Skip to main content

Editorials and Polls

It’s too soon to understand what impact the events in Japan will have on the American nuclear energy industry or even on public opinion about nuclear energy. But the approach to these open questions taken by newspapers has been interesting - editorials for the most part remain supportive of nuclear energy and some even offer constructive advice. Polls, meanwhile, provide a snapshot that show the industry remaining in good shape.

First, some editorials:

Here is the Denver Post:

Just this past week, more than 300 people turned out in Pueblo to voice their opposition to a proposed nuclear energy park there. But now is not the time to be making long-term decisions about the future of nuclear power in the U.S. First, we still don't have all of the details about what's happening in Japan, how it might be avoided elsewhere, and exactly what the impacts will be to people, the environment and the industry. … Then, when the emergency has subsided, cooler heads can debate the future of nuclear energy in the U.S.

That’s judicious enough for right now.

Here’s the Oshkosh (Wisconsin) Northwestern:

To be fair, completely swearing off nuclear power in wake of the disaster in Japan may be a short-sighted reaction. But the public and policymakers need to have an honest, comprehensive discussion about the risks, drawbacks and other options before opening reactors that will operate for decades.

A short sighted reaction, indeed. Policymakers and the industry are already discussing the elements listed above and more – we have some posts below about that. Again, reasonably judicious.

Other editorials have taken a sort of “a plague on all energy sources” approach. As USA Today put it, “No major source of energy the United States is using comes without a heavy cost.”

That seems to go too far. “No major source of transportation the United States is using comes without a heavy cost” is just as accurate but just as off.

---

Here’s a USA Today/Gallup poll:

Americans oppose building more nuclear plants by 47%-44%, the poll finds. Support for using nuclear energy was at 57% when Gallup asked a similar question about a week before Friday's earthquake and tsunami left Japan struggling to avert catastrophic meltdowns and fires at three damaged nuclear plants.

And here’s a Fox News poll:

But a slim 51-percent majority of American voters said they still believed nuclear power is a safe source of energy, down only 2 percentage points from the 53 percent who thought so earlier.

Among groups, men (64 percent) are much more likely than women (40 percent) to believe nuclear power is safe. A 61-percent majority of Republicans thinks it is safe, while the largest number of Democrats says it isn’t (48 percent). For those ages 55 and older, 57 percent think nuclear power is safe, compared to 40 percent of those under age 30.

All over the map, perhaps, but not unexpected – actually, rather better that I would expect – after the tide of alarmist and sensationalist reporting (and admittedly, some good reporting, too) on the cable news channels. People are voicing reasonable if cautious support.

These are a snapshot in time. Opinions – both in polls and on newspaper editorial pages - are bound to stabilize as the emergency in Japan passes.

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 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…