Public not sold on nuclear power

Posted by David Roberts at 4:24 PM on 31 May 2006

A new survey (press release PDF; full results PDF) done by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC), commissioned and released by the Civil Society Institute, finds what I at least consider good news:

According to the survey, Americans favor developing clean renewable energy alternatives and strategies -- including increased conservation, solar energy and wind power -- that can be delivered more rapidly than nuclear power.

The new CSI survey found that more than three out of five Americans (61 percent) say the nation can't "afford to wait ... to put in place part of the solution to the energy crisis and global warming" if "building more nuclear power plants will take a decade or more in the U.S. and cost tens of billions of dollars." Only a third said the U.S. could wait for more nuclear power plants to come on-line as a way to dealing with today's energy and climate woes.

A key survey finding: Politics does not seem to be a factor when it comes to supporting or opposing nuclear power and other energy alternatives. A nearly identical 60 percent of conservatives, 62 percent of independents and 68 percent of liberals agree with the 61 percent of Americans who think the nation can't afford the wait and expense associated with erecting more nuclear power plants.

I tend to think that public support for nuclear power will rise in direct proportion to the amount of disinformation Bush and his industry flacks are able to inject into the public sphere.

For story: Public not sold on nuclear power
4 Comments | Post a Comment

Hear hear

I think it is important to not simply write off people who argue for more nuclear power as a way of mitigating climate change, however, when the argument is engaged, I agree that nuclear is not the answer.

It's true that the Bushies will probably do all they can to change the public opinion on this matter. While it may be seen as futile, I think we should all send messages to the Administration that we don't support nuclear, and that we want renewable energy instead (link provided by Greenpeace).

Diana

by DianaJardine at 9:14 AM on 01 Jun 2006

Yep Diana

I agree on that, no more nukes! Thayt would be best.

But should we let them try building a couple of waste processing nukes just so they finally prove a failure on cost and safety? We could bargain for elimination of subsidies for fossil and nukes in return.

And redirecting some of the savings from eliminating corporate welfare for big coal, nuclear, and oil to homeowners and small businesses to install wind and solar and buy electric plugin cars, either hybrid plugin or pure electric.

There could be a requirement of real safety oversight, instead of industry "self" (no) regulation as in the past. And locate them at an already contaminated sire that needs cleanup, like Hanford or Rocky Flars, or Yucca Mountain if it's at all safe, not sure on that?

The question is, should we compromise as a negotiating tactic, realizing the corrupt nuclear industry will surely fail? Even if they do it safely it will be many times the cost of renewable power like wind power at 2 cents per kwh, with no fuel costs ever. And then we can finally get rid of it for good.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 10:22 AM on 01 Jun 2006
[ Parent ]

I have read...

(sorry I'm not placing it) that there isn't really a whole lot of uranium in the world for electrical power needs (given the enormous rate at which electricity is consumed), unless our uranium-238 is converted to plutonium-239 for "breeder reactors." Of course, plutonium is quite toxic, and can be used to make nuclear weapons. Does anyone have a source on this?

Youngquist's piece (which doesn't say a lot)

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

by LegumeSam at 10:38 AM on 01 Jun 2006

Low-grade U ores are very high-grade energy ores

More.

Uranium ores' very high net-energy fraction is the reason why abundant fission energy will be available for many centuries or millennia, even if most of those periods are breeder-reactor-free and reprocessing-plant-free. University of Melbourne physicists show at the above-linked site that even for ores as low as 0.001 weight percent U, ten parts per million, most of the energy is net. This is only about four times richer than typical (or "country") rock.

One can confirm that this is reasonable by comparing the electrical energy required to crush hard rock with the electrical energy 0.00005 percent, half a ppm, of U whose extraction this would make possible would yield. They're equal.

Solar energy has problems, but it's fairly easy to show that a low net energy fraction isn't one of them.

Thus, while it is true that it takes energy to get energy, it is not true that there is any near term necessity for it to take very much energy to get energy; and in this context "near term" means any time less far in the future than the Great Pyramid's start date is in the past.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet

by GRLCowan at 12:09 PM on 01 Jun 2006
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.