Skip to main content

Another Bogus European Opinion Poll

I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but there's another public opinion poll getting some play today that probably doesn't reflect the reality on the ground when it comes to public opinion in Europe about nuclear energy:
European citizens want their governments to focus on developing solar and wind power and are less enthusiastic about nuclear energy, according to a survey released on Tuesday.

The Eurobarometer poll showed 12 percent of those surveyed favoured developing the use of nuclear energy, while 48 percent supported solar and 31 percent backed wind power development.

(snip)

The survey, covering almost 30,000 people, was carried out in the 25 EU member countries as well as acceding and candidate states from Oct. 11 to Nov. 15 last year.

All this story really needs is a brief sentence explaining that the poll results might have been different had it been taken after the record cold snap that struck the continent simultaneously with a natural gas supply crisis. I'm not surprised they didn't bother. Click here and here for some previous examples.

Meanwhile, the U.K. has started its long-awaited energy policy review.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Jim Hopf said…
The problem with this poll is the nature of the questions being asked. I'm tired of hearing about people's answers to irrelevant questions like "given a choice, would you like to have all your energy come from solar, wind, or nuclear".

Allow me to translate the real question being implied by the above wording. "Given a choice, would you like to have most or all of your energy be delivered, at the same cost and same reliability, by renewables instead of nuclear." Hell, even I would answer yes to that question, and I'm as pro-nuclear as they come.

As an encore, why didn't they list, next to solar and wind, the equally realistic option of having all your power magically come out of the wall, absolutely free!! Would you prefer that option? I know I would!

They list nuclear as the least popular. Compared to what? Only renewables? Where is the comparison (in popularity) to conventional coal? To gas imported from Russia? Since all experts know that renewables will provide at most ~15-20% of overall supply for the foreseeable future, these are the real alternative options to nuclear.

Thus, a real poll, that asks questions that are actually meaningful, would read as follows:

Question 1:

For the forseeable future, the majority (over 80%) of our electricifty will be coming from traditional sources. Of the three primary (real) energy supply options listed below, which would you prefer:

a) Coal. (Note: Will require blowing off CO2 emissions reductions, as well as continuing to accept thousands of annual pollution related deaths).

b) Gas imported from Russia or the Middle East.

c) Nuclear.


Question 2:

It may be possible to increase renewables share somewhat from the ~15-20% share listed above, but this will require a significant increase in electricity prices (due to the intermittant nature of renewables).

How much more would you be willing to pay for power in order to increase renewables share by an additional 10%? An additional 20%?

These are meaningful questions; the REAL questions that people need to answer. Poll results based on meaningless, irrelevant questions need to ignored, and prevented in the future. Why aren't the organizations conducting these "polls" being confronted on this?

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …