Gasping nuclear industry in desperate need of a PR overhaul

[kristopher]

Gasping nuclear industry in desperate need of a PR overhaul
Robert TrigauxRobert Trigaux, Times Business Columnist
Friday, February 7, 2014

A meltdown is under way in the nation's nuclear power industry that has nothing to do with radioactive fuel rods or core reactors.

......Nuclear's biggest friend, the debt-ridden federal government, remains wary of offering extensive loan guarantees to an industry unable to control runaway nuclear plant construction costs.

......Worst of all, some state legislatures empowered utility monopolies like Duke Energy in Florida to charge their own captive customers to pay in advance for proposed nuclear projects. The nuclear industry wants more states to adopt such rules.

Now Duke's Florida customers are outraged......

That leaves the nuclear power industry's three top potential allies — government, bankers and consumers — unhappy. That is a public relations disaster.

.....

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/gasping-nuclear-industry-in-desperate-need-of-a-pr-overhaul/2164673


So, what's their solution? To insist they need Even More preferential treatment than they've had for the past 50 years!

Nuclear Energy Operators Say Market Stacked Against Them

...“Markets have to address these issues or you will see a fallout of perfectly well-run units such as Vermont Yankee, and potentially others,” says Bill Mohl, who heads Entergy’s merchant nuclear operations in Massachusetts, Michigan, New York and Vermont. “You can’t stack the market with state regulations and environmental policies and expect competitive fuel sources to effectively compete.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/02/06/nuclear-energy-operators-say-market-stacked-against-them/

[madokie]

1. Are they admitting that the lies are catching up to them

Gasping nuclear industry in desperate need of a PR overhaul

No one likes a liar

[kristopher]

2. "No one likes a liar"

That is exactly what turned me against the industry. When I observed the way they use the same tactic as climate deniers of attacking legitimate academics whose work cast nuclear in a bad light it was the last straw.

[madokie]

3. It was one of the first things that turned a lot of us

against nuclear energy way back when. If in question and answer sessions the answer you get are lies then what does one have left than to oppose them.
What I'm referring to is 35 to 40 years ago when the local power company was attempting to shove a nuclear power plant down our throats. Its been too many years ago for me to remember exactly the lies we were told but I can and do remember many of the answers we got was a crock, that part isn't hard for me to remember.
When we'd question them about the waste they'd tell us that is no problem, that they have that all figured out but then when we pressed them further to explain exactly how, they'd have to admit that well, no, we don't yet but we're totally convinced by the time this plant is operational we'll have it figured out. Shit like that is what ultimately done them in and caused them to give up on the whole project. If I remember right they were well on the way to having the dirt work done and ready to start construction by that time too.

You don't know how much I wish that the lie that was safe, clean and cheap nuclear energy was, but it wasn't to be, isn't to be. I really dislike what we've done with coal and feel we can do better and must do better. I'm convinced that the bulk of our energy can come from renewables and that we should work towards that goal. Solar and wind should figure prominently in that mix with some Geothermal thrown in for good measure. If I understand it correctly in some cases geothermal can be mined for some of the precious metals we have a real need for too boot.

All I know is we have to do better by our planet or we're not going to have an inhabitable one much longer.

[kristopher]

4. This piece doesn't go back that far, but it might interest you

It contains some interesting observations from the beginning of the newest push by the nuclear industry to penetrate the UK. They've since completely derailed both the strong energy efficiency program and the hard won momentum behind renewables that the UK had achieved against their domestic coal industry. Jpak posted it here back in 2006.

The climate-change deniers have now gone nuclear
When the rightwing tradition of bad science comes onside, it's time to look seriously at other energy technologies

Polly Toynbee
The Guardian, Monday 17 July 2006

...The old right has been on an arduous journey, with most finally converted to the truth universally acknowledged, except by flat-earthers: the world is warming at life-on-earth threatening speed. When the climate-deniers' case collapsed, they retreated to an ideological redoubt claiming global warming was a natural phenomenon, not amenable to man-made remedy. But that fortress crumbled too, and even George Bush, last of the deniers, conceded.

For some reason the old deniers, barely batting an eyelid, shifted over to nuclear as the only salvation, though those who have been so wrong owe a little humility when it comes to next steps. Many hail from a bizarre tradition of rightwing bad science: remember Andrew Neill as Sunday Times editor running a dangerous campaign that denied HIV caused Aids, branding the latter as a disease only of gays and the wildly promiscuous. Consider the continuing claim of the Mail and Melanie Phillips that the MMR vaccine causes autism, panicking mothers into failing to immunise babies. Posing as hard-headed realists, those on the right are more prone to pit their ideology against the weight of science. Seat belts? Motorbike helmets? Chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone layer? Smoking bans? Advertising junk food to children? The science-based realos tend to be on the left, conviction fundis on the right.

Climate change leaves no doubt that nuclear power is infinitely better than roasting to death. New stations are likely to be safer and better built, but will still produce a lot of radioactive waste, if less than before. The energy review still has no idea what to do with it. Even so, nuclear is better than baking.

But why are nuclear enthusiasts so sure there is no better alternative? ...

Here's the conundrum: the kind of people now supporting nuclear are the same ones appalled by vast state-sponsored groundnut schemes in the making: look at ID cards, gigantic IT pipedreams, Concorde, the Dome or other balloons swelling up from politicians' airy rhetoric. The history of nuclear power is the most grotesque example of a state programme founded on dreams mushrooming out of control because no one dared say "Stop!". In the 50s people were promised energy so cheap there would be no bills, so no party dared stop pouring good money after bad. Construction was always wildly over cost and late, delivering far less energy than promised. So why are they falling for the same snake oil again?

...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jul/18/comment.politics3