Potential Energy

Great! So the government announced that nuclear will be part of the future energy mix.

Apart from all of the issues Caspar and Kat have raised, the one thing that concerns me most is…

Marketing and PR.

Like it or not ‘nuclear power’ doesn’t elicit the most positive response from the vast majority of people. One of the biggest problems getting new reactors built won’t be finding investors, making up the skills gap nor even working out what to do with the waste. The biggest obstacle blocking the way of a nuclear future is ‘the average citizen’. Forget the huge undertaking involved in designing the reactors, choosing where they should be built, sourcing workers and materials, just getting the local population to agree to the planning permission is going to be beyond difficult.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating, before I started on this project I had an open mind about nuclear power, but was most definitely leaning towards the ‘anti’ side. I had all of the same thoughts and fears that most people do.

‘Nuclear power is dangerous’
‘Nuclear power is unsafe’
‘If attacked by terrorists, nuclear power plants can explode and kill millions’
‘Radiation is the most dangerous thing on the planet’
‘Chernobyl could happen here’

Unlike a huge percentage of the population, however, I don’t “fear” science. I don’t believe that scientists are trying to ‘pull a fast one’ on us. I don’t believe that they are part of one secret cabal or another which is trying to poison, brainwash or otherwise incapacitate the human race. I don’t even believe that all of them are glasses-wearing nerds with severe social-intereaction problems. Consequently, I feel I’ve been able to take the information about nuclear power produced by scientists and not put any kind of internal spin on it.

I’ve been looking at anti-nuclear literature with a considerably more critical eye than I ever have before and, apart from some sociological concerns, I think they’ve got a lot wrong over the years.

So what can be done to counteract half a century’s worth of anti-nuclear proselytising? Here’s my Seven Steps To A Happy Nuclear Future…

First, I’d look into George Lakoff and his work on reframing the political debate in the US.

The anti-nuclear lobby historically has been very good at making everyone terrified of nuclear - and when we were on the edge of blowing each other up, that wasn’t a bad thing at all- but the fear has become so ingrained that simply the word ‘nuclear’ provokes a terrified Pavlovian response in most people.

The pro-nuclear lobby needs to learn that ‘facts won’t set you free’. Most people don’t seem to care about facts. They care about what they ‘believe’. That’s why repeatedly telling someone that the annual radiation dose from the nuclear power industry is lower than a two week holiday in Cornwall doesn’t matter one iota. They hear the word ‘nuclear’ and back they are in 1984 preparing themselves for nuclear holocaust. You’ve got to work very hard to change that. Lakoff knows what he’s doing though.

Second, you’ve got to work on the names. “Fast Breeder Reactor”? That scares me shitless. It sounds like some kind of self-replicating radioactive mobile power plant which will take over the world and turn it all to dust within days. “Magnox” surely is the name of the Leader of the Robot Army that will invade and take over the Earth. Lose it. “Pebble Bed Reactor”, however, is a rather more lovely name. Makes me think of some kind of treatment I’d get at the Spa at the Sanderson Hotel that would get rid of my cellulite and take a couple inches off my waist. Keep that name. The women will go for that one.

Third, use the word ‘nuclear’ less and use the word ‘fission’ more. There aren’t any inherent negatives associated with the word ‘fission’. If you can throw ‘quantum’ in, too, that’ll help. People like the word ‘quantum’ for some reason. ‘Nano’, as well. Not sure how you can work that one in, but you guys are clever, you could work out a way.

Fourth, gather together knowledgeable women to put forward for media interviews about the nuclear industry. People trust women more, just make sure they aren’t that severe female-politician-in-powersuit-and-high-heels type. They’re scarier than ‘fast breeder reactors’.

Fifth, stop putting photos of people in hard hats and hi-vis jackets on your websites (BNFL and UKAEA). It’s not aspirational enough. Hell, it’s not aspirational at all. I once spent two months wearing a hard hat and hi-vis every day - it’s not a look I ever want to repeat. You need to have more families. More nature. More blue skies and sunshine. I also don’t want to see another bloody photo of smiling middle managers looking at reactor plans. Pleeease?

Sixth, paint the reactor stacks sky blue. They are ugly. Make them pretty. Look: Natural gas storage tanks unpainted and scary looking. Natural gas storage tanks painted and a photo of them for sale because they are so pretty. Never, ever, ever decide to have designs painted on the stacks instead. That’s vulgar. Keep them sky blue to remind everyone of how they are helping to clean the skies.

Seventh, resist inventing an atom-themed kid-friendly character to help teach kids about nuclear power - “Hey, kids! It’s Adam the Atom here to tell you ALL about fissle isotopes!”. That’s just crap.

Ultimately though, it’s going to be incredibly difficult to change nuclear power’s image. But it’s possible… and it’s necessary. And you need to start now.