Posted on 03/22/2011 12:30:24 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Opposition to building new nuclear power plants in the U.S. has edged up since last spring, a likely reaction to the nuclear power plants crisis in Japan, according to a new national poll.
But a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday also indicates a majority of Americans approve of using nuclear energy to produce electricity.
Fifty-seven percent of people questioned in the poll say they approve of the domestic use of nuclear energy, with 42 percent opposed.
"Attitudes toward nuclear power in the U.S. are more positive than they were after Chernobyl in 1986, when only 45 percent approved of nuclear energy plants, or Three Mile Island in 1979, when 53 percent approved of nuclear energy and the number who said nuclear plants were not safe was 10 points higher than today," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
The survey indicates that 53 percent of the public opposes building more nuclear power plants in the U.S., up six points from last year. Forty-six percent support the construction of new plants.
What about the existing nuclear power plans in the country?
Sixty-eight percent say continue to operate all of them, with 27 percent saying that some should be shut down and one in ten calling for all of the plants to be closed.
According to the poll, 28 percent say domestic nuclear power plants are very safe, with just over half saying they are somewhat safe and one in five saying they are not safe.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
About the same % of the public also voted for Zero...proving????
A collective response to mass quantities of psychodrama fed to the masses by the multimedia stream of misinformation.
Hey People. The NEW plants are a million times safer than the old plants!
There are design features in new plants which make them far safer than older existing plants.
This is sort of like saying that we can't do away with automobiles, but we won't allow any new ones to be built.
The singular answer to safe nuclear energy is to start building a nuclear plant each and every month. Take the ancient reactors offline as the new ones come online, rather than waiting until some catastrophic event occurs that finally shuts down the plant. Take advantage of newer technology and improved building methods, and by having a set schedule and an extended schedule, the cost per plant will drop dramatically as businesses align to build these plants.
It is the same answer to foreign oil imports. Drill, drill and drill.
Drill baby drill. Yes to nuclear power.
Media-aided reaction. We’ll see their reactions in 6 months, as fuel prices continue to skyrocket.
By definition, half the population has below-average IQ, so I’m never surprised by polls.
The smart thing would be to say that they were in favor of shutting down the old plants as they were replaced with new plants.
So most people want us to continue operating outdated or obsolete nuclear plants but don’t want us to build new and better engineered plants. OK
“Hey People. The NEW plants are a million times safer than the old plants!’
The new plants are safer. But the old plants continue to generate electricity and spent fuel. Meanwhile, there’s no good solution in place for the spent fuel or even a plan for it. I’m not sure there’s plan for the plan. Yucca Mountain was a plan. But Obama nixed it, and now it’s caught up in litigation.
So maybe we should build some newer, safer reactors and turn some of the older sites into permanent waste storage facilities. Some of the older plants are de facto permanent waste storage sites anyway.
This whole Japan situation could have been used to explain new nuclear technology such as thorium reactors to the public, unfortunately it looks like it will just be used to throw up the nuclear boogey-man again so we can continue our irrational approach.
Just wondering... how many pro-nuclear plant people on this thread are also NIMBYers. (Not In My Back Yard)
Absurd. The new plants would presumably have the newest technology and safety features.
RE: This whole Japan situation could have been used to explain new nuclear technology such as thorium reactors to the public
There was another thread in FR that talked about Nuclear reactors from a purely ECONOMIC point of view ( no hysterics ).
There have been many cost analysts who favor Nuclear Energy but have commented that one of the main reasons why building new ones are difficult is because they are TOO EXPENSIVE TO BUILD.
Take Thorium Reactors for instance.
THTR-300 was a thorium high-temperature nuclear reactor rated at 300 MW electric (THTR-300). The German state of North Rhine Westphalia, in the Federal Republic of Germany, and Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG) financed the THTR-300’s construction.
Operations started on the plant in Hamm-Uentrop, Germany in 1983, and it was shut down September 1, 1989.
The THTR was synchronized to the grid for the first time in 1985 and started full power operation in February 1987. Whereas the AVR was an experimental pebble bed high-temperature reactor (HTR) used to develop the pebble fuel, the THTR-300 served as a prototype HTR to use the TRISO pebble fuel. The THTR-300 cost €2.05 billion and was predicted to cost an additional €425 million until December 2009 in decommissioning and other associated costs.
The THTR-company became almost bankrupt after a long shut down time due to broken components in the hot gas duct. It had to be bailed out by the government with an amount of 92 million Deutschmark.
So, I won’t argue the science and technology of it. Let’s talk DOLLARS AND CENTS.
Toshiba claims .05 kWH for their micro-nukes:
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.