Skip to main content

NIMBY = Nuclear Energy in My Backyard

Ann Bisconti
The following is a guest post by Ann S. Bisconti, PhD, President, Bisconti Research, Inc.

After a decade of public opinion surveys that consistently find broad and deep support for nuclear energy among nuclear power plant neighbors, is it time to re-think NIMBY? The conventional wisdom goes that “not-in-my-backyard,” is a barrier to nuclear energy. That may be true in some locations, but it is absolutely clear that a NIMBY attitude toward nuclear energy does not apply to most people who live close to America’s nuclear power plants.

Six biennial surveys of U.S. nuclear power plant neighbors that we have conducted for the Nuclear Energy Institute since 2005 confirm that residents close to the facilities are far more favorable to nuclear energy than the general public, and they are very supportive of the local plant. The latest nuclear power plant neighbor survey, just released, was conducted May 26 through June 13. A random sample of 1,080 respondents was drawn from residents of the 60 sites in the U.S. where nuclear power plants are located, an equal number per site. They were interviewed by landline and cellphone. Households where someone works at a nuclear power plant were excluded.

Favorable Attitudes to Nuclear Energy

Familiarity makes a difference: 83 percent of plant neighbors favor the use of nuclear energy, compared with 68 percent of the general public surveyed this February. Nearly twice as many plant neighbors strongly favor nuclear energy (50 percent) compared with the general public (27 percent).


Plant neighbors see nuclear energy‘s attributes in a favorable light. Majorities associate nuclear energy “a lot” with reliable electricity (72 percent), efficiency (65 percent), job creation (60 percent), clean air (59 percent), energy security (57 percent), and affordable electricity (54 percent).

An overwhelming majority (89 percent) reported that they have a favorable impression of the nuclear power plant closest to where they live and the way it has operated recently. That breaks down as 57 percent very favorable, 32 percent somewhat favorable, 6 percent somewhat unfavorable, 4 percent very unfavorable, and 1 percent unsure. These impressions have changed little over the decade.

Not only do most nuclear power plant neighbors favor their nearby plant, 69 percent would find it acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant, assuming more electricity were needed. That acceptability is lower in the Northeast (58 percent) than in the South (70 percent), Midwest (73 percent) and West (79 percent).

Neighbors expressed confidence in the company that operates the nearby plant. They gave the company and plant high marks for safety and environmental protection. They also recognized the plant’s contribution to the economy and jobs, as well as the company’s community involvement.


Real world experience corroborates the surveys. Conventional wisdom once held that, due to public opposition, no company would be able to seek renewal of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses to operate its nuclear power plants beyond 40 years. Already 75 nuclear power plants have received license renewals, and 18 more have applications under review. Local opposition to license renewal has been minimal, if any. Even more difficult, people said, would be to gain the support needed to build new plants. Five new reactors are under construction in Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina with solid public support.

Nuclear Energy’s Reverse NIMBY Advantage Because of Scale

Nuclear energy has a reverse NIMBY advantage compared to some other sources of electricity. That advantage is due to scale. One reactor provides enough electricity for 690,000 homes and businesses. To make a large contribution to the nation’s electricity, the support of only a small number of communities that actually want a nuclear power plant is required. Those communities are already there, among the 60 communities across the country with existing plants. Other communities may seek nuclear energy facilities as well.

In contrast, most other energy sources require many locations to match the generation of one reactor. That means many diverse approvals and likely battles with communities that, for example, do not want wind turbines in their backyard.

An assessment of NIMBY and its impact on the future development of energy sources can be more nuanced by asking these questions: How many supportive locations are needed? And are the locations already there?

Comments

neil todreas said…
As the studies have indicated communities in close proximity to nuclear plants have a favorable view of nuclear power . However NIMBY applies to two types of communities-- those with existing nuclear power plants and those in which nuclear power would be introduced for the first time. It is the second community that I label the general public that is most likely still NIMY oriented regarding introduction of nuclear power plants in their local. .The survey results presented for the general public are for answer to the general question of nuclear power expansion in the US, not necessarily in the respondent's own back yard. A further survey to answer this followup question among this second community would be instructive in assessing their NIMBY proclivity.
Kelly L Taylor said…
Is there comparable data available for other power sources? I wonder whether the "I like my backyard" effect applies for local community support of natural gas, wind, solar, and fossil power stations as well.

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 …