Public support in US for nuclear power reaches all time high (62%)

[Statistical]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The majority of Americans who favor nuclear-generated electricity hit a new high this year, according to a poll on Monday that suggests growing support for President Barack Obama's aid to the nuclear industry.

Sixty-two percent of 1,014 U.S. adults, who were surveyed March 4-7 by Gallup, said they favored nuclear energy as one way to meet national electricity needs.

Though a majority of Americans has long supported nuclear power, Gallup said the latest rating is the highest since it began polling on the issue in 1994.

Hoping to advance climate legislation in Congress, Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for new plant construction in February. The guarantees will help build the first new U.S. nuclear power facilities in nearly three decades.

----------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/22/AR2010032201333.html

[msongs]

1. let them build using private enterprise money...instead of screwing taxpayers for loans nt

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Good...We need to replace dependence on oil with something...

[kristopher]

3. They don't "Favor Nuclear Generated Power"

That is the same misleading question from Gallup.

28% strongly favor nuclear power as "one of the ways to provide electricity for the US".

The rest either somewhat favor or oppose nuclear power.

That might be good for a subsidy hog like the nuclear industry, but saying 62% SUPPORT nuclear power is trying to put lipstick on the pig. It is much more spin than truth.

[Statistical]

4. Who is spinning now? Favor or strongly favor vs oppose or strongly oppose is a standard in polling

62% either favor or strongly favor nuclear power.
38% either oppose or strongly oppose nuclear power.

Still even the 28% Strongly favor number is a 15 year high.
There are almost as many people who strongly favor nuclear power than total opposition (oppose and strongly oppose).

The trend is clearly in the right direct as support has risen from 16% in a decade.

[kristopher]

5. The question wording does not support the claim.

The interpretation that 62% SUPPORT nuclear power is bullshit. 28% SUPPORT nuclear power, the rest either tolerate it or oppose it. There is a huge difference.

Repeat your mantra - Drill baby drill!.

[Statistical]

6. No that isn't the wording of the Question (exact question text was provided)

The EXACT question asked
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 for the U.S.?

Single question 4 possible answers:
a) Strongly Favor
b) Somewhat Favor
c) Somewhat Oppose
d) Strongly Oppose

A + B = 62% (Total Favorable = Strongly Favor + Somewhat Favor)
C + D = 38% (Total Oppose = Strongly Oppose + Somewhat Oppose)



http://www.gallup.com/poll/126827/support-nuclear-power-climbs-new-high.aspx

It isn't ambiguous in any way (except to someone who doesn't like the results). Spin Baby Spin

[kristopher]

7. What part of "one of the ways" do you not understand?

The question is deliberately worded to capture two separate demographics. They are as I described and linking them together as support is simply false since "tolerance" is not "support".

[joshcryer]

8. That's solely because, like many issues, this is one of those hot button issues...

...where the vast majority on either side of the argument are just epically ignorant of the overall technologies. So it follows with the whole partisan split rather than a rational analysis of the questions.

[Statistical]

9. If someone chooses FAVOR (either strongly or somewhat) then they FAVOR nuclear power.

You are a joke. You somehow know that everyone in the poll who after being given 4 distinct choices selected "Somewhat Favor" really don't favor nuclear power.
If they don't favor nuclear power why didn't they just say "somewhat oppose"?

Don't trust your eyes. Somewhat Favor really means "nuclear is ebil".

There were 4 distinct possible choices.
STRONGLY FAVOR
SOMEWHAT FAVOR
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE
STRONGLY OPPOSE

62% of people chose one of the two options indicating they favor nuclear energy (either somewhat or strongly).
38% of people chose one of the two options indicating they oppose nuclear energy (either somewhat or strongly).

As far as Gallup saying "one of the ways to provide electricity" of course they worded it that way.
I don't know anyone who says grid should be 100% nuclear, with no other form of power what-so-ever.
If they question was "do you favor or oppose ONLY nuclear power being used to generate electricty?" I would have chosen oppose.

Keep spinning you just look like more of an idiot. The exact question, answers and outcome are indicated in the link.

Up=Down
War=Peace
Favor=Not Favor

[joshcryer]

10. Somewhat favor means the same thing as oppose.

You silly idiot.

[Statistical]

11. Aparently that is how anti-nukkers think. War=Peace. Favor=Oppose

Of course the "somewhat oppose" people they really mean oppose.

It is just the "somewhat favor" people who kris can read their minds and when they say "somewhat favor" they really mean "hell no, nuclear is ebil".

[Dead_Parrot]

12. Tune in next week to find out some suprising facts about "Black" and "White"

Meanwhile, here's a picture of a grey horse:

[joshcryer]

20. HAHAHA

I enjoy your crazy posts.

[FBaggins]

25. Nah.

It's clear that "somewhat OPPOSE" is really the people who are fine with nuclear power... They just don't want the plant in their back yard.

Now there's just a tiny minority that is irrationally scared of things they don't understand. More an education problem than a public power policy problem.

[Nihil]

30. Kick for an equally logical ...

... (or equally irrational) interpretation of a stunningly obvious result.

Bet your one doesn't get as many repeats though ... :hi:

> Now there's just a tiny minority that is irrationally scared of things
> they don't understand.

So true ...

[kristopher]

13. .

That poll question is capturing the concerns of the energy security driven "drill baby drill" crowd.

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

DRILL BABY DRILL!!!

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[joshcryer]

19. Old poll, before Obama came out in favor of nuclear.

Which shows how transient these sorts of things are.

