Skip to main content

Rasmussen Tracks Nuclear Energy

polls-vs-results-feb5 Rasmussen Reports has released a new poll on nuclear energy in the wake of President Obama’s loan guarantee announcement. Bottom line:

49% of Americans favor the building of new nuclear power plants. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are opposed to the idea, and 24% are not sure.

We’ve seen better, but given the mood of the country in general – or at least Rasmussen’s read of it – we’re not terribly surprised. (Last year, Gallup had support for nuclear energy at 59%.) Does this mean support has shrunk – no, at least not necessarily, because Gallup and Rasmussen use different surveys, stress items differently, etc. We’d need more polls and even then, not use them to draw conclusions. The goal for advocates is to see what the trends are so one one can correct public misperceptions or weaknesses in the message. But this isn’t advertising: lies not allowed.

Here’s a few other tidbits:

Sixty-one percent (61%) of adults now believe that finding new sources of energy is more important than reducing the amount of energy Americans consume. Thirty-two percent (32%) say energy conservation is more important. These findings have remained relatively consistent for months.

This strikes us as fairly honest on the part of the polled – who wants to have the big screen TV shut off right before the voting results on American Idol?

The gender gap in energy issues continues – we’ve seen some polls that show a narrowing in this metric. Not Rasmussen, though:

Forty-seven percent (47%) of women say the billions in loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants would be better spent on the development of alternative new energy sources, a view shared by just 36% of men.

We wonder if Rasmussen explained what loan guarantees are – to a lot of people, we’re reasonably sure they sound like a handout, especially with the word “billions” attached to them. Regardless, the negatives still polled under 50% for both men and women, not bad.

So – a mixed bag. We took a look at some other recent Rasmussen findings:

61% Say Government Should Keep Out of Housing Market

Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed

28% Say U.S. Heading In Right Direction

34% Favor Raising Taxes On Those Making More Than $100,000

35% Say Stimulus Has Helped Economy, 33% Say It Has Hurt

Those are, shall we say, some very sour results. We’re surprised, in this context, that nuclear energy did as well as it did.

Polls, polls, polls! 35% think cats taste better with mustard, 25% ketchup, the rest undecided.

Comments

Rod Adams said…
Mark - the NEI needs to work hard to make sure that people understand that the government is NOT spending money by issuing loan guarantees. There is no such alternative as spending that money on other renewable energy sources.

The flow of money is FROM the industry to the government in the form of loan origination fees.

(I know that the language of the law is that those fees are called "subsidy payments" but that is wording that appears designed to turn people against the program because they have been trained to believe that subsidies for industry are BAD.)

The industry needs to help its supporters by spending a bit of money to beat this drum - there is NO government money being spent through the loan guarantee program. Its demise would NOT result in those billions going to wind or solar projects because the billions are not the government's money to spend.
David Bradish said…
the government is NOT spending money by issuing loan guarantees.

In Vogtle's case, the loans are coming from the Federal Financing Bank. At the end of the program, though, the government should definitely be making money through the fees like you say.

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 …