67% Favor Building New Nuclear Power Plants in U.S. (Zogby)

[Dogmudgeon]

An interesting poll of public attitudes and opinion on nuclear energy.

Most of the polls cited by the anti-nuclear movement are more than a few years old, and often from Europe. However, as new nuclear energy development is being done, so is new polling.

http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1515">Zogby Poll: 67% Favor Building New Nuclear Power Plants in U.S.

Survey finds Americans more likely to support a nuclear power plant in their own community than a coal, natural gas or oil plant; Nuclear, solar, and wind fuel sources most favored for federal funds

UTICA, New York – As a new summer and warm temperatures threaten to strain the nation’s aging electricity generation system, two-thirds of Americans (67%) said they support the construction of new nuclear power plants in the U.S., with nearly half (46%) who indicated strong support for new nuclear plants, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.

...

Seventy-one percent of respondents support building new natural gas power plants in the U.S., while 51% support the construction of new coal power plants and 38% support construction of new oil power plants. Compared to the nearly half of respondents who expressed strong support for building nuclear power plants in the U.S., fewer respondents said they strongly supported the construction of new natural gas (34%), coal (27%), or oil (19%) power plants. The Zogby Interactive survey of 2,925 adults nationwide was conducted May 20-22, 2008, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.8 percentage points.

Many would support a nuclear power plant in their community

Support for nuclear power remained significant when respondents were asked which type of power plant they would be most likely to support – coal, natural gas, oil, or nuclear – if a new electric power plant had been approved for construction in their community and they had a choice of the fuel source to be used. Respondents were more likely to say they would support a nuclear power plant (43%), over an electric power plant which had its fuel source from natural gas (26%), coal (8%) or oil (1%). Republicans (60%) and political independents (45%) were more likely than Democrats (28%) to say they would be most supportive of a nuclear power plant in their community. Democrats were most likely (36%) to favor the construction of a natural gas plant close to home over other types of electric power plants, compared to 28% of independents and 14% of Republicans who said the same.

...

Zogby's methodology is http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1314">briefly described at this link.

--p!

[NC_Nurse]

1. Ha! I call NIMBY!

Wait til itcomes to THEIR neighborhood! ;)

[elocs]

4. Yeah, they should have the rule that if you want a nuclear plant near you,

then the spent fuel stays there too. I bet that will drop the number in favor of them.

[NNadir]

12. Bullshit.

I would support new nuclear power plants in my town and I would also agree to keep the spent fuel from those reactors and other reactors as well in my yard.

The number of people injured by used nuclear fuel is zero.

The number of people injured by dangerous fossil fuel waste is not zero.

[elocs]

22. Good luck with your pro-nuclear opinion here at DU!

I'm guessing the number of people who would agree to having spent nuclear fuel near them is very, very small--and that's no bullshit.

[wtmusic]

24. Count me in.

"If we are to stabilize the emission of carbon dioxide by the middle of the 21st century, we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean? Tidal power can produce large amounts of energy, but can we find a new Severn estuary and build a barrage costing £9bn every five weeks?

Nuclear power, however, is a well tried and reliable source, whereas the alternatives listed by Anderson are mainly hope for the future and have yet to prove themselves. At the height of new nuclear construction in the 1980s, an average of 23 new nuclear reactors were being built each year, with a peak of 43 in 1983. A construction rate of one per week is therefore practicable. "

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128/2;jsessionid=801F1A959C9357FBD5E51F126C74DC04

I have yet to see anyone here refute these energy fundamentals. Debating whether nuclear waste will be dangerous in one million years is pointless when the planet will be rendered uninhabitable in under one thousand by climate change.

[Dogmudgeon]

25. That's an excellent article for both "sides"

Five big Thumbs-Upses!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128/1;jsessionid=801F1A959C9357FBD5E51F126C74DC04">Do we need nuclear power? (and http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128/2;jsessionid=801F1A959C9357FBD5E51F126C74DC04">page two) at Physics World (5 June 2001).

--p!

[PATRICK]

29. There is the substantive debate

about resources, energy and growth- which skirt around the general need for LESS energy, especially unrecycled heat output and there is the political/market reality.

