European support for nuclear power as a solution to climate change plummets

[bananas]

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/european-support-for-nuclear-power-as-a-solut/blog/11704

European support for nuclear power as a solution to climate change plummets
Originally posted by Justin on April 30, 2010 5:43 PM.

This week the European Commission released its Europeans and Nuclear Safety Eurobarometer report (PDF). The report attempts to measure EU citizen’s attitudes to nuclear power. It makes for very interesting reading indeed.

• In the 2006 report, 62% of EU citizens people thought that nuclear power could help combat climate change. That number has plummeted to 46%. The number of people who answered ‘don’t know’ has risen in France, Spain, Finland, UK, Belgium, Luxemburg, Ireland, Estona, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Malta and Cyprus. France, UK and Finland are at the heart of the faltering nuclear ‘renaissance’.

• In Bulgaria, Germany, France and Romania the number of people who think nuclear reactors can be run safely has fallen. The number of EU citizens that want to increase nuclear in the energy mix increased from 14% in 2006 to 17% now but ‘Europeans still do not consider nuclear energy as an option to tackle the energy supply/use challenges faced by developed societies.’

• EU citizens ‘consider that the current share of nuclear energy in the energy mix should be maintained or reduced’. Not, you’ll notice, increase.

• ‘Lack of security to protect NPPs against terrorist attacks and the disposal and management of radioactive waste remain the major dangers associated with nuclear energy’

• 'Citizens would like to know more about radioactive waste management and environmental monitoring procedures.'

If you live in Europe, take a look at the report yourself and see what you need to do to fight the nuclear power in your own country.

Bear this in mind, however. The report is produced against the background of the European Commission launching the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF), in 2007. It is promoted as ‘a platform aiming to promote broad discussion, free of any taboos, on issues of transparency as well as the opportunities and risks of nuclear energy’.

So interested is the nuclear-industry dominated ENEF in ‘broad discussion’, breaking ‘taboos’ as well as discussing the ‘transparency‘, ‘opportunities’ and ‘risks’ of nuclear power that Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Sortir du Nucléaire pulled out of the body ‘accusing ENEF of stifling critical voices, ignoring their concerns and riding roughshod over alternative scientific evidence.’

[Statistical]

1. I recomend everyone read the actual report. Green peace glosses over a lot.

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/2010_eurobarometer_safety.pdf

Some highlights of what I found interesting:

France is not that pro nuclear (about middle of the pack when it comes to EU).

Europeans believe nuclear energy reduces energy imports by 3 to 1 (Agree to disagree).
Europeans believe nuclear energy leads to more competitive and stable prices by a margin of 3 to 2 (Agree to Disagree).

Although Greenpeace tries to play it as a negative:
Europeans are more likely to agree than disagree with statement that nuclear energy helps to limit climate change 46% to 36%.


A country that continually answers very pro-nuclear (almost always) at top of country list is Denmark but Denmark doesn't have any reactors....

The anti-nuclear sentiment is not evenly distributed in Europe. There are pockets with very high anti-nuclear sentiment but most of them have no nuclear reactors and no plans for new ones meaning that sentiment is unlikely to shape future politics.

Pro-nuclear answers directly correlates to higher education.
Age doesn't correlate at all (equally pro/anti nuclear among young, middle aged, old).
Men more pro-nuclear than women.
Countries with nuclear power tend to be more pro-nuclear.
Former soviet bloc countries tend to be mixed bag with some pro-nuclear and some strongly anti-nuclear

This question:
In your opinion, should the current level of nuclear energy as a proportion of all energy
sources be reduced, maintained the same or be increased?
.....2006 2009
Reduced. 39% 34% -5%
Maintain 34% 39% +5%
Increase 14% 17% +3%
Not Sure 13% 19% -3%

Of course even maintaining share of nuclear energy requires new reactor construction.

[joshcryer]

3. Thanks for your search for truth and explaination.

[joshcryer]

4. Oh, the part about "true or false, are new nuclear plants being built in our country" was amazing.

Most respondents in Finland, Bulgaria and France are aware of this fact. However, the level of information differs from one country to the other: though 87% of respondents in Finland answer the question correctly, this percentage is 16 points lower in Bulgaria and slightly exceeds 50% in France (54%). Interviewees in Slovakia seem to be somewhat confused about the situation of new NPPs in their country; 47% give the correct answer but an almost equal proportion (44%) believe it is untrue that NPPs are presently under construction.

