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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…