Skip to main content

Might Be Time for Another Poll

Over the Holidays, I missed the fact that the Guardian (U.K.) had commissioned a poll on the British public's feelings about nuclear energy:
Almost half of Britons say no new nuclear power stations should be built in the UK, according to a Guardian/ICM poll which comes as ministers consider whether to restart Britain's controversial atomic power programme to meet growing energy demand.

The poll finds that neither the pro- nor the anti-nuclear lobby can rely on a clear majority of public support: 48% of people oppose expanding nuclear energy, while 45% support it. The findings show the scale of the public relations exercise required. About 19% of the UK's electricity is generated by its 14 nuclear power stations, but this is expected to drop to 7% by 2020 as older reactors are switched off.

There's just one catch: The Poll, conducted for the paper by ICM Research, was taken between December 15 and 18, 2005 -- about two weeks before the current crisis roiling European natural gas markets.

I wonder what the results would be if the poll were conducted again right now? And as it turns out, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair is seizing the opportunity:
The spokesman said Blair had highlighted the potential problems of the security of energy supply at Hampton Court last year.

Blair had urged the EU to "come up with a coherent energy policy".

The spokesman said: "These events have underlined the prime minister's thinking in making that argument.

"Security of supply was one of the reasons both behind what the prime minister said at Hampton Court about Europe, and behind setting up an energy review."

The spokesman denied that the current crisis would necessarily lead to a new programme of building nuclear reactors in the UK.

"Does an energy review knee-jerk to one particular event? No.

"But does it take into account the need for security of supply, diversity of supply, further down the line?

"That's one of the issues that needs to be considered. There is an issue of security of supply, there was already before this event, and clearly this event underlines that issue."
Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
I am not surprised at the British poll results. The Greenham Common women's movement, which in the 1980's picketed the US Airforce Base at Greenham Common for several years, was very high profile in its opposition to the presence of US nuclear warheads in the UK. I believe that many of those who supported that movement would inextricably link the military and civilian nuclear programs, which were in fact linked in the UK in any event. It will take more public debate and education to overcome those long held prejudices.

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 …