Skip to main content

Where the Chips Fall

 popo_chartWe sometimes say here that the viability of nuclear energy from a public opinion perspective is ever improving. The reason we say that is that we look at polls that tell us so.

Now, NEI-sponsored polls, although they're as honestly conducted as can be - NEI really can't learn anything about its effectiveness by playing tricks - can still be viewed by some with a fishy eye. Any poll taken by an interested party on any subject can be seen as suspect - we've all seen polls that do not seem to correlate to any known reality. (Which doesn't mean we won't encourage you to take a look at NEI's public opinion efforts -er, click here, in other words.)

But here are numbers from rather more disinterested parties that show the how our fellow citizens view the state of building new nuclear energy plants:

53 percent said that we should build more nuclear power plants; 31 percent said we should not (NBC News/Wall Street Journal August 2008).

51 percent favored building more nuclear power plants as a way to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil; 41 percent opposed (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics June 2008).

67 percent supported building more nuclear power plants in the U.S.; 23 percent opposed (Zogby May 2008).

53 percent said they would support the construction of new nuclear power plants to meet future electric power needs; 36 percent opposed (Deloitte/ICR 2008).

57 percent supported building new nuclear power plants to generate electricity, knowing that “nuclear power is one of the energy sources, like wind and solar energy, that doesn’t contribute to global warming;” 34 percent opposed (Moore Information April 2008).

59 percent agreed that we should definitely build more nuclear power plants in the future; 39 percent disagreed (Bisconti Research for NEI April 2008.)

Okay, that last one was us. But before you crack wise and say, "A lot of hovering around 50% there," well, our presidential candidates should be so lucky. And even where the numbers hover around 50%, the undecided crowd number around 10-15% - numbers from which to grow. (That's how it works for the presidential candidates, too, come to think of it.)

As you can see, Zogby seems to be the outlier on the high side - all these firms have different methods and of course they all call different people. Number of respondents and margin of error play parts, too. We're pretty sure a combination of the black arts and pixie dust get involved with polling.

But the bottom line is that half or more Americans favor building nuclear energy plants and the numbers gets closer to 60 or higher when its "green" profile is made a part of the question. We could argue a lot about the objective value of "greeniness" - many do - but not its place in the popular consciousness. That matters, but not even as much as one might figure - its the very idea of nuclear energy that is finding more favor, and that matters a lot.

Chart from Perspectives on Public Opinion - POPO in NEI-speak. Clearer version can be found in the June 2008 issue linked above.

Comments

Brian Mays said…
"We're pretty sure a combination of the black arts and pixie dust get involved with polling."

It's funny that you should mention the black arts. It wasn't too long ago that Gallup reported that "one in five Americans (21%) say they believe in witches" so it's not surprising that at least 20% of the general American population would buy into the nonsense being pushed by the likes of the Nuclear (Dis)information Resource Service.

Fortunately, common sense almost always wins out in the end for the majority of the population, so anything above 50% is pretty good, in my opinion.
Jim Muckerheide said…
On pasteurization: the anti's of the day got a labeling requirement to print "Boiled Milk" on the carton.

In fairly short order it became the only kind being purchased.

Of course at the time the "industry" actively supported and explained its advantages, vs. today's timid squeeks from under their desks.

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 …