Skip to main content

New Jersey Voters Favor New Nuclear by Margin of 2-1

From the wire:
Nearly 9 out of 10 New Jersey voters agree that more needs to be done to increase the state’s electricity supplies and, by a 2 to 1 margin, support the use of nuclear power to meet that need, according to a new poll released today by the New Jersey Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition (NJ ACRE).

Although the survey showed a majority believe nuclear power to be safe, reliable, affordable and clean, most had no idea that more than half of the electricity consumed in New Jersey comes from nuclear energy plants, placing the figure instead at only 26 percent.

Speaking today at the New Jersey AFL-CIO conference in Atlantic City, Dr. Edward H. Salmon, chairman of the Coalition and a former president of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, told the assembled union leaders that the poll underscored the need to educate the public to all available clean energy options.

“We believe nuclear energy, with its proven ability to safely produce large amounts of base-load electricity with zero greenhouse gas emissions, must be part of New Jersey’s overall energy master plan – both in terms of meeting our growing demand for electricity and the need to reduce CO2 emissions,” said Dr. Salmon, who called for the re-licensing of Oyster Creek nuclear plant along with increased conservation measures and significant investment in renewable energy sources.
For more, click here.

UPDATE: For the actual poll results, click here (PDF).

Comments

Anonymous said…
Asked in the poll, "Which of the following sources should be developed to meet New Jersey's growing demand for electricity while meeting the state's clean air objectives?"

16% named nuclear. 40% said solar, 23% said wind, 12% said natural gas, other sources smaller percentages.

How does that represent "a 2-to-1 margin" in favor of nuclear for future electricity in the state?
David Bradish said…
If you go to the pdf at the bottom of the post, there is a question that asks "Do you support or oppose the use of nuclear power in New Jersey?" on page 2.

The results are 58% support and 28% oppose. That's how the 2 to 1 margin is derived.
Anonymous said…
Sure, but that wasn't the question asking about new plants. When SPECIFICALLY asked about sources to meet NJ's growing demand, there was NOT a 2-to-1 margin in favor of nuclear; nuclear came in well behind some other sources.

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 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…