Skip to main content

New Jersey Voters Favor New Nuclear by Margin of 2-1

By Eric McErlain
From the wire:
Nearly 9 out of 10 New Jersey voters agree that more needs to be done to increase the state’s electricity supplies and, by a 2 to 1 margin, support the use of nuclear power to meet that need, according to a new poll released today by the New Jersey Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition (NJ ACRE).

Although the survey showed a majority believe nuclear power to be safe, reliable, affordable and clean, most had no idea that more than half of the electricity consumed in New Jersey comes from nuclear energy plants, placing the figure instead at only 26 percent.

Speaking today at the New Jersey AFL-CIO conference in Atlantic City, Dr. Edward H. Salmon, chairman of the Coalition and a former president of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, told the assembled union leaders that the poll underscored the need to educate the public to all available clean energy options.

“We believe nuclear energy, with its proven ability to safely produce large amounts of base-load electricity with zero greenhouse gas emissions, must be part of New Jersey’s overall energy master plan – both in terms of meeting our growing demand for electricity and the need to reduce CO2 emissions,” said Dr. Salmon, who called for the re-licensing of Oyster Creek nuclear plant along with increased conservation measures and significant investment in renewable energy sources.
For more, click here.

UPDATE: For the actual poll results, click here (PDF).
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Asked in the poll, "Which of the following sources should be developed to meet New Jersey's growing demand for electricity while meeting the state's clean air objectives?"

16% named nuclear. 40% said solar, 23% said wind, 12% said natural gas, other sources smaller percentages.

How does that represent "a 2-to-1 margin" in favor of nuclear for future electricity in the state?
September 26, 2007 at 1:09 PM
David Bradish said…
If you go to the pdf at the bottom of the post, there is a question that asks "Do you support or oppose the use of nuclear power in New Jersey?" on page 2.

The results are 58% support and 28% oppose. That's how the 2 to 1 margin is derived.
September 26, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Anonymous said…
Sure, but that wasn't the question asking about new plants. When SPECIFICALLY asked about sources to meet NJ's growing demand, there was NOT a 2-to-1 margin in favor of nuclear; nuclear came in well behind some other sources.
September 27, 2007 at 12:50 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