In the United Kingdom, 46% of respondents believe that nuclear power plants are under construction there, though this is not the case. The UK was actually the first country to use nuclear energy to generate power for large-scale civilian use, opening its first plant in 1956. The last new reactor was opened in 1995, and the country has been steadily decommissioning its old plants, with many set to close by 2023. However, in 2008, the government gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations, and discussions in order to identify the best sites for new reactors, streamline the planning processes etc. are currently ongoing35. This could explain why such a significant percentage of UK respondents think that the construction of NPPs is a fact.

[kristopher]

2. Fieldwork from 9/09-10/09

Looks to be interesting data. I've stated a number of times that the primary motive of nuclear supporters is related to the high value they place on energy security, so I chuckled when I saw the first item on the ExSum, "European public opinion accepts the value of nuclear energy to some extent, primarily as a mean of decreasing energy dependence, but continues to consider that the current share of nuclear energy in the energy mix should be maintained or reduced"


ETA - the point of noting when the fieldwork was done relates to the obvious implications of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. I suspect that will escalate the hubris and dishonesty of the nuclear industry to the more prominent position it merits.

[kristopher]

5. 17% rate of support for increasing nuclear.

"less than one respondent in five believes the share of nuclear energy in the energy mix should be increased. The largest segment of the European population (39%) would like to maintain it at the current level while an almost equal proportion (34%) wish it to be reduced. "

2009
34% - Reduce

39% - Maintain constant

17% - Increase

10% - Duh...


I'll bet the 39% that endorse maintaining the current level are not endorsing replacing aging reactors. The question is ambiguous in that it can be interpreted either as "don't run out and shut them all down, but don't build anymore" or "don't increase our reliance on nuclear power, but build enough to keep the level we have". Since these respondents have rejected the obvious choice that involves building more more plants, I'm betting they are just saying "let sleeping dogs lie".

[FBaggins]

7. Yes... that's 17% supporting increasing nuclear

What they fail to note is that this number is UP 3% from the last poll.

In reality, the poll shows support for increased nuclear rising, while support for reducing nuclear falling... yet they spin the title as what?

[Statistical]

9. Also the keep nuclear option is up 5%.

So in 3 years the keep or expand nuclear groups gained a total of 8% (with reduce nuclear and don't know losing ground).

OH NOES NUCLEAR IS DEAD.

The other thing to consider is that Europe isn't "unified" on this issue. Some countries are substantially higher that the continent average.

[kristopher]

12. There is ONLY a 17% rate of support for increasing nuclear.

That sucks.

[Statistical]

24. Support for nuclear increasing

..... yay that would suck for you! :rofl:

[kristopher]

13. The rate of support for increasing nuclear is a shitty 17%.

[FBaggins]

15. And climbing... while the "reduced" support falls.

I don't blame GP for trying to spin it, but it's still spin.

And that the "rate of support for increasing" the proportion from nuclear.

[kristopher]

19. People DO NOT WANT NUCLEAR POWER.

The results couldn't be more clear.

[FBaggins]

20. "Couldn't be more clear" TO YOU

Which is to say... the results are likely exactly the opposite.

Only a small (and shrinking) minority wants to decrease the proportion of their power that comes from nuclear sources. That's your position and the vast majority doesn't agree with you... so you pretend that others do by assuming that they didn't understand the question.

[kristopher]

22. 34% DECREASE 17% INCREASE = Good news for nuclear???

Right....

[FBaggins]

25. Yes.

When "increase" is going up and "decrease" is going down... how can that be anything BUT good news for nuclear?

Particularly when you just look at the countries where new nuclear power is a growing possibility.

Only 34% agree with your position that nuclear power should be a declining proportion of future power generation. The better question is how you think you can spin that as "good news for kristopher" ?

[bananas]

32. Shows how desperate they are.

They try to spin this as good news.
The nuclear spin machine, where up is down and left is right.

[FBaggins]

33. Lol! How would *you* have answered the question?

Do you think that the proportion of total energy production in Europe... say 20 years from now... that comes from nuclear power should be greater than it currently is, less than it currently is, or about the same?

[FBaggins]

41. What? No answer?

How shocking.

:sarcasm:

[kristopher]

43. Answer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x246927#247198

[FBaggins]

44. Bananas may actually have the guts to answer.

You obviously didn't.

[kristopher]

46. Answer the question.

Don't you have the guts to do anything but divert the topic?

[FBaggins]

47