Reply #30: You are merely following the nuclear industry playbook...

[kristopher]

Messaging strategy for nuclear power (in their own words)

From the presentation "Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance" by Dr. Raul A. Deju in Sept. 2009 at conference on growing the nuclear industry. He is the Chief Operating Officer, EnergySolutions, Inc. which according to Wiki 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

I'm sure the "message" quoted below is a familiar one to DU/EE readers.

This part of the presentation comes on the tail end of a dismal assessment of public support for nuclear power and it is a given that by "sensible energy policy" the author is referring to only one that includes nuclear power that will produce the waste his company can profit from. Notice how science is rejected in favor of a strong, unified messaging campaign targeting the public.

...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.

That bears repeating. The leaders in the nuclear industry very clearly state that better science and solutions to the known problems associated with nuclear power are not the key to developing their industry; but rather, what is needed is a strong unified messaging campaign where nuclear and renewable energy are "tied into a combined offering" with the message that public 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.

It is a real 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.