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

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…

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 …