[AdHocSolver]

14. Americans will buy any scam that promises them wealth and ease at no cost and no effort.

Nuclear power is the most expensive and problematic form of energy production imaginable. It also keeps the public totally dependent on the oil and power companies for their survival.

The corporations who promote expanding nuclear energy never mention the real cost to the public in the form of tax breaks and subsidies to the nuclear power corporations, just as the real reason that the use of oil has appeared "inexpensive" the last several years is because of tax breaks and subsidies to the oil industry.

The real reason for the war against Iraq that has cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars was to secure the oil in Iraq for the American corporations. However, since that strategy has not proved entirely successful, the energy corporations have decided to switch their campaign to maintain control of the American economy from oil, located under a foreign country that does not want corporations exploiting it, to building nuclear reactors on American soil.

However, many Americans don't want nuclear reactors in their neighborhood. Leakage of radioactive contamination from currently operating nuclear facilities polluting our water supply, not to mention the Chernobyl "incident", makes any sane person question a policy of nuclear "proliferation".

So how do the corporations get the public to buy into spending horrific amounts of money and risking a Chernobyl incident in the U.S.? Easy. Just promise them lots of cheap energy forever with nuclear power. As for Chernobyl, that was just a bunch of incompetent Russians using outmoded technology. That could never happen here because American corporations are much more "advanced". Except the Bhopal industrial disaster in India that killed thousands, and which was operated by Union Carbide (now owned by Dow Chemical) comes to mind. Investigations concluded that a series of cost cutting measures were ultimately responsible for the Bhopal disaster.

Since Americans will buy any lie that promises them something for nothing, more Americans are coming to believe the corporate propaganda about nuclear power. At least, that is what corporate pollsters are telling us.

[Statistical]

15. Read up on "negative void coefficient of reactivity" and then try again.

Physics doesn't care about opinions.

Positive void reactors have always been illegal in the United States for commercial power.

[AdHocSolver]

18. Corporations are always ready to sacrifice safety to increase profits.

You either miss the point or you purposely change the focus of the discussion.

[Statistical]

21. You missed the point. Physics remain the same regardless of your personal views.

You are aware that Chernobyl was graphite moderated reactor meaning fission could occur in absence of water?
That it had a positive void coefficient so as reactor overheated fission rate increased?
That it was built without containment to prevent radioactive release to save money?

You are aware that Western reactors are water moderated so in absence of water there is nothing to thermalize neutrons?
That they have negative void coefficient so as reactor overheads fission rate slows?
That all reactors are built with containment to prevent radioactive release if reactor pressure vessel melted through (which has never happened)?

I am sure you were already aware of all that so....
How exactly does a negative void coefficient reactor establish a fission feedback loop like what lead to the steam explosion at Chernobyl?

[AdHocSolver]

23. Corporate executives are notable for their greed and stupidity.

If there is a way to cause a disaster like Bhopal, management will find it and implement it.

In your excessive exuberance over technology, you totally ignore the human equation, namely the people in charge of decision making as to how the technology is used.

I worked many years in technology jobs including several years as a computer programmer. The fact that most amazed me was that, in most cases, the boss who made the decisions about how the technology was used and implemented was technically incompetent. In a few cases, the boss was downright stupid as well.

In the worst cases, the boss was also condescending towards the technical personnel.

In one case where the technical manager was knowledgeable and competent, he was ridiculed and hampered in his job by an executive higher up in the pecking order.

My opposition to more nuclear power is based on many years work in technical areas in business, the medical field, and academia. I saw plenty of incompetent management in all three areas of endeavor. The technical considerations to what could be are superseded by all the screwups I witnessed over the years.

[joshcryer]

24. Corporate executives can defy the laws of physics.

Nice.

[Confusious]

28. That's why there are so many passive safety features in a plant. n/t

[BP2]

16. Would it hurt American's to just reduce their energy consumption so we don't need

more power plants that use oil, coal or nuclear power?

[Statistical]

17. So lets say we reduced per capita consumption by 30% (which would be an amazing achievement)

That would still mean burning a lot of fossil fuels.
Also population is growing so eventually overall consumption will be higher than today even with 30% per capita consumption cut.
Population grown is 1.5% annually so energy demands will grow 34% in next 20 years.

Not burning "more coal" is not enough. The amount we already burn is killing the planet.

[Confusious]

26. Not to mention the x10 increase in needed electricity

when we start using all those wonderful electric cars.

[Statistical]

31. Electric cars wouldn't result in a 10x increase in energy.

Internal Combustion vehicles are insanely inefficient 80%-90% of energy is simply wasted as heat.

Take Tesla Roadster as an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_roadster

92% efficient (plug to wheel)
21.7KWh per 100 miles.

That's 0.217KWh per mile.

Average driver goes 12,000 miles per year. That is ~2600 KWh annually.
Average American household uses 8000 kWh of electricity. Figure a household with two electric cars adds ~5000 to 6000 KWh more.

So we could replace all commuter vehicles with electric ones with only a doubling of residential power usage. Now residential only makes up about 30% of the power grid.

The nice thing is that while transportation uses a lot of energy it is very wasteful. Switching to more efficient systems allows a small amount of electricity to displace a large amount of fossil fuels.

[joshcryer]

32. And by 2030 we can drop our energy usage by 70%

With more efficient building codes and whatnot. It's ridiculous.

[AdHocSolver]

22. The coming depression will reduce energy consumption as more plants close and jobs are lost. n/t

[Confusious]

27. Wow, that's a great plan! n/t

[joshcryer]

29. Kick.