Posted by Mark Halper

Safe talk. APCO’s Roger Hayes addressing the World Nuclear Power Briefing Europe conference last month about public perceptions of safety and other nuclear issues.

I’m going to take a few liberties with a presentation I had the privilege to hear in Warsaw last month, and tell you how the presenter, a public relations expert, made a fine argument, if perhaps subliminal, for alternative nuclear power.

Speaking at the World Nuclear Power Briefing Europe 20102 conference, Roger Hayes, a senior counsellor with Washington, D.C.-public affairs specialist APCO Worldwide, made a convincing case for the nuclear industry to collaborate globally in order to offset the public perception that nuclear is unsafe and untrustworthy.

“Nuclear remains quite introverted and largely nationalistic,” Hayes told a high level audience of nuclear executives and experts, advising the industry to break those habits if it is to overcome a widely held international view that nuclear power is dangerous.

In an APCO survey of a broad range of nuclear impressions, world opinion leaders rank nuclear next to last in safety behind all forms of energy other than shale oil, which nuclear barely beat.

“Safety as we all know is a clear issue for the industry,” Hayes said. “Perceptions on the safety of nuclear are polarized.”

Public opposition to nuclear tends to overlook that its safety record is far superior to oil, gas and coal. To help reverse that oversight, “What we need is a new, more holistic narrative about the nuclear industry,” Hayes said.

Safety last. In an APCO survey, opinion leaders ranked nuclear next to bottom in their safety perception of energy sources.

He’s right, and that’s where I’ll expand with some of my own interpretations, which echo my recent thoughts on the World Nuclear Association’s rebranding efforts.

Hayes did not mention “alternative nuclear” by name.

But to take a whole view, if you will, of “holistic,” the new narrative should include the alternative technologies that would directly address public fears – two of the biggest of which center around possible meltdowns and hazardous nuclear waste.

Conventional uranium fueled, water cooled reactors do run the risk of meltdown, although they almost never, ever get to that stage. The meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant that followed Japan’s tragic 2011 earthquake and tsunami have unfortunately reawakened the specter of such threats.

THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES

Alternative technologies – a liquid thorium molten salt reactor (MSR) or a pebble bed reactor, for just two examples – would be virtually meltdown proof, as nuclear fission would cease in the event of an accident. In the case of the MSR, fuel would also drain harmlessly into a tank.

Alternative technologies like the MSR and fast reactors would also minimize waste and in some cases would actually turn waste into fuel, thus usefully eliminating the worrisome challenge of where to store it.

Hayes’ notion of a collaborative, holistic approach to safety also includes, in his words, “a broader view in terms of scientific transfer outside of the industry, and supporting nuclear physics spinoffs and so on.” And he advises involving other industries.

On these counts, I would add that the status quo nuclear powers like Westinghouse, Areva, GEH and their utility customers, could divert resources into research and entrepreneurial projects to develop alternative designs for reactors and for safer, more efficient fuels like thorium. And they could partner with industrial users who might want to deploy novel designs for novel purposes – say, a small thorium fueled liquid molten salt reactor as a source of process heat.

Hayes also advocated greater “transparency.” You know what I’m going to say next, so I’ll keep it short, lest my own narrative stretch beyond the reasonable length limit of a regular blog posting:

The nuclear powers that be are making admirable safety advances within their own conventional constructs. But if they really want to impress the public with the “even safer” possibilities, they have to start talking more openly about alternative technologies, rather than fear the disruption that those technologies might cause to their own business.

Images: Photo of Roger Hayes by Mark Halper. Safety chart from Roger Hayes’ presentation in Warsaw.

 

Comments

  1. Martin Kral says:

    I have been posting comments on the ‘Beyond Nuclear’ FB page for several months. This anti-nuke site believes no-nuke is a good nuke. I have focused on the nuclear ‘waste’ with this audience because they focus on all the problems with it. They propose to solidify and encase the material. I have explained how potentially dangerous it would be to handle the material multiple times by moving the material to a central location. I have tried to explain that the ‘waste’ material needs to be burned up and that requires a nuclear reactor. The fast disposal would require the fast reactor and a more gradual disposal could be done with a LFTR. Once you have a commercial LFTR, why stop there.

Leave a Reply

Sign up for our Weinberg Next Nuclear Newsletter
* = required field

I strongly support the Alvin Weinberg Foundation’s vital work to raise awareness of the urgent need for next-generation nuclear power to combat climate change and to provide clean energy for the future.

— Professor James Hansen

@thorium_wf

Our latest blog on the nuclear report from the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords. We need... https://t.co/CPqKOPpyOg
- Wednesday May 3 - 2:36pm

Recent Posts

Three Mile Island – the real disaster

by Suzanna Hinson (June 2nd, 2017)

Nuclear in Africa

by Suzanna Hinson (May 16th, 2017)

Engineers echo politicians: SMRs could help the UK post-Brexit

by Suzanna Hinson (May 11th, 2017)

Breaking the cycle of indecision: nuclear report by the House of Lords

by Suzanna Hinson (May 3rd, 2017)

Posts Archive

Categories

  • Economics (89)
  • Efficiency (54)
  • Policy (17)
  • Proliferation (32)
  • Regulation (8)
  • Safety (63)
  • Security (18)
  • Technology advances (23)
  • Uncategorized (53)
  • Waste (52)
  • © The Alvin Weinberg Foundation 2014
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation is a registered UK charity. Charity number: 1155255
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation web site uses cookies to record visitor patterns.
    Read our data protection policy

    Design by Tauri-tec Ltd and the Alvin Weinberg Foundation