Skip to main content

Pew and the Transient Nature of Polling

The Pew poll has come out and found – surprise! – that events in Japan have raised opposition to nuclear energy. Now, we should note that Pew has always been one of the roughest polls on nuclear energy, much more so than the TV network polls or Gallup. I’m not enough of a poll hound to know why this should be so, but approval of nuclear energy has rarely shivered above 50 percent at Pew – it’s gotten over 60 percent at Gallup, by way of contrast.

At Pew, support is now at 39 percent. That seems pretty depressing, but it is driven by a story that has gotten notably sensationalistic coverage – and a lot of it - in the press. Happily, I didn’t even have to maneuver myself into believing that that explains things – Pew did it for me. Take a look at the chart below:

Pew drilling You’ll notice that support for offshore drilling also dropped – for awhile – for some reason - last year, hitting 44 percent, a larger drop in points (in Pew terms) than nuclear energy lost this year. It hasn’t completely regained that loss, but it’s on its way.

Now, it’s often said that Americans have short memories and don’t learn the lessons of a crisis. Don’t believe it. What really happens is that the result of a crisis rarely matches the hysteria that accompanied it and people resume their previous view unless there’s a compelling reason not to. Thus it was with the BP oil spill.

It’s logical that poll numbers droop after a dramatic event takes place – it’s why opportunists use such events to try to make those numbers permanent and bend public policy to their will. But the public doesn’t really work the issues that way.

So dire numbers from Pew while an emergency is going on? – eh!

We don’t mean to downplay the seriousness of the events in Japan. They are very serious. But do look at polls at such times with a mildly fishy eye. They tell you less than what you need to know.

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...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

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...