Skip to main content

Penn. Polls High on Nuclear Energy

286 verticalcapsfinalmodifiedWe don’t see a lot of polls on nuclear energy taken in individual states. Support nationally is usually above 50 and sometimes 60 percent in most big polls taken about it (this Gallup poll from March has it at 57 percent). But the states?

Well, The Pennsylvania Energy Alliance has tried a poll and found that nearly 90 percent “believe the use of nuclear power is an important part of meeting the United States' electricity needs.” That’s as close to a consensus as you can get.

"It's quite apparent that people recognize the benefits of nuclear power as a clean, safe and reliable source of energy," said PA Energy Alliance Executive Director Melissa Grimm. "The state needs to have a reliable source of electricity, especially now with summer approaching and our energy demands increasing." 

I’m not enough of a poll wonk to know how to determine the value of a poll taken by an interested party – but I am enough of one to know what to look for. The polls done by Bisconti and Associates for NEI, for example, are done to a high standard and transparent enough (which, in part, guarantees that high standard) that dyed-in-the-wool poll watchers can review the methodology and questions and llok for loaded and leading questions or sequences of questions.

I took a look over at the PEA (nice acronym there – I think it prefers PAEA). This is how it describes itself:

The Alliance promotes the use of nuclear energy as a clean, safe, reliable and affordable way to produce electricity.

The goal of the PA Energy Alliance is to increase public awareness of the environmental and economic benefits of nuclear energy and provide a forum through which members can express their support for the continued safe operation of Pennsylvania’s five nuclear energy plants.

So it is an interested party. The questions are available – you can download the report here. It’s a very straightforward poll:

How important is the use of nuclear power in terms of meeting our country’s electricity needs – very important, somewhat important or not at all important?

That solicits an opinion.

Nuclear power helps reduce the effects of global warming because it emits no emissions or greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

You agree or disagree with this one. This tests knowledge, I guess, so the alliance can determine what messages need more work. 59 percent knew that nuclear energy does not produce carbon emissions.

But - I probably would have rethought that “emit no emissions” phrase – because if there’s no emissions there’s no emitting – and because nuclear facilities do emit (steam, for example) – just not greenhouse gases.

The point is, you can do this with the poll – decide whether the questions work and are fair. So see what you think.

The results of the poll make sense to me, even with Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania’s background. That accident frightened people, of course, but it harmed no one and released no radiation. Many people now in the state were not alive at the time and many others have left the state one way or another.

So there’s that. There’s also the prevalence of nuclear energy’s contribution to the state – there are nine reactors at five sites arrayed pretty evenly across the bottom two-thirds of the state. That means a lot of Pennsylvanians work at nuclear plants or are aware of their presence. Bisconti’s polls have shown on a national level that neighbors of plants like them a lot – they provide good careers and contribute to their local communities materially and financially. That bolster, in my mind, the results of this poll.

So – as with any poll, view it with as many factors in mind as possible. But this one seems good – and it’d be great to see other states try the same thing.

The PAEA logo.

Comments

Rod Adams said…
Pennsylvania is not only the home to nine nuclear power plants, but it is also the home state of Westinghouse and a large number of its employees and suppliers. It is also the home of Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory and hosted the Shippingport demonstration reactor plant.

Nuclear energy has been very, very good to Pennsylvania for more than five decades. It is good to know that the residents seem to understand that at least as well as they understand that they reside above the Marcellus Shale formation.
jimwg said…
I dunno. I mean if this poll was truly on the level down the line then Arnie and Helen ought be taking early retirements since we wouldn't have to be fighting tooth and nail just to keep plants open, much less built.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Anonymous said…
"Fighting tooth and nail just to keep plants open"? On what planet is that happening? NRC has NEVER denied a license renewal request for a power reactor. The industry is 70-0 or something like that.
Don Kosloff said…
Actually, the NRC has officially denied a license renewal request and required others to provide additional information even before the request has been accepted for docketing. But anti-nukes don't like to let facts get in the way of a good lie.

D. Kosloff
Don Kosloff said…
In the real world, the NRC has rejected one License Renewal Application and required applicants to provide additional information before the NRC would even accept the application for reiview. Not to mention the thousands of man-hours required to complete an application after initial acceptance for review. But anti-nukes can't let a few facts get in the way of a good lie. The actual score is USA 70, anti-nukes zero.
Anonymous said…
This is an anonymous post, but I'll identify myself: E. Michael Blake

No docketed renewal application has ever been rejected. The instances in which the NRC decided that there was insufficient information in the applications led simply to the addition of more information to the applications, which were then docketed (accepted for review). With the recent addition of Columbia and Pilgrim, there are now 73 reactors approved for renewal. The most contentious review is still in progress, however: Indian Point-2/-3, for which exhibits for the hearing are still being submitted.

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 …

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…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …