Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy Is Better Supported than Many Know – And How You Can Help Them Know

trend-graph Nuclear energy is now and has long been well supported by the American people. A recent poll conducted by Bisconti Research and Quest Global Research showed that a full 82 percent of respondents agreed that “We should take advantage of all low-carbon energy sources, including nuclear, hydro and renewable energy, to produce the electricity we need while limiting greenhouse gas emissions.”

But an interesting finding may have something to do with muting that support and it’s something that you – and you and you – can do something about. Here’s the relevant bit:

The survey also highlights various perception gaps where the public holds an opinion contrary to the facts, consistently finding, for example, that people greatly underestimate support for nuclear energy among their neighbors.

While 65 percent personally favor nuclear energy, only 31 percent of the public believes that the majority of people in their community hold the same view. Forty percent believe that a majority opposes nuclear energy, and 6 percent believe people are divided evenly on its use. Another 24 percent do not know. Bisconti said this perception gap could contribute to the view that nuclear energy is not supported as broadly as it is and might affect public policy accordingly.

That’s a problem. Now, it’s definitely true that nuclear energy is not a topic that will turn up at the local bar or family cookout on any kind of regular basis – let’s not be silly about this – but the spectre of carbon emissions and climate change has become a topic. Nuclear energy is then natural to bring into the conversation because of its emission-free nature. And it produces energy non-stop, which wind and solar cannot do. And one facility produces as much as or more electricity than its fossil fuel cousins.

NEI produces a series of state fact sheets that can get you up to speed on how nuclear energy contributes to your state. Go to this page and select your state. The sheets are nicely formatted pdfs, so you can print off as many as you want. You will want to look at your state fact sheet even if your state has no nuclear facility because the sheets provide information on companies that have dealings with facilities or a connection with the industry.

It’s also worth pointing out that states without facilities – well, not Alaska and Hawaii – belong to a regional grid that will almost certainly have nuclear energy plants. EPA has a map to show the grid segments.

Enough. The idea is simple – to raise the number of people who know that other people support nuclear energy so that they may openly support it as well and understand that it is widely supported. Which it is. So that’s the assignment. So – hop to it.

Comments

Brian Freeman said…
Can you guys put out some information on pollutants other then CO2? The fact is that a lot of people in this country do not care about CO2 so we are only appealing to certain people when we discuss that they do not put out CO2.

How about SOx, NOx, and Mercury? The fact sheets you reference do not even mention these pollutants and they are very negative to the atmosphere and people.

If your only goal is to appeal to environmentalists then please carry on.

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 …