Skip to main content

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

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.

Comments

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…