Opposition to Nuclear Energy grows: Global Poll

[kristopher]

Source: INN


LONDON: Public opinion in many countries with nuclear power programmes has become more opposed to the technology since 2005, with most people believing conservation and renewable energy can meet future needs without nuclear power, a new multi-country poll for the BBC indicates.

Most of those polled in countries with operational nuclear plants are opposed to building new reactors, saying either that their country should “use the nuclear power stations we already have, but not build new ones” (39%), or that “nuclear power is dangerous and we should close down all operating nuclear plants as soon as possible” (30%).

...The proportion opposing the building of new nuclear power stations has grown to near-unanimity in Germany (from 73% to 90%), but also increased significantly in Mexico (51% to 82%), Japan (76% to 84%), France (66% to 83%), and Russia (from 61% to 80%).

In contrast, while still a minority view, support for building new nuclear plants has grown in the UK (from 33% to 37%), is stable in the USA (40% to 39%), and is also high in China (42%) and Pakistan (39%).

Read more: http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=186243

---

The poll also confirms that the "consensus view" is that renewables and energy efficiency enable us to move away from fossil fuels and nuclear.

[msongs]

1. nuclear is an obsolete technology kept alive by corporations buying politicians nt

[benh57]

2. false

false. 40 year old nuclear (ie, fukushima) is an obsolete technology. We have the technology today to make inherently safe nuclear plants with insigificant to no waste.

This is very sad poll. Understandable, based on what most public understands about nuclear, but it is equivalent to folks being against all cars because cars from the 70s are unsafe. Of course they are, they are obsolete designs.

[MichaelMcGuire]

3. What worries me

is they haven't developed anything more sophisticated for when it goes pear-shaped then throw buckets of water on it.

[avaistheone1]

4. They said the nuclear (fukushima) type of technology was safe 40 years as well.

That hasn't worked out as promised, eh?
Sorry, I am not buying the nuclear is safe bullshit.

AND if nuclear power is so safe why will no insurer underwrite the industry?

Instead the nuclear industry is once again trying to have the taxpayers pay for their bills. Enough, take your nuclear power and toxins with you. Bye, bye.

:hi:

[kristopher]

5. The GAO contradicts your claim.

"No currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel cycle technology developments — including advances in reprocess and recycle technologies — have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenge this nation confronts over at least the next several decades, if not longer’’

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=317383&mesg_id=317383




As for safety...

François Diaz Maurin is a former engineer of the French and US nuclear industries who has worked on the development of new nuclear power plant designs. He is now doing a doctorate on energy and society at ICTA, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.

The paper is "Fukushima: Consequences of Systemic Problems in Nuclear Plant Design"

Maurin identifies the two primary claims made by nuclear proponents who are attempting to persuade the public that nuclear power is safe.
Argument #1: “The accidents at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant are due to a unique occurrence of two natural disasters – an earthquake and a tsunami”.
Argument #2: “New reactor designs would stand such natural events”.

The rebuttals take a few pages so I'll just post the conclusion:

...the argument of better safety with new design seems to reflect complacency more than objectivity.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/kristopher/998

[joshcryer]

8. That quote is not from the GAO report. It's from the Yucca BRC whose interests are storage.

Nice try, though.

[kristopher]

10. Yes, it is from the GAO report

It is originally sourced to the Blue Ribbon Commission (set up to examine the issue of what to do with nuclear waste), and the GAO has accepted it as authoritative.

You are apparently trying to imply that they are dedicated to promoting an agenda.

Would you share the details of that agenda and their bias as you see it?

[kristopher]

12. Hello?

Yes, it is from the GAO report. It is originally sourced to the Blue Ribbon Commission (set up to examine the issue of what to do with nuclear waste), and the GAO has accepted it as authoritative.

DOE’s R&D plan acknowledged that the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission might affect DOE’s R&D direction. In its July 2011 draft report to the Secretary of Energy, the commission found that no currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactors and fuel cycle technologies—including advances in reprocessing and recycling—have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenge the United States faces over at least the next several decades.

Page 17
GAO: NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE OPTIONS
October 2011

You are apparently trying to imply that they (the Blue Ribbon Commission) are dedicated to promoting an agenda.

Would you share the details of that agenda and their bias as you see it?

[plumbob]

6. Nuclear plants are the filthiest, most dangerous, most waste-making, most expensive

way to boil water ever invented.

Really enjoying the 6.6 cent per kwh rate I'm getting from my windpower provider.

Really enjoyed no interruption in power last December when the incoming water lines to both natural gas and nuclear plants froze, leaving many in the dark. But not us.

[freshwest]

7. +1,000

[iemitsu]

9. no amount of energy produced by a nuclear power plant

will ever generate the wealth required to safely store the waste for tens of thousands of years. one does not even need math skills to figure that out.

[kristopher]

11. More info direct from BBC

Nuclear power 'gets little public support worldwide'
There was large support for renewables and for making energy supplies more efficient
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News

...Most believe that boosting efficiency and renewables can meet their needs.

Just 22% agreed that "nuclear power is relatively safe and an important source of electricity, and we should build more nuclear power plants".

In contrast, 71% thought their country "could almost entirely replace coal and nuclear energy within 20 years by becoming highly energy-efficient and focusing on generating energy from the Sun and wind".

Globally, 39% want to continue using existing reactors without building new ones, while 30% would like to shut everything down now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15864806


Changes in opposition to building new reactors in selected countries:
Country 2005 survey - 2011 survey

Germany 2005 73% - 2011 90%

France 2005 66% - 2011 83%

Russia 2005 61% - 2011 83%

Japan 2006 76% - 2011 84%.


Support for continuing to use existing plants while not building new ones:

France 58%

Japan 57%

Spain 55%

Germany 52%

Overall support for established technologies:
Nuclear 38%.

Coal 48%

Solar, wind and hydro 90+%