Skip to main content

Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy: Where is it Headed?

Ann Bisconti
The following is a guest post by Ann S. Bisconti, PhD, President, Bisconti Research, Inc.

As we await the results of the ongoing NEI Spring 2016 Public Opinion Survey on Nuclear Energy, two other surveys have raised the question: Where is public opinion about nuclear energy headed? Scientific American Plugged In, March 23, pondered the dramatically different results from questions about nuclear energy asked in polls by Gallup and the University of Texas (UT) and essentially ended puzzled, concluding that polls are faulty. But wait a minute. Both polls are accurate, and we can learn lessons about public opinion by studying them.

Gallup’s Annual Environmental Poll includes one question about nuclear energy, an NEI tracking question: “Overall, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States.” Gallup found 44 percent in favor and 54 percent opposed in 2016, a big drop in favorability from 2015, and headlined that, for the first time, a majority of Americans oppose nuclear energy.

The UT Energy Poll asks: “Based on what you know, to what extent do you support or oppose the use of nuclear energy? (Strongly oppose, somewhat oppose, neither support nor oppose, somewhat support, or strongly support, not sure).” In contrast to Gallup, UT found that support increased from 2015 to 2016. Currently, the poll shows, 39 percent strongly or somewhat support nuclear energy, 26 percent strongly or somewhat oppose nuclear energy, and 35 percent neither support nor oppose.


Here are some lessons from these polls that are consistent with what we know from 33 years of comprehensive NEI research on public attitudes:
  • Public opinion about nuclear energy is, for the most part, not strongly held. The UT poll shows many people in the middle, and so do NEI surveys.
  • Public opinion is highly changeable and reflects a trade off people make—consciously or unconsciously—between perceptions of need and safety concerns, and the two polls illustrate how this happens. In the Gallup poll, the question about support for nuclear energy is asked after questions about hazards, triggering focus on safety concerns. In the context of questions about energy, as in the UT Energy Poll, a question about support for nuclear energy may trigger thoughts of how nuclear energy fits into the energy picture.
  • Energy concerns drive up support for nuclear energy. Gallup’s explanation for the downturn on the favorability question is primarily that energy is not currently on the public agenda. That is true. When energy is perceived to be abundant, as it is today, the perceived urgency for nuclear energy diminishes. Historically, resurgent strong support for nuclear energy coincides with periods characterized not only by electricity shortages but also by situations not especially relevant to nuclear energy such as high gasoline prices or conflict in the Middle East.
NEI’s surveys assess and track the many dimensions of attitudes toward nuclear energy, as well as the influences on these attitudes. As of 2015, U.S. public support for nuclear energy continued to be broad but not deep, and highly changeable; 68 percent in March and 64 percent in September said they favored the use of nuclear energy. A majority held middle positions, as 26 percent strongly favored nuclear energy while 15 percent strongly opposed (September).

Energy is likely to remain abundant for years, so continued support for nuclear energy will depend on a better public understanding of the urgent need not just for energy sources but for nuclear energy in particular. Our research shows that Americans want both reliable electricity and clean air. Most do not know that nuclear energy is the only source that provides both. Only nuclear energy is both a 24/7 baseload energy source like coal and natural gas and also a carbon-free energy source like solar and wind.

Challenges to building that awareness are considerable, NEI surveys showed:
  • In an open-ended question, only 10 percent of those favoring nuclear energy mentioned clean air, no pollution, or climate change as one of the reasons for their opinion (Spring 2015).
  • 67 percent of the public believed that nuclear energy releases greenhouse gases (Spring 2014)
  • 70 percent did not know that nuclear energy is the largest source of low-carbon electricity today—when, in fact, it is the largest source by far (Fall 2015).
After learning the real magnitude of nuclear energy’s contribution to the low-carbon mix, 84 percent said that nuclear energy should be important, and 50 percent said it should be very important (Fall 2015). Among those who said nuclear energy should be important after learning that information were 62 percent of those initially opposed to nuclear energy and 43 percent of those initially strongly opposed.

Comments

jimwg said…

Nuclear energy desperately needs a “atomic Carl Sagan” to get the de-FUDing facts out to the unwashed. That’s the kind of nuclear advocate I’m looking for. For example, this morning on a major feature on CBS Morning News, the reporter Jenkin Duncan was having a cow about how the Brussels attacks will effect “the protection and progress” of all nuclear plants — of course complete with irrelevant footage of Fukushima (just can’t get enough of masked bunny-suited workers!) and how “EASY” is to hack into plant computers and stealing radio materials and that the nuclear terrorist peril can only be reduced by abolishing such plants like nearby Germany (big sigh of relief for German’s foresight!!) I’m just waiting on any certified pro nuclear advocate orgs to knock on CBS’s door for a little correction if not equal time! Greenpeace sure isn’t!

James Greenidge
Queens NY

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 …