55% Favor New Nuclear Energy

Posted January 21st, 2009 at 5.29pm in Energy and Environment.

It should be no surprise that Americans favor new nuclear energy in the United States. Nuclear is clean, safe and affordable and already 20% of our electricity comes from commercial nuclear power plants. A new Rasmussen poll reaffirms American support for nuclear:

For three decades, nuclear power plants have generally been unpopular and the target of environmental groups, but 55% of voters now say more nuclear power plants should be built in the United States. Just 29% oppose new plants, with 15% undecided.”

There’s a couple things Congress can do that will bring the undecided and even some of the naysayers to the majority.

1.) Fix the problem of nuclear waste.
2.) Create a stable, regulatory environment that will lead to economic predictability when it comes to the cost of new nuclear plants.
3.) Fast-track new nuclear reactors.

Also interesting from the poll,

Investors certainly like the idea of new plants, too. Sixty-three percent (63%) want to see new nuclear plans built.”

This should give clear indication that more federal handouts aren’t necessary to rebuild the U.S. nuclear industry. In fact, it’s already being built before construction of a plant has even commenced. For more, read here.

Author: Nick Loris
Interact: Sphere
Share This

12 Comments

January 21, 2009 Ozzy6900 writes:

Here’s a couple of thoughts:

1. Nuclear waste is a problem. Why not let scientists work on that problem instead of politicians.
2. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a joke! Not one accredited Nuclear Scientist or Physicist on the committee.
3. In order to “Fast Track” new reactors, we will need to keep the environmentalists at bay. Maybe we could send them to Club Gitmo!

January 21, 2009 Burt Noyes, St. Augustine FL writes:

Looks like 45% of Americans need more education on nuclear energy. It’s the only safe, available, and adequate substitute for a good part of our fossil fuel consumption.

American News Blog

January 22, 2009 tom lutz,green cove springs,fl. writes:

why is it that everything that would help this country in every way never gets done. we should never have quit building neuclear power plants in the first place.

January 22, 2009 RH, OH writes:

Ozzy,
1. I agree on letting scientists *and engineers* solve the waste issue. - They have already figured out several ways to handle it (recycling, to reduce the amount needing disposal, being a major component of the path I’d favor), but politics has prevented implementation of anything but demonstration projects.
2. I have to disagree with you there. The NRC is well qualified for the work they do -
Chairman Dale E. Klein: Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and a Doctorate in Nuclear Engineering,
Commissioner Kristine L. Svinicki: Bachelor’s degree in Nuclear Engineering
Commissioner Peter B. Lyons: Doctorate in Nuclear Astrophysics
Commissioner Gregory B. Jaczko: Doctorate in Physics
- check their additional background in the bios posted at nrc.gov. They are also backed by a staff full of Science and Engineering degrees.
3. There is no fast-tracking for new reactor construction due to the careful process that must be followed and the many decisions that must be made by both industry and regulators to ensure a safe, efficient, economic design and quality construction. An open process like ours will have to deal with opposition along the way, but I like it better than the Tiananmen Square approach. I do wish the anti-nuclear crowd could be persuaded by facts and logic. Maybe a tougher screening of contentions for admission to require rigorous use of facts and logic in presenting a case would help prevent undue delays.

January 22, 2009 Chuck, Sunny South Florida writes:

I, for one, support narrowly focused infrastructure spending. The least supported infrastructure updates over the last three decades has been our nuclear power plants and electric grid. I am proposing we spend most of $400 billion set-aside on infrastructure to increasing the number of nuclear power plants throughout the United States by 120. The benefit to cost will be enormous. Thousands of high paying jobs in each location as well as clean, reliable power for generations to come. This is truly a win-win. Let’s stop frivolous spending and really invest in infrastructure.

I’m a candidate at: http://www.thevirtualcongress.com

January 22, 2009 Jim, Wisconsin writes:

I agree with Ozzy send them all to Gitmo they need a little water boarding. Most of them are commie/socialists anyway.

January 22, 2009 Hozro1, Oregon writes:

Focus on fusion, not fission, then there is no “waste” by products to wrry about! If you use Hydogen, you will have Helium as a waste product. No disposal, fantastic return of energy!
Hozro

January 22, 2009 Wylowen, Camino, CA writes:

In response to Hozro1,
There is a great deal of attention to “Fusion” power, but as yet no reproducable or “practical” application. It is, to quote, “Unobtainium”! With no yet known process, you cannot simply throw around terms such as Helium Waste Product, or “Fantastic” Return of Energy. Until we have a viable process, it is still a large unsitable unknown. You are right, the “potential” is huge, but Fission is real, solved, and “Now”!

January 22, 2009 Spiritof76, New Hampshire writes:

Extreme environmentalists (heard of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the false propaganda and fear mongering by our media, most of whom are anti-capitalists killed nuclear energy in this country. Media fanned the fears of cancer around three mile island and it has been proven false. But it is too late now.
President Carter banned reprocessing of the spent fuels. France and Japan are reprocessing the spent fuels and reducing the size of the waste material.
As a result of being dormant in the development of the nuclear power technology in the last thirty years, the US has lost technical superiority as well as suppliers. Even if we want to start nuclear power today, we have to rely on a few (an mostly European) suppliers.
We signed a deal with India to supply nuclear fuel for their power generation. They are planning to install about 40,000MW in the next twenty years. Their preferences for suppliers are Japanese and European, not the US. The deal required them to place 25% of their order with US companies. They reluctantly agreed to it saying that the US is behind in technology!
On top of it all, we have to reduce the time for license, eliminate all lawsuits and pull the plug on all environmentalists. We should give the environmentalists wind turbines and remove them from the grid. Let them be self sufficient with their “clean” power. Let us see how long they last!

January 23, 2009 Mike, Hickory, NC writes:

Ozzy6900 did the best job of nearly perfectly “nailing it” with the fewest words.

To help make it even more perfect when you think about it, I would just offer the following:

Let’s send all the Leftist/government elitists against nuclear power to the perennial favorite nation of theirs where they get most of their power from nuclear power plants…France!

Do you see a whole Orwellian “Animal Farm” load of Leftist “disingenuousness (hypocrisy)” in the “anti nuclear power” antics of the Left as they are so eager to compare us unfavorably to Euro-Socialism, including French, and demand that we copy them, yet, while they’re at it, they somehow rather conveniently (for them) forget to include the fact that the French get most of their power from nuclear power? I sure do see it!

January 24, 2009 RD, Florida writes:

Nuclear power does not have to remain a right vs. left issue. Some environmentalists are willing to reconsider nuclear power as it can help to reduce carbon emissions. Labor unions like expanded nuclear power because it creates a lot of good paying jobs. The main objections are concerns about nuclear waste and plant security which can be addressed. Proponents of expanded nuclear energy need to do more outreach to progressive constituencies. Energy independence is too important to be left to the private sector. I would like to see TVA-like authorities created to build more nuclear plants.

January 25, 2009 Thomas Gray South Carolina, writes:

Rd Florida,

Why did you not just say remember three mile island ??,

Ozzy, sing sing would look better on their next job applacation,

RH, OH,

I agree very much with your reality based answer, thanks.

The Heritage Foundation - Leadership for America

The Foundry