Skip to main content

Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy: Where is it Headed?

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

As we await the results of the ongoing NEI Spring 2016 Public Opinion Survey on Nuclear Energy, two other surveys have raised the question: Where is public opinion about nuclear energy headed? Scientific American Plugged In, March 23, pondered the dramatically different results from questions about nuclear energy asked in polls by Gallup and the University of Texas (UT) and essentially ended puzzled, concluding that polls are faulty. But wait a minute. Both polls are accurate, and we can learn lessons about public opinion by studying them.

Gallup’s Annual Environmental Poll includes one question about nuclear energy, an NEI tracking question: “Overall, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States.” Gallup found 44 percent in favor and 54 percent opposed in 2016, a big drop in favorability from 2015, and headlined that, for the first time, a majority of Americans oppose nuclear energy.

The UT Energy Poll asks: “Based on what you know, to what extent do you support or oppose the use of nuclear energy? (Strongly oppose, somewhat oppose, neither support nor oppose, somewhat support, or strongly support, not sure).” In contrast to Gallup, UT found that support increased from 2015 to 2016. Currently, the poll shows, 39 percent strongly or somewhat support nuclear energy, 26 percent strongly or somewhat oppose nuclear energy, and 35 percent neither support nor oppose.


Here are some lessons from these polls that are consistent with what we know from 33 years of comprehensive NEI research on public attitudes:
  • Public opinion about nuclear energy is, for the most part, not strongly held. The UT poll shows many people in the middle, and so do NEI surveys.
  • Public opinion is highly changeable and reflects a trade off people make—consciously or unconsciously—between perceptions of need and safety concerns, and the two polls illustrate how this happens. In the Gallup poll, the question about support for nuclear energy is asked after questions about hazards, triggering focus on safety concerns. In the context of questions about energy, as in the UT Energy Poll, a question about support for nuclear energy may trigger thoughts of how nuclear energy fits into the energy picture.
  • Energy concerns drive up support for nuclear energy. Gallup’s explanation for the downturn on the favorability question is primarily that energy is not currently on the public agenda. That is true. When energy is perceived to be abundant, as it is today, the perceived urgency for nuclear energy diminishes. Historically, resurgent strong support for nuclear energy coincides with periods characterized not only by electricity shortages but also by situations not especially relevant to nuclear energy such as high gasoline prices or conflict in the Middle East.
NEI’s surveys assess and track the many dimensions of attitudes toward nuclear energy, as well as the influences on these attitudes. As of 2015, U.S. public support for nuclear energy continued to be broad but not deep, and highly changeable; 68 percent in March and 64 percent in September said they favored the use of nuclear energy. A majority held middle positions, as 26 percent strongly favored nuclear energy while 15 percent strongly opposed (September).

Energy is likely to remain abundant for years, so continued support for nuclear energy will depend on a better public understanding of the urgent need not just for energy sources but for nuclear energy in particular. Our research shows that Americans want both reliable electricity and clean air. Most do not know that nuclear energy is the only source that provides both. Only nuclear energy is both a 24/7 baseload energy source like coal and natural gas and also a carbon-free energy source like solar and wind.

Challenges to building that awareness are considerable, NEI surveys showed:
  • In an open-ended question, only 10 percent of those favoring nuclear energy mentioned clean air, no pollution, or climate change as one of the reasons for their opinion (Spring 2015).
  • 67 percent of the public believed that nuclear energy releases greenhouse gases (Spring 2014)
  • 70 percent did not know that nuclear energy is the largest source of low-carbon electricity today—when, in fact, it is the largest source by far (Fall 2015).
After learning the real magnitude of nuclear energy’s contribution to the low-carbon mix, 84 percent said that nuclear energy should be important, and 50 percent said it should be very important (Fall 2015). Among those who said nuclear energy should be important after learning that information were 62 percent of those initially opposed to nuclear energy and 43 percent of those initially strongly opposed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin