, July 1992: 32):
(I)t rained after Chernobyl, and now it's cloudy but we can see the sunny part of the sky. I'm rather optimistic about the future of nuclear power plants, because Japan has no oil, no coal, no gas - so we have to depend on nuclear, and this is good for the environment.
Nuclear development plans for Japan reflect this belief: over the next twenty years, Japan intends to add 38 more nuclear plants to its existing stock of 49 (for a total nuclear capacity of 40 GWe); 5 of these plants are already under construction and will begin operation by 1997 (Nuclear News, August 1992: 60-61; March, 1995: 32-33; June, 1995: 40). Japan is not alone in its commitment to nuclear power: as of December 1994, 66 nuclear plants are under construction or on order in 19 countries, the majority of which are scheduled for completion by the year 2001 (Nuclear News, March, 1995: 27-42).
Below we examine the continuing worldwide momentum for nuclear power development. It is argued that support for nuclear power is embedded in first, the modernist ideology of progress that equates economic growth and technological power with social success; and second, the "nuclear consortium” comprised of the state, military, science and industrial apparatuses which must be integrated in order to develop nuclear technology (Camilleri, 1984; Byrne, Hoffman and Martinez, 1989). Together the modernist ideology of progress and the nuclear consortium are argued to constitute a political economy of technological authoritarianism" (Byrne and Hoffman, 1988). This political economy has been institutionalized in the core industrial countries and is now being "transferred" to the periphery and semi-periphery countries of the Third World.
Nuclear Power and the Industrial Idea of Progress:
The Case of the U.S....
The paper can be downloaded here:
http://ceep.udel.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/1996_pe_atom_ideology_progress.pdf
It gives a rather standard analysis of the nature of the nuclear power industry before they started their most recent PR campaign to rebrand themselves as champions of the environment because of low CO2 emissions. The fact that polling has changed little since the paper was written tells us that, by far, the largest bloc of supporters for nuclear energy today fit into the paradigm described in this paper.
And in more recent, related news the Nuclear Energy Institute has expanded the paid staff at its "grass roots" PR agency the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition:
Ron Kirk takes new role as pitch man for nuclear power
WASHINGTON — Add nuclear pitchman to the résumé of Ron Kirk, the former Dallas mayor and U.S. trade ambassador. On Thursday, he signed on as co-chair of Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which promotes nuclear energy.
“It is safe, it is reliable,” and provides needed energy without harming the environment, Kirk said. “If you start taking nuclear out of that energy baseline, it’s going to be almost impossible to meet our carbon emission reduction goals.”
...
Critics of the nuclear industry mock the group’s description of itself as a coalition, calling it an AstroTurf creation of a beleaguered industry hoping to project grass-roots support.
“There’s no group,” said Elliott Negin, director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It’s a front for the Nuclear Energy Institute. The oil industry doesn’t do this. When someone from American Petroleum Institute is talking, you know who they are. Why does the nuclear industry feel they need to create a phony group to hide behind?”
...
WASHINGTON — Add nuclear pitchman to the résumé of Ron Kirk, the former Dallas mayor and U.S. trade ambassador. On Thursday, he signed on as co-chair of Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which promotes nuclear energy.
“It is safe, it is reliable,” and provides needed energy without harming the environment, Kirk said. “If you start taking nuclear out of that energy baseline, it’s going to be almost impossible to meet our carbon emission reduction goals.”
...
Critics of the nuclear industry mock the group’s description of itself as a coalition, calling it an AstroTurf creation of a beleaguered industry hoping to project grass-roots support.
“There’s no group,” said Elliott Negin, director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It’s a front for the Nuclear Energy Institute. The oil industry doesn’t do this. When someone from American Petroleum Institute is talking, you know who they are. Why does the nuclear industry feel they need to create a phony group to hide behind?”
...
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20140207-ron-kirk-takes-new-role-as-pitch-man-for-nuclear-power.ece