It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How to Advertise Nuclear Electricity?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:20 PM
1. The worlds growing population demands a carbon free, source of electricity. Like a type that has caused 3.5 less deaths (per quantity of electricity) than hydroelectric.
Or 4000 times less than those caused by coal (danger of CO2 not included)

But without the negative wildlife effects from hydro and wind.
See hydroelectric accident: which took 171,000 lives
The UN claims 9000 fatalities for Chernobyl, whilst Greenpeace claims an astonishing 93,000

2. We need our electricity to be reliable too, but also affordable so that industrial jobs will not be relocated to countries where electricity is cheaper (because there is less concern about safety, or Earth’s environment).


3. But this electricity has the worst public image, of all electricity sources. Only with the British (brave and practical as always) has support for nuclear energy risen since 2005 (in spite of Fukushima)
Could it be because CO2 makes the planet less inhabitable globally but very subtly, whilst nuclear does it regionally and very suddenly? Even though (without people) it creates a thriving wildlife zone as a direct consequence:

So How to Advertise Atom Energy?

1. See this British, nuclear energy, advert from August 1997
It was obviously a wise investment, as FoE complained before their complaint was duly rejected

2. Here is a French advert
3. Here is a modern, 4 minute advert (although I am yet to see it on TV)

Common Errors…
1. All 3 adverts fail to mention the statistical safety of nuclear compared with coal, or even hydroelectric
2. The first one was correct to mention how nuclear energy was created in the hearts of giant stars, before the Earth was made (it’s intriguing) and how after 5 years 97% of waste can be recycled. But was a bit too abstract (it’s intriguing but debunking of certain anti-nuclear propaganda, which gives the impression most waste can never be dealt with).
3. The last advert was a bit patronising by saying “here are two nice words for you stability & security” and got a bit boring, as unlike the first add it did not use both male and female narrators.
4. The French graphics were excellent, but not used in the other adds

What are your own thoughts & opinions about denying public ignorance over nuclear energy?
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: Grammar

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:31 PM
A little misleading....

Nuclear Power is a Health, Safety, and Environmental Threat:

In testimony before Congress on April 17, 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testified that the crude probability of a severe nuclear accident in this country over the next 20 years involving large releases of radioactive materials was roughly 45% (nearly 50-50)!

In February, 1997, a reactor operator error at ComEd's Zion nuclear reactor prompted the Regional head of the NRC to state, "It doesn't get any worse than this." In March, in a test that NRC said "requires thinking," 25 of 31 reactor operators at ComEd's La Salle reactors flunked a test of their ability to handle "abnormal" reactor problems.

As of April, 1997, Commonwealth Edison has been fined $6.2 million for 85 safety-related incidents at its nuclear power plants. Illinois Power has been fined $502,000 for seven major violations at its single nuclear reactor.

According to a 1982 study done by Sandia National Laboratories, a severe (but not necessarily "worst-case") nuclear power accident in Illinois would result in deaths in the tens-of-thousands, casualties and latent cancers in the hundreds-of-thousands, and property loss in the tens-to hundreds-of-billions of dollars.
Using calculations from 3 Western European governments, the Worldwatch Institute has calculated that the world may experience three more Chernobyl-sized nuclear power accidents before the year 2000.
Nuclear Power is Uneconomical:

Since its beginning, nuclear power has cost this country over $492,000,000,000 -- nearly twice the cost of the Viet Nam War and the Apollo Moon Missions combined. In return for this investment, we have an energy source that, until the mid-1980's, gave us less energy in this country than did the burning of firewood! In the U.S., nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity, and only 8-10% of our total energy consumption. In Illinois these percentages are much greater due to Commonwealth Edison's over-reliance on nuclear power.
Since 1950, nuclear power has received over $97,000,000,000 in direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government, such as deferred taxes, artificially low limits on liability in case of nuclear accidents, and fuel fabrication write-offs. No other industry has enjoyed such privilege.

According to a recent study conducted by the Citizens Utility Board, Commonwealth Edison's customers now pay the highest electric bills in the Midwest, due primarily to the over-reliance on nuclear power plants.
Many costs for nuclear power have been deliberately underestimated by government and industry such as the costs for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes, the "decommissioning" (shutting-down and cleaning-up) of retired nuclear power plants, and nuclear accident consequences. In January, 1994, Commonwealth Edison acknowledged that it had to nearly double its estimate for reactor decommissioning -- from $2.3 billion to as much as $4.1 billion!

Nuclear Power is not Necessary:

Nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity; yet studies have shown that in the U.S. we waste or inefficiently use between 25% - 44% of all electricity generated! Three separate studies done by government and private firms since 1982 have shown that the U.S. has the potential to conserve the electrical equivalent of between 145 to 210 nuclear power plants! Only 108 are currently in operation.

