Americans Still Favor Nuclear Power a Year After Fukushima (Gallup)
One year after the tsunami and resulting failure of the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, a majority of Americans continue to favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity for the U.S. The 57% who favor nuclear power this year is identical to the percentage measured in early March 2011, just before the Fukushima incident.
...snip...
The majority of Americans also continue to think nuclear power plants are safe. Gallup has asked Americans this question three times over the past four years, and the positive responses each time have been within a narrow 56% to 58% range.
The extensive news coverage of the major problems the Fukushima reactors experienced after power was disrupted as a result of the massive tsunami that hit the Japanese coast on March 11, 2011, does not appear to have had a long-term effect on Americans' attitudes about nuclear power. Although attitudes may have shifted in the immediate aftermath of last year's incident, attitudes now are almost identical to those measured in last year's pre-disaster survey.
Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are more likely to favor the use of nuclear power than are Democrats and Democratic leaners, as they have consistently over the years, but at least half of each partisan group currently favors its use. Americans aged 50 and older are slightly more likely to be in favor of nuclear power than are those under 50, although age makes no difference in views on the safety of nuclear power plants.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153452/Americans-Favor-Nuclear-Power-Year-Fukushima.aspx
= new reply since forum marked as read
The Gallup poll you are touting begins with this question.
Interesting answer, don't you think? Do you suppose it sets in any given set of attitudes for the questions that follow?
I'm taking it from your comments so far that you think associating the nuclear approval question with the poorly understood "economy vs environment" paradigm is OK.
The CSI poll starts with a question similar to the Gallup approval question. But then it goes into more detail which relates nuclear to its actual risks in order to gain a picture of the benefit/cost perception related to safety. It also places nuclear in the context of viable alternatives. If you think that is push polling, then you really don't understand the concept. It is a well done poll designed to reflect the real choices that people are actually being confronted with. The only real criticism I have of this poll is that the wording in question A9 is a bit difficult to parse quickly. My recommendation for better wording would be: Would you support or oppose a halting extensions to the operating lifespan of the oldest nuclear reactors in the United States?
I think A5, A6 and A7 are particularly informative, don't you? Imagine if they actually understood just how bad the economics of nuclear actually are? Do you think they realize that should the policies in A5-A7 be enacted, that a defacto moratorium on new plants would be established?
A1 Would you say that you support or oppose more nuclear power reactors in the United States? Would you say you...
(READ ENTIRE LIST BEFORE RECORDING ONE ANSWER)
(Base = 1032)
01 Support strongly 18%
02 Support somewhat 28%
03 Oppose somewhat 25%
04 Oppose strongly 24%
99 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 5%
Support (Net) = 46% Oppose (Net) = 49%
A2 Thinking about the nuclear reactor crisis a year ago in Japan ... are you now more or less supportive of expanding nuclear power in the United States than you were before that crisis? Would you say you are... (READ ENTIRE LIST BEFORE RECORDING ONE ANSWER)
(Base = 1032)
01 Much more supportive of more nuclear power 9%
02 Somewhat more supportive of more nuclear power 19%
03 Somewhat less supportive of more nuclear power 28%
04 Much less supportive of more nuclear power 30%
98 NO CHANGE 12%
99 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 3%
More supportive (Net) = 28% Less supportive (Net) = 57%
A3 Again, thinking about the nuclear reactor crisis in Japan ... would you say that you are now more or less supportive than you were before the crisis to using clean renewable energy resources – such as wind and solar – and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to more nuclear power in the United States? Are you...
(READ ENTIRE LIST BEFORE RECORDING ONE ANSWER)
(Base = 1032)
01 Much more supportive of renewable energy 49%
02 Somewhat more supportive of renewable energy 28%
03 Somewhat less supportive of renewable energy 8%
04 Much less supportive of renewable energy 7%
98 NO CHANGE 6%
99 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 1%
More supportive (Net) = 77% Less supportive (Net) = 16%
A4 Do the reports in the U.S. during 2011 and so far in 2012 of nuclear reactors that had to be shut down due to hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, leaks or other emissions of radioactive materials, and/or equipment failure make you feel more or less supportive of nuclear power? Would you say you are...
(READ ENTIRE LIST BEFORE RECORDING ONE ANSWER)
(Base = 1032)
01 Much more supportive of nuclear power 10%
02 Somewhat more supportive of nuclear power 20%
03 Somewhat less supportive of nuclear power 34%
04 Much less supportive of nuclear power 27%
98 NO CHANGE 8%
99 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 2%
More supportive (Net) = 29% Less supportive (Net) = 61%
A5 Do you think taxpayers should take on the risk for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the United States through billions of dollars in new federal loan guarantees for new reactors?
(Base = 1032)
01 YES 24%
02 NO 72%
99 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 3%
A6 Here is another question about federal support for energy development ... would you support or oppose a shift of federal loan-guarantee support for energy away from nuclear reactors and towards clean renewable energy such as wind and solar? Would you... (READ ENTIRE LIST BEFORE RECORDING ONE ANSWER)
(Base = 1032)
01 Support strongly 47%
02 Support somewhat 30%
03 Oppose somewhat 8%
04 Oppose strongly 13%
99 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 2%
Support (Net) = 77% Oppose (Net) = 20%
A7 Currently nuclear reactor facilities in the U.S. are indemnified under the Price Anderson Act. In the event of an accident or a meltdown, the corporate owners and operators of a nuclear reactor would have limited liability for damages. The 1957 Act was seen as necessary for getting private industry to build nuclear reactors and it has been renewed for new reactors built before 2025.
Should Congress review the Act and hold these corporations liable for all damages resulting from a nuclear meltdown or other accident?
(Base = 1032)
01 YES 78%
02 NO 16%
99 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 5%
A8 If increased energy efficiency and off the shelf renewable technologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands for the near term, would you support a moratorium on new nuclear reactor construction in the United States?
(Base = 1032)
01 YES 51%
02 NO 42%
99 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 6%
A9 One of the concerns about the Japanese reactors was that they were of an old design and had been constructed in the 1970s. Here in the U.S., nearly one out of five nuclear reactors is of the same design and about the same age as those in Japan. Currently, the federal government is extending the permitted lifespan of these and other aging reactors.
Would you support or oppose a halt to the United States extending the operating lifespan of its oldest nuclear reactors? Would you...
(READ ENTIRE LIST BEFORE RECORDING ONE ANSWER) (Base = 1032)
01 Support strongly 21%
02 Support somewhat 26%
03 Oppose somewhat 19%
04 Oppose strongly 30%
99 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 4%
Support (Net) = 47% Oppose (Net) = 49%
A10 Would you support or oppose the construction of a new nuclear reactor within 50 miles of your home? Would you...
(READ ENTIRE LIST BEFORE RECORDING ONE ANSWER)(Base = 1032)
01 Support strongly 14%
02 Support somewhat 20%
03 Oppose somewhat 10%
04 Oppose strongly 56%
99 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 1%
Support (Net) = 34% Oppose (Net) = 65%
A11 Do you currently live within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor site?
(Base = 1032)
01 YES 18%
02 NO 71%
99 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 11%
A12 [ASK IF A11 (01)]
How aware would you say you are of what to do in the event of a nuclear reactor emergency -- do you know the evacuation route and what other steps to take?
(Base = 227)
01 YES 46%
02 NO 52%
99 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 2%
No it doesn't. That's about a dozen questions in, with nuclear power coming around question #20 (and questions about wind/solar and conservation coming between the two).
Interesting answer, don't you think? Do you suppose it sets in any given set of attitudes for the questions that follow?
Are you serious? Using loaded words (risk billions of dollars/nuclear reactor crisis/clean renewable energy) doesn't get your attention, but this is what does?
The answer is no.
First of all both nuclear power and renewables are on the same side of that coin. Both of them require the society to sacrifice economic growth in order to provide for a cleaner environment.
Second of all - the answer goes against nuclear power. Over the last decade (particularly as the economy has weakened), people have shifted their priorities in this matter from the environment to the economy. If it "sets in a given set of attitudes", then it would be attitudes against spending tens of billions of dollars building plants that cost far more than natural gas generation.
I think A5, A6 and A7 are particularly informative, don't you?
I'm sure you do. You'll just gloss right over the fact that it's a poll crafted by a biased organization with results that don't match other polling... because it gives you the answer you want.
So yes, I find it particularly "informative"... but not in the way you intend it.
