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

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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…