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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...