Skip to main content

NEI Comissioned Survey Finds Strong Local Support for New Watts Bar Reactor

By Eric McErlain
From an NEI press release:
More than 80 percent of Tennesseans living within 10 miles of the Watts Bar nuclear power plant would accept construction of a new reactor at the plant site or completion of the Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor, according to a public opinion survey conducted in July for the Nuclear Energy Institute.

The telephone survey of 300 randomly selected adults found that 88 percent of respondents would agree with a decision by the Tennessee Valley Authority to complete the Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor on which construction was halted in 1985. Sixty-eight percent “strongly agreed” and 20 percent “somewhat agreed,” while only 11 percent disagreed.

Eighty-three percent of plant neighbors said that, if a new power plant were needed to supply electricity, they would accept a decision to add a new reactor “at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant.” Only 14 percent of respondents said construction of a new reactor at the nearest plant site would not be acceptable.

The survey was conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. of Washington, D.C., with Quest Research Group. It has a margin of error of plus or minus six percentage points. Employees of TVA and their families were excluded from the survey.

Eighty-six percent of respondents (62 percent of them strongly) said they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States. Only 13 percent opposed the use of nuclear energy.

One hundred and four nuclear plants operating in 31 states provide electricity to one of every five homes and businesses. Three TVA reactors in Tennessee, each with a generating capacity of more than 1,100 megawatts, provide 26 percent of the electricity produced in the state.

Ninety-two percent of Watts Bar neighbors said their “general impression of this plant and the way it has operated recently” is favorable. Sixty-five percent of respondents voiced a “very favorable” impression and 27 percent “somewhat favorable,” with only five percent of respondents voicing an unfavorable impression.

Ninety percent of the Tennesseans surveyed rated the power plant’s safety as high, with only four percent assigning a low safety rating. Eighty-one percent said they feel well informed about the nearest nuclear plant, with 19 percent saying they do not feel well informed.
For more opinion data on public acceptance of nuclear energy, see the NEI publication, Perspective on Public Opinion.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more