• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • 2 Out of 3 Americans Favor Building Nuclear Power Plants

    A poll released by Zogby International shows that a strong majority (67%) of Americans favor building nuclear power plants. Republicans are most favorably disposed to nuclear energy (85%), with Independents not far behind (70%). Democrats, although less enthusiastic about building new plants, still have a plurality (49%) in support.

    The poll also found that Americans want to build nuclear power plants more than oil, coal, or natural gas plants. A plurality (43%) of those polled said they favor nuclear power stations in their community over any alternative.

    This poll suggests that the decades of propaganda from the anti-nuclear left has failed to terrify most Americans about nuclear energy. Americans understand that nuclear energy is completely safe and environmentally sound. Despite rhetoric about Three Mile Island, no American has ever died or been injured by nuclear energy. These facts seem to have been absorbed by the public and reflected in their good opinion of nuclear power.

    Proponents of nuclear energy should leverage this growing consensus and continue to advocate the economic viability of nuclear energy. In a time where gas prices have risen above $4 nationally and electricity prices are running rampant, consumers are demanding affordable energy. Rapidly growing electricity demands will only make the problem worse without a broad expansion of nuclear power.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to 2 Out of 3 Americans Favor Building Nuclear Power Plants

    1. John Sweeney, Buchan says:

      Nick, a poll by Bisconti about 2 years ago found 80% of people living within 10 miles of existing nuclear plants supported those plants.

      It has not been about the will of the people in general, it has been about the curious dynamic of perhaps 1% of the people, identifying themselves as antinuclear activists, and mobilizing perhaps 15% of the people via email lists.

      These antinuclear core lists then became valuable prizes for eager Democratic candidates in 2006 Democratic primaries, causing candidates to avow sentiments they did not really harbor, in order to win those primaries.

      The Upshot?….. We now have "Antinuclear" Democratic incumbents in New York state, supposedly governing on behalf of an overwhelmingly pro-nuclear populace.

      Manhattanville College took two polls, in 2007 & 2008, and found that in 2007, 67% had no qualms about the further operation of Indian Point nuclear plant, while in 2008, that figure grew to 70%.

      However, the will of the rest of us is of no importance to the obstructionist few. They remember how Lenin took Russia in 1917, and live in hope.

    2. Mike Bartley, Ft Mye says:

      I find it revealing that nuclear proponents never tell you that Nuclear is heavily subsidized, from research to insurance (would double the cost) to federally backed financing. Banks won't take it on. There are no comparable subsidizes for wind and solar. Banks love to lend to them. It is a guarantee pay out and near 0 risk.

      It is not an overstatement to say Nuclear Energy is Government Energy.

      I will be surprise if this comment is posted in its entirety.

      My next post will provide details if this one is APPROVED…

    3. Mike Bartley, Ft Mye says:

      Total subsidies to nuclear approaching $100 billion in US

      1999 US Congressional research service report lists the subsidies for all major sources of energy from 1948 through 1998. This October 2007 Government Accountability Office report examined federal electricity-related subsidies from 2002 to 2007.

      From 1948 to today, US nuclear energy R&D exceeded $70 billion, whereas R& D for renewables was about $10 billion.

      from 2002 to 2007, fossil fuels received almost $14 billion in electricity-related tax subsides, whereas renewables received under $3 billion

      The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which caps the liability for claims arising from nuclear incidents, reduces the insurance that nukes need to buy and puts taxpayers on the hook to cover all claims in excess of the cap. The benefit of this indirect subsidy has been estimated at between $237 million and $3.5 billion a year

      At the time of the Act’s passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.

      that was fine for a new, almost completely unknown technology in 1957. But now through 2025? If investors aren’t willing to accept the risks of nuclear energy now, without taxpayers liable for any major catastrophe, maybe that tells you something about the technology.

      US have the staggering $13 billion in subsides and tax breaks in the Nuclear Giveaway Bill Energy Policy Act of 2005

      That $74Billion for 1948-1998 figure only includes R&D expenditures There’s far more subsidies to the Nuclear power industry just R&D. For instance the financing of building Nuclear power reactors is all thanks to gigantic federal financing.

      http://nirs.org/neconomics/utstatelegislativepreshttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear

      - from gristmill

    4. Mike Bartley, Ft Mye says:

      You are censoring. You are editing my comments because you apparently have an agenda that does not rely on the truth.

    5. Mike Bartley, Ft Mye says:

      This so typical of Right Wing Conservatives. You are without integrity.

      Propaganda is rule of the day.

    6. Mike Bartley, Ft Mye says:

      Your methods are unpatriotic.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×