Skip to main content

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

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 …