Skip to main content

Gallup: "A Majority Believe Nuclear Power Plants Are Safe"

By
We've reviewed polls from Pew (not good), Harris Interactive (better) and now comes Gallup:
Despite concerns about a possible nuclear disaster in the U.S., 58% of Americans think nuclear power plants in the U.S. are safe, while 36% say they are not. Americans are divided on the issue of increasing the number of nuclear power plants in this country, but these attitudes have not changed from 10 years ago.
A little more, on the question of building more nuclear energy plants in this country:
Despite all that has changed over the last 10 years, responses to this question did not change materially between its prior asking in May 2001 and the current poll, though it may be possible that attitudes changed between these intervals in unknown ways. Still, this finding suggests there has been no substantial diminution in support for nuclear power plant construction over this past decade -- despite the current, and highly visible, nuclear plant problems in Japan.
The numbers on this questions are 46-48. 


I wonder if the premise I've proposed about Pew and Harris - that support for nuclear energy would rise again after the events in Japan are resolved - will hold true here. I hope Gallup tries this poll again in a few months to find out.
Gallup's conclusion, provisional of course:
It may be months or years before the final impact of the Japanese disaster on American attitudes toward nuclear power can be assessed. In the short term, Americans are concerned about the dangers of a nuclear crisis in this country. But Gallup's most recent survey suggests that support for nuclear power may be more stable than some might think. A majority of Americans believe nuclear power plants in the U.S. are safe, and attitudes toward increasing their numbers do not appear to have changed in comparison with a previous measure 10 years ago.
Labels:

Comments

jimwg said…
Again, now is the time for the nuclear industry to step outside in public and educate the masses of how reactors operate; what radiation is and can and cannot do; give perspectives and objectivity of the issues occuring during this event, and rigoriously cite that it occured NOT because of the regular operation of the plant. Because of misleading headlines and banners there are too many people out there who relate the quake's deaths and destruction to the nuclear plants! Don't let Hollywood, celebs and the media do the "educating" for you!

James Greenidge
April 4, 2011 at 7:18 PM
Anonymous said…
Right now, we are between a rock and a hard place--- where the probable and possibly best choice for energy in the US is nuclear energy, despite the recent crisis in Japan. What can the United States learn from Japan's disaster? How can we prevent such a tragedy here?

Check out "Nuclear Energy: Lessons from Japan": http://bit.ly/
April 5, 2011 at 4:21 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

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

By
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...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more