I think beyond doubt nuclear power is not the way to go economically, medically and environmentally.
edit on 14-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:51 PM
Nothing misleading as I wasn’t aware of your information. This thread is simply more informed with it, in the same way your post would be (in your own words) “misleading” without the following information…

Coal kills 30,000 in the US every year; i.e. a Greenpeace estimation of Chernobyl every 3 years
See also how coal ash (being often naturally radioactive) is 100 times worse than a nuclear plant’s emissions…

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Nothing misleading as I wasn’t aware of your information. This thread is simply more informed with it, in the same way your post would be (in your own words) “misleading” without the following information…

Coal kills 30,000 in the US every year; i.e. a Greenpeace estimation of Chernobyl every 3 years
See also how coal ash (being often naturally radioactive) is 100 times worse than a nuclear plant’s emissions…

Not saying coal is better, just saying nuclear power may be cheep to run but the initial cost of a reactor can be in the billions for one reactor and they still haven't developed the technology to rid the waste of nuclear energy.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:59 PM
Peoples opposition to nuclear, frequently gives the impression that coal is (somehow) better.
Unlike solar & wind where electricity storage is a massive extra cost, and where the money to make it profitable has to come from subsidies that make UK electricity more expensive (and which therefore only encourage our industry to flee to other countries where there is little or no regulations) new UK nuclear energy, is being built without any government money…

Middle East sovereign wealth funds 'queue up' to invest in UK nuclear power stations
Sovereign wealth funds from the Middle East and other oil-rich areas are "queuing up" to invest in UK nuclear power, according to Charles Hendry, the energy minister.

Indeed the only subsidy nuclear will be entitled too is "Carbon Credits", which is only fair, and will be paid for by today's existing coal & gas companies.

and they still haven't developed the technology to rid the waste of nuclear energy.

Why does this scare you so much? The question surely to ask is: “How many has nuclear waste killed?” I can certainly tell you it is a lot less than nuclear accidents, which themselves are much less than more expensive, CO2 free alternatives.

There are actually two answers to nuclear waste…
A. Build a reactor that will destroy it (as in transmute it) into useable fuel
UK policy:
Is this technology:
B. Or you turn it all into a solid (by purifying it, then mixing it with certain compounds & chemicals) and then burry it, inside steel, concrete filled barrels, which can then even go into rock several hundreds of millions of years old. For the UK this looks liker Cornwall. Of course storing waste for the next few thousand years is all that is necessary, since (probably not even within one or two centuries) we will have robotic workforces –teleportation even, who knows? All that is certain is it’s unlikely take thousands of years to permanently get rid of it.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: info added

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 02:12 PM
Tell the people the more nuclear power plants we have, the more depleted uranium ammunition and heavy metal tipped bunker buster smart missles we can give to the military so they can murder and irradiate the enemies of freedom!!!

The More You Use, The More Brown Children You Can Murder!!!

Support the Troops Today!

Thats how I would advertise it.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Ixtab because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 02:29 PM
This is highly misinformed! We already have FAR more depletive uranium than we know what to do with. Building more nuclear power stations is not going to change this, and anyway (even if our military did have a shortage) it is perfectly capable of mining uranium itself (most of which is naturally depletive).

The UK (alone) has 25,000 tonnes of DU in solid form, plus another 30,000 in powder form, and building (the new) electricity plants actually offers a plan reduce our stockpile

In contrast: Only 1000 tonnes was used by all sides, in the first 3 weeks of the Iraq conflict (i.e. when we actually had armoured targets, to target)
It’s widely thought the US used 2000 tonnes in total
(i.e. from previous link, equivalent to 8% of just UK solid stocks, and 3.6% of total stocks)

I agree that DU is an inhuman evil, and one that should be 100% banned from all weapons (not least as they make the deaths from landmines 50 years after they were laid seem like a short amount of time).

To say we have a shortage of DU, that somehow is going to be changed by new reactors is ridiculous. Like much anti near electricity, fear mongering it is from a misinformed mind (at best) and deliberately misleading one at worst.

The same applies to plutonium. In the 1950’s the UK may have built plants for weapons, but today we have more than even a large country, like the US could ever conceivably weaponise (it’s around 102 tons, and turning it into reactor fuel, is actually one disposal solution).
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Is this technology:

Yea burying nuclear waste in facilities and underground have all failed or the plans fell through because of environmental opposition.

The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was to be a deep geological repository storage facility for spent nuclear reactor fuel and other high level radioactive waste, until the project was canceled in 2009. It was to be located on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada, about 80 mi (130 km) northwest of the Las Vegas metropolitan area. The proposed repository was within Yucca Mountain, a ridge line in the south-central part of Nevada near its border with California.

Although the location has been highly contested by both environmentalists and non-local residents in Las Vegas, which is over 100 miles (160 km) away, it was approved in 2002 by the United States Congress. However, under the Obama Administration[2] funding for development of Yucca Mountain waste site was terminated effective with the 2011 federal budget passed by Congress on April 14, 2011. The US GAO stating that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons.[2] This leaves United States civilians without any long term storage site for high level radioactive waste, currently stored on-site at various nuclear facilities around the country, although the United States government can dispose of its waste at WIPP, in rooms 2,150 feet (660 m) underground.[3] The Department of Energy is reviewing other options for a high level waste repository.
edit on 14-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 02:54 PM
We'll be left behind by China as they roll out lots of inherently safe Thorium reactor while we faff about with windmills and being extorted by resource rich nations.

How to advertise?

Tell the truth. Its a radical concept but bear with me.

Say the best investment the UK can make in its future safety and security is to aim for energy resilience.

Explain how exposed we are to oil/gas supply disruptions and how quickly our society would implode if gas supplies were interrupted for any length of time. Explain we have no worthwhile strategic gas reserve like other european nations.

Explain that the 'dash for gas' that followed after Thatchers privatisation of the power industry undid decades of maintaining balanced sources of supply and put us at risk.

Explain that windmills can never be relied upon for the base load of the grid so must always be an adjunct to something else. That something else is best being nuclear.

top topics


log in