Discourse analysis on “An America Without Nuclear Power”

*Updated 8.25 o'clock

Nuclear power is one of the many new and better ways of making clean power.

But while nuclear power is clean, it comes at risks. There have been some examples of this

with the scandal at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Where large areas were or are now uninhabitable,

because of the radiation levels. It can take years of work and/or waiting before it is possible to use the
areas again. Fx in Chernobyl there were restrictions, that meant you couldn’t eat sheep.

Because the radiation levels were too high, so it wasn’t safe to eat.

The text “An America Without Nuclear Power” has a focus on sustainable energy systems in America.

The nodal point in the text is “The U.S nuclear industry”, while it is the one thing that gives the text

meaning. Without this, the text would have no purpose.

He uses floating signifiers like “future” and “contribution” to describe the nodal point in the text.

He wants to show, that nuclear power is a good thing. These words have no meaning out of context

and therefore can they also be used to describe the other side of the coin.

While “the future of nuclear power in the U.S” is a positive statement, then you can use the negative

and positive words, around the nodal point to create a positive or negative statement.

Then you can categorize the sentences meaning and put them into either the chain of equivalence or
the chain of difference. Fx in the start of the text he states “recent issues with Toshiba and

Westinghouse have reignited the debate regarding the future of nuclear power in the U.S.”

here he uses the word “issues” which is a word most people perceive as negative

and therefore does the meaning of the floating signifiers, “future” and “reignited” also receive

the same perception. The chain of equivalence in the text is about the good thing in and about

the U.S nuclear power industry. The text refers to the U.S nuclear industry as “secure”

which chains to the floating signifier “future”, in the chain of equivalence.

He also uses words such as “optimal” in the sentence “The optimal resource in terms of energy quality,
storability, and carbon emissions is nuclear, ...” here it shows a positive thing that also can be chained
to the chain of equivalence.

He does use a lot of different negative words to describe the way things have been going.

With fx “ … To abandon nuclear at this stage of development is to abandon the future of energy

in order to return to the past, ...” here he uses “abandon” which is negative,

to describe the ongoing events in at this time. These are negative but they do still belong to

the chain of equivalence, while they are against stopping nuclear advances.

He creates an antagonism by referring to the different sides of the nuclear industry.

The supporters and the opponents. This is where the chain of difference comes.

The chain of difference is in this instance about the negative things that follow

nuclear energy production. He uses some of the same floating signifiers and then others to describe

even more. He uses words as fx “future”  but he adds the word “no” in front.

This changes the future from being a good and positive thing to a negative thing.

He also uses sentences like “... nuclear power has no future due to economics and they conclude

that the U.S. should abandon nuclear and go all-in on renewable energy.”, here he uses 2 negative

words which can be added to the chain of difference.

The hegemonic discourse in this text is the discourse, that shows the nuclear power as a secure future.

It is this discourse that is the hegemonic, because of the way he describes it.

He uses a lot of negative things when talking about the recent years of U.S nuclear history.

Where the U.S has lost traction. This only helps the supporters cause.

Therefore is it the discourse that support the nuclear power the one that is hegemonic.