Poll Respondents are Randomly Selected, New Nuclear Plant Sites Are Not

Earlier this evening Nuclear News Flashes from Platts moved a news item that didn't gibe with a lot of what I've read about public opinion and new nuclear plant construction:

--A NEW POLL FOUND 65% OF RESPONDENTS WOULD OPPOSE A NEW NUCLEAR PLANT in their community. The results of the survey of 1,000 randomly selected respondents in the US were released October 10 by the Saint Consulting Group. The survey was conducted by the Logit Group in early August. The poll found that 58% of respondents would oppose an oil, coal, or natural gas plant. The poll found 76% would support a wind plant, while 53% would support a hydro plant and 50% would support a biofuels plant. "Support and opposition to all types of power plants tracks fairly consistently across all geographic regions of the US, with the Midwest the most receptive region to new power plant construction," the
Saint Consulting Group said. The survey has a margin of error of 3.1%.

After a blizzard of evening email traffic, I was able to get hold of Ann Bisconti of Bisconti Research. She's responsible for conducting the public opinion polling that you'll find summarized in the NEI publication, Perspective on Public Opinion.

Ann told me that the companies involved, Saint Consulting Group and the Logit Group, are reputable firms, however ...

The flaw in the research is asking the national public if they would support or oppose a nuclear power plant in their community. Nuclear power plants will be built in communities that are suitable for such facilities and where the public wants them.

So while the respondents to this poll question might have been randomly selected, the future sites of new nuclear power plants in the U.S. will not be. For the most part, the industry is considering building new nuclear reactors at current plant sites in communities that have lived side by side with nuclear power plants for decades. And when you ask those people how they feel about building new nuclear power plants in their communities, 71% answer favorably (MS Word).

For the complete archive of our publication, Perspective on Public Opinion, click here.

Comments

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog