More

Support For More Nuclear Power Slips In United States: Poll

Nuclear Power Poll

First Posted: 03/23/11 12:43 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:40 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. public support for expanding nuclear power appears to be slipping after Japan's nuclear crisis while New York's governor said on Tuesday an aging plant near New York City will be the top priority in a federal review of earthquake risk to such facilities.

President Barack Obama last year announced loan guarantees to build the first U.S. nuclear power plant in nearly three decades. But the nuclear disaster triggered by Japan's 9.0 magnitude earthquake may be making Americans less inclined to embrace more nuclear energy due to safety fears.

In a poll released on Monday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 52 percent of 1,004 U.S. adults surveyed from March 17-20 said they oppose the expansion of nuclear power now, up from 47 percent last October.

A poll of 814 U.S. adults released on Tuesday by the Civil Society Institute, which has been critical of nuclear energy, found that less than half of those questioned -- 46 percent -- said they support more nuclear power reactors in the United States and 44 percent oppose new reactors.

Fifty-eight percent of those questioned said they are less supportive of expanding nuclear power in the United States than they were a month ago. The poll was conducted March 15-16.

"The Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster in Japan is causing a renewed and intensifying skepticism about the future of nuclear power," said Pam Solo, president of the Civil Society Institute, based in Newton, Massachusetts.

Many Americans have harbored safety concerns about nuclear power since the 1979 disaster at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has pledged to make the Indian Point nuclear power plant north of New York City their top priority in a review of seismic risk at U.S. nuclear plants.

PLANT'S SAFETY DEFENDED

Indian Point owner Entergy Corp purchased a full-page advertisement in the New York Times on Tuesday touting comments by U.S. Energy Secretary Steve Chu saying that the reactor is safe and an NRC report saying all U.S. nuclear plants remain safe.

An NRC report last September found Indian Point, situated near two geological fault lines, was at the greatest risk from seismic activity among the 27 nuclear plants under review. The plant provides up to 30 percent of New York City's power.

Entergy also said it is considering a plan to store mobile emergency generators off-site that could be relocated to Indian Point after any emergency. Reactors at the crippled Japanese plant overheated when the tsunami knocked out backup generators to power the cooling system. The quake had cut off main power.

A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency questioned whether utilities licensed to run older U.S. nuclear reactors are doing enough to upgrade plant safety.

The report, issued by the U.N. nuclear watchdog two days before the earthquake and tsunami that crippled the Fukushima power plant in Japan, sounds an alarm about the safety at some older U.S. nuclear plants.

The IAEA assessed how America's nuclear plants are regulated at the request of the NRC.
Obama last week ordered a comprehensive review of the safety of U.S. nuclear power facilities, maintaining his support for nuclear energy while seeking to apply lessons from the situation in Japan.

Some lawmakers and anti-nuclear activists have called for safety measures in quake-prone California, where the Pacific Gas & Electric's Diablo Canyon plant and Edison International's San Onofre plant sit near faults.

"New information about the severe seismic risk ... make clear that these two plants require immediate attention in light of the catastrophic events in Japan," said Barbara Boxer, who along with fellow California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein has asked the NRC to conduct a review of the safety and emergency preparedness of the plants.

(Editing by Will Dunham)

Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. public support for expanding nuclear power appears to be slipping after Japan's nuclear crisis while New York's governor said on Tuesday an aging plant near New York City...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. public support for expanding nuclear power appears to be slipping after Japan's nuclear crisis while New York's governor said on Tuesday an aging plant near New York City...
Filed by Elyse Siegel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 118
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
Heartlight3
Every act is an act of self-definition.
12:03 AM on 03/24/2011
Don't they HAVE to say it is safe, whether it is or not?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
usmcSaltDog
07:14 PM on 03/23/2011
Drill here NOW!!! Bring gas prices back down to 2.25 tax it up to 2.50-2.75 and use that tax towards funding green energy research. That way we can take the smart gradual steps towards getting off it completely without killing AMERICAN jobs while creating new ones.. Can someone who knows more about this than me please explain why this isn't happening?
05:37 PM on 03/23/2011
Nuclear is far to dangerous and expensive to be used to boil water.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
morgantown
GOTP Economic Plan: Revenue Reduction - ha
07:10 PM on 03/23/2011
I was in a meeting today regarding energy research and one of the presenters said that currently nuclear power costs approximately 25 cents per kwh as opposed to coal fired power costs 7 cents per kilowatt hour. So we're talking an electric bill over 3 times higher than we're currently paying. No way can America afford that with the state our economy is in.
09:37 PM on 03/23/2011
You do understand that .25 cents is more than .07 cents. So right of the bat nuclear cost over 3 times as much as coal? According to what you said.
But the cost of nuclear does not count the thousands of years expense of keep the spent fuel safe?
Nuclear is, was, and always will be a verey verey bad idea!
photo
Heartlight3
Every act is an act of self-definition.
12:04 AM on 03/24/2011
And at the same time they promote nuclear energy, they whine that cap & trade will increase energy bills.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tulsey
I was Bill Hicks.
05:09 PM on 03/23/2011
Nukes are all about commodity manuliption, they can't put a meter on the sun. The first thing Raygun's crew did when they rolled into D.C. was remove the solar collectors President Carter had installed on the Whitehouse roof. There is a reason Germany has been moving away from nukes for some time, and the French are just lying about their safety record.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
morgantown
GOTP Economic Plan: Revenue Reduction - ha
07:13 PM on 03/23/2011
He also pulled the plans for a coal gasification plant in WV. Australia is ready to put a plant with US research from 30 years ago online in the very near future. If we must use fossil fuel, I prefer to use American mined coal than middle east supplied oil. We could be using coal to power our vehicles instead of jumping into every skirmish in the middle east to protect our oil addition.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tulsey
I was Bill Hicks.
07:26 PM on 03/23/2011
Combustion of carbon is a sucide trip.
photo
lynterv
Been there, have the t-shirt.
04:34 PM on 03/23/2011
Slipping support fro nuclear? Gee, you think? We could invest less money in fields of solar arrays in the desert. The crossover point between solar being more affordable than nuclear occurred last year. A new nuke plant will cost upwards of $10 billion dollars and it won't be the power companies who pay for it, it will be taxpayers and customers.

See the report by Mark Cooper: "All risk,no reward for taxpayers and Ratepayers" published last year. Meanwhile the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, has called for a mix of U.S. subsidies, tax credits, loan guarantees, procedural simplifications and institutional support on a large scale.
05:48 PM on 03/23/2011
Nuclear has always been to expensive, but like most other things in America, cheap people have left out most of the costs. The disposal of the waste and the safe guarding of this waste until it is no longer harmfull will cost more than all the power plants combined.
It really is insane to use nuclear power!
photo
lynterv
Been there, have the t-shirt.
06:29 PM on 03/23/2011
Agreed. We pay for it one way or another, the power companies certainly don't pay for it. With Davis Besse in Ohio standed costs were added into our bills a few years back and we had no recourse.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ngonyama
Major prolation, perfect mode
04:32 PM on 03/23/2011
IT seems that the general public is catching up with Wall St. The investors have refused to invest in nuclear for some time now because the market just thinks it is too risky. I mean financially risky.

This is why the oil/nuclear lobby want tax payer guarantees. State subsidized "free enterprise".
The Right is Wrong
Voting for the good guys since 1976!
04:30 PM on 03/23/2011
My main reason for objecting to nuke plants (fission) is that they create radioactive waste in the form of plutonium and other bad isotopes.

It's not the generation of power from nukes that is the problem but the long term storage (read expense) problems.

Long after the material has finished being nuclear fuel it has to be stored and controlled. That is not free!

So hundreds of years after the fuel was used, we will still have to control/store it.
06:53 PM on 03/23/2011
yeah that is the main problem I have as wel with the use of nuke energy
photo
IfIonlyknew
Politics is Hollywood for ugly people.
04:29 PM on 03/23/2011
How is this industry going to learn how stop out of control reactors if we don't let them build more.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tulsey
I was Bill Hicks.
05:15 PM on 03/23/2011
Just as long as the CEOs run them.
photo
lynterv
Been there, have the t-shirt.
06:29 PM on 03/23/2011
You want them to practice in your neighborhood?
photo
IfIonlyknew
Politics is Hollywood for ugly people.
07:17 PM on 03/23/2011
They are there already.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jwinps
04:19 PM on 03/23/2011
For all of those who tout the safety of nuclear power plants. How about "putting your money where your mouth is" and building your homes within view of them? That way, you can admire their beauty and safety. Oh, yes, I also recommend that you place your offices within their control centers and employ your family members as well.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:17 PM on 03/23/2011
Shut down the power plants, go Solar and Wind.
Happy to read the Germany is thinking of CHANGE.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tulsey
I was Bill Hicks.
05:39 PM on 03/23/2011
Germany have been moving away from nukes for some time. And if those guys can't iron out the technical problems, who can?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom Sito
04:12 PM on 03/23/2011
No power source is worth the potential to kill millions of people BY ACCIDENT. All those who think otherwise, you're welcome to move to a California Beach and wait for the next Japanese radioactive cloud to wash over you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
johnfromojai
03:59 PM on 03/23/2011
Did you know that nuclear supply company GE also owns NBC? When you see a nuclear authority on NBC, don't be surprised when they are supportive of "safe" nuclear power and war activities; GE is also a major war supplier to the US and Israel.
Did you know that GE is also a partial owner of President Obama? GE PACs contributed a half million dollars to his election campaign and who know how much in ongoing political contributions.
When Mr. Obama talks about the need for "safe" nuclear energy he is speaking for his bosses; same with Leiberman and other corrupt politicians.
Work for public funded elections and a break up of the conglomerate media. Boycott, Divest, and Sanction any corporation like GE that profits from illegal occupation.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
09:45 PM on 03/23/2011
GE also built 30% of the wind turbines operating in the US now. All of the 2.5MW units at Sheperd's Flat Windfarm (338) are GE.
03:42 PM on 03/23/2011
Duh? But wait… the propaganda machines are preparing their arguments regarding why nuclear is really great - ok, there's that waste to deal with but oh well we will still get all of the energy we need and if they are close to cities not to worry because they are safe and people who get caught up in the radiation if there is meltdown won't need healthcare for obvious reasons…..and the american public will love and vote yes.
03:40 PM on 03/23/2011
I don't support the idea of Americans subsidising the building of the plants, and having to pay for any nuclear accidents. The owners get the profits, and Americans get the shaft.
T-Haight
What was wrong with federalism?
03:53 PM on 03/23/2011
Is that any different than the subsidies paid to any form of energy industry (including renewable)?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ngonyama
Major prolation, perfect mode
04:23 PM on 03/23/2011
renewable disasters?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tulsey
I was Bill Hicks.
05:16 PM on 03/23/2011
Nuke accidents are the gift that keeps on giving.
03:35 PM on 03/23/2011
Only 52% oppose? What the heck does it take to convince people?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:51 PM on 03/23/2011
Those aren't "convinced" people; those are cautious people. The survey was about "expansion" which doesn't portend a total negative.
05:33 PM on 03/23/2011
A near death experience............