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

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...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...