Skip to main content

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

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).

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?
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.
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.

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…