Judging by only the latter one should realize the attraction of heavily subsidized atomic power plants. Anyone can put one anywhere and you can theoretically make bombs. The safeguards against future production of weapons is about as comforting as plans to somehow, someday handle the nuclear waster problem. The cost effectiveness problem is lost in the sheer glamor and centralized control of such massive energy plants. Nations will go into debt to get them. Large nations will dump reactors in lands with desirable future resources by conning them into the WMD danger game or even play the suckers/rivals off in small nuclear showdowns. it is a game of kings. Judging by the absolute need for massively centralized wind farms(as your localities ban home or neighborhood resources because they detract from the physical beauty of your freezing/boiling darkened home) and the immobility of places like Niagara Falls it once and for all keeps energy away from the people and in the more concentrated hands of corporate governments.

So wonderful a geopolitical game if this that the small matter of ecological catastrophe can be overlooked and the atomic plant even more a grand romantic talisman of authoritative reassertion such as utopian technology frequently took the form in the naive optimism days leading up to the wars of fascism.

Do we have to be blackmailed by need into both ignoring the geopolitical dangers of these atomic options and the questions of their safety and waste products? Does it have to be weighed against the other sure disaster of pouring more fossil fuel heat and CO2 into the warming skies?

It is such a mess now I think we must debate the debates themselves and the criteria and what we are aiming for anyway- which all too often is an immediate guarantee of Ponzi growth as we have always enjoyed(but save the dolphins and parks). To say we need the atomic energy is to beggar the frustration that those charged with controlling these issues and resolutions will in their own sweet way get us all killed one way or another. In some utopian world of competent democratic leadership(harder to imagine than five mile high skyscrapers and fusion powered flying cars) I am sure they would become in themselves an important facet. Today we have to be at least suspicious of pouring vital state funds into a private cash cow with all the track records looking pretty grim. Inevitably much of the money that must be given to renewables and conservation will be wasted on the atomic plant boondoggles and the money flow concentrated along the usual avenues of waste, fraud, deception and tyranny and under McCain another walk in the public park for the usual suspects.

All McCain's proposals for anything mirror the real Bush, not the lying campaigner. They are devoid of worth, reason or value to achieve anything of merit for the people's needs. Apparently in 2008 the old fakes have surpassed the amenities of proper lying and use the Big Lie of in your face wild claims that their power has exercised with so much impunity theses past eight years. Politically speaking, minus the fact we are until fraud is defeated in November, we are pretty well off is this is the best type of lying they care to perform. McCain is much more enslaved to Bush/Cheney than HHH was to LBJ in the defeat of 1968. That much is in clear evidence. I hope that is cause to be grateful.

[enough]

15. And when they find out what it will cost and who is going to pay.

[whistle]

2. Add my vote as long as we get safe 4th generational nuclear plants

<snip>
Generation IV reactor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article does not cite any references or sources. (June 2007)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Generation IV reactors (Gen IV) are a set of theoretical nuclear reactor designs currently being researched. Most of these designs are generally not expected to be available for commercial construction before 2030, with the exception of a version of the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) called the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The NGNP is to be completed by 2021. Current reactors in operation around the world are generally considered second- or third-generation systems, with the first-generation systems having been retired some time ago. Research into these reactor types was officially started by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) based on eight technology goals. The primary goals being to improve nuclear safety, improve proliferation resistance, minimize waste and natural resource utilization, and to decrease the cost to build and run such plants.

An Integrated Nuclear Energy Model is central to standardized and credible economic evaluation of Generation IV nuclear energy systems. The innovative nuclear systems considered within Generation IV require new tools for their economic assessment, since their characteristics differ significantly from those of current generation II and III nuclear power plants. The current economic models were not designed to compare alternative nuclear technologies or systems but rather to compare nuclear energy with fossil alternatives.

The reactors are used in nuclear power plants to produce nuclear power from nuclear fuel.

<MORE>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

[stillcool]

7. I have wondered about the technology...

with nuclear energy, and if there were not ways to use it that were safe. I don't understand much about science, or nuclear energy. My knowledge is limited to bombs and leaks. I wish I could make an informed decision but I can't. It seems everyone knows something, that I don't.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Wikipedia is a good starting point

It is far from perfect, but it can at least give you an overall idea af what is going on. And the articles usually have links to both supportive and critical sources of information.

Here is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power">Nuclear Power topic page at Wikipedia. It has a lot of links to more concentrated topics, like nuclear waste, proliferation, reactor technology "generations", anti-nuclear arguments, and to nuclear physics pages.

Pro or anti, self-education on ANY controversial topic can only be beneficial.

Good luck! And if you have more questions, you can always ask them here.

--p!

[whistle]

13. It is less than 12 years from being realized by the French...Japan also

<snip>
France gets ready to build fourth generation nuclear reactor
05 January 2007, 00:45 CET

French President Jacques Chirac has reaffirmed his country's goal of building a fourth generation nuclear reactor by 2020. His comments were made during a recent meeting of government ministers, at which a research plan for building the reactor was presented.

The President said that it was important to strengthen the country's nuclear energy sector, particularly given the current increases in oil and gas prices, and in view of the threat of global warming. 'A fourth generation reactor would create even more energy, even less waste and be even safer,' he said.

Mr Chirac was speaking at a meeting of government ministers on 20 December. Research into materials, fuel, operation, in-service inspection and maintenance, as well as facilities for reprocessing spent fuel from the proposed reactor, are among the aspects to be explored in the initial stages of the project.

By 2012, the French government says it will be ready to decide on the type of technology to be used in the reactor's construction.

The decision to build the reactor was first announced by the French President at the beginning of 2006. The aim of the reactor would be to meet France's medium-term energy needs.

It is also foreseen to compliment other energy projects in which France is playing a leading role. Among them is the third-generation European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR), which is intended to replace the 58 reactors of France's 19 atomic power plants. It will also contribute to ITER, an international experimental fusion reactor, which aims to harness the energy of the sun by the end of the century.

The project preparations are likely to be helped along by France's membership in the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), a platform for international research cooperation established in January 2000 at the initiative of the US Department of Energy. The forum will investigate innovative nuclear energy system concepts for meeting future energy challenges.

Fourth generation nuclear energy systems represent an array of nuclear reactor technologies that could be deployed by 2030. While the first and second generations of reactors met the need for intensive energy production at low costs and acceptable levels of safety, the third generation was conceived after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, and focused on an even higher level of safety.

Although these existing designs provide a reliable supply of electricity in many markets, proponents of the fourth generation say that its deployment will result in significant improvements in economics, safety, reliability and sustainability.

France is the biggest producer of nuclear power in Europe, having constructed dozens of reactors since the 1970s oil crises. Some 78% of the country's electricity is supplied by nuclear power. The country is also one of the world's biggest net exporters of electricity, and is also a major exporter of nuclear technology.

http://www.eubusiness.com/Rd/france-nuclear.51/

[stillcool]

16. To me, it is like reading ..

a foreign language. I read the words, but they mean nothing, and without a basic understanding I'm stuck on stupid.

[Dogmudgeon]

17. You have the best head-start possible

You're not intellectually arrogant.

You can say, in public, that you are "stuck on stupid".

So take the advice of an arrogant intellectual -- you won't be stuck there for very long.

--p!

[burrowowl]

3. Idiots!

Even France is having problems dealing with the waste!

[Cleita]

5. God the average American is so easy to brainwash and

feed the kool-aid to. I guess I was among the dissenting 33% in that poll, but then I have a nuke plant in my backyard and I know what it brings to our community, which is neither cheap nor reliable electricity not to mention the always lurking danger of an earthquake that could destabilize the whole plant.

[bbinacan]

6. I'm with the 67%. n/t

[colorado thinker]

8. Stop and think for a minute

Who would run the damn things and make sure we don't have another Chernobyl? Our competent government? Or would they outsource it to the same idiots who can't build a shower in Baghdad that doesn't electrocute the soldiers who try to use it.

Do you seriously think nuclear plants in this country would be run safely in 2008? Please.

[Zachstar]

10. Lets see Chernobyl was run by the same Soviet union that decided not to put radiation suits on K-19

Compared to the United States where big dogs can be fired for an experienced crew flying with nukes without them knowing it. (And before you ask, Nukes don't go off by just dropping them, They have to be armed through the correct way)

So yes I seriously think we are running our Fission Plants just fine. The only thing that sucks about them is cost. People who constantly use a Soviet Nuc Accident (There was more than one BTW) in comparison to a country where lawsuits can fly are not doing themselves any favors.

The radiation leaks in this country are coming from Coal Power plants. The radioactive particles coming out from those plants are extremely harmful compared to Nucs. That are loaded with shielding.

Fission is going out because all the materials to build them and fuel them are skyrocketing in price. Thats fine, They gave us decades of great clean power.

[TheWraith]

28. Actually, you need to think. We have a hundred nuclear plants in the US, running safely every day.

You'd also benefit from a little research on Chernobyl--the plant design was simply put a disaster waiting to happen. Bad control rods, and an incomplete containment structure, on top of a reckless and unnecessary test being performed that led to the accident. In short, it wouldn't have happened at any sensibly run plant in the world.

Globally there are 437+ civilian nuclear reactors, running safely 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Despite people's concerns, they don't blow up, they don't fall down, and nobody's grown extra toes that I know of.

[Vincardog]

11. IF wall street wants them let them pay fr them assume all responsibility and take care of all waste

Not one penny of public money should be spent on this dirty killing technology.
IF is is such a fucking great idea let them pay for it.

[NNadir]

14. And what exactly, do you do to take responsibility for dangerous fossil fuel waste you generate?

I assume that you have a big balloon attached to the tailpipe of any gasoline or diesel powered device you use, the power plants that power your computer.

Moreover, it's very clear that you store the waste from these balloons in high pressure cylinders in your basement. Moreover, I assume that you have figured out a way to contain this waste for eternity, including any heavy metals from any coal fired power you may have generated.

Right?

No?

Oh, I see, nuclear energy is the only form of energy that should be responsible for its waste for all eternity...

In fact, bub, the nuclear energy industry is the only energy industry where containment of so called "waste" is technically feasible. No other energy industry can do that.

Moreover, used nuclear fuel is extremely valuable.

Yes.

I would like it in my backyard.

[diane in sf]

18. I don't see wind, solar or efficiency being listed as alternatives in this excerpt, so I can't

take it real seriously.

[NNadir]

19. They are not listed as alternatives because they are NOT alternatives.

They don't work and the pretense that they do is rather like selling laetrile to cancer patients.

Come back and tell us all about efficiency when your power consumption is the equivalent of a citizen of the Central African Republic, or even China, big bad China, where per capita average power consumption is 1/7th of that of the average American.

I'll bet one zillion dollars that you would not be able to live on 1500 watts of average power per day, even when you buy your promised plug-in hybrid in 2010.

[tridim]

27. How incredibly regressive of you.

See this post from yesterday about the state of the art in solar energy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=156058

[NNadir]

30. I don't read every post. I read the primary scientific literature.

I've been reading it for years.

Renewable energy is doing next to nothing in the climate change crisis.

I am not here to listen to everyone's preconceived biases or to recite prayers with them.

I am here to plead for reality, not that it is anywhere early enough to do much good.

[tridim]

31. You're here to plant the seed that renewable energy isn't worth exploring.

I respect your opinion, but it is a regressive position by definition.

[bluedawg12]

20. People want a reliable source of energy.

That's what this poll tells me, primarily.

>>Seventy-one percent of respondents support building new natural gas power plants in the U.S.,
while 51% support the construction of new coal power plants and
38% support construction of new oil power plants.

Compared to the nearly half of respondents who expressed strong support for building nuclear power plants in the U.S., fewer respondents said they strongly supported the construction of new natural gas (34%), coal (27%), or oil (19%) power plants. The Zogby Interactive survey of 2,925 adults nationwide was conducted May 20-22, 2008, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.8 percentage points.<<

Then, it tells me that public attitude has changed towards nuclear energy, because people want a reliable source of energy.

Then, it tells me that people still have not absorbed the information about the devastating impact of coal and C02 emissions.

It also tells me that there is still a strong divide between how D,R and Independents view nuclear energy.

I also sense that Americans understand and have heard about the aging grid--probably connect it to other infra-structure neglect and understand the realities of brownouts in the summer all too well, even if they don't think in technical terms.

[losthills]

21. A solid majority supported the invasion of Iraq, too.

But now that they've seen what it's lead too, they have changed their minds....

[Dover]

23. Blogme Poll: 75% of smart Americans don't believe polls.

And the rest are Republicans.

[no limit]

26. Good.

[elocs]

32. My guess is that the 67% would drop significantly if they thought the spent nuclear fuel

would be stored anywhere near where they live. It would clearly be: Not In My Backyard (isn't that what Utah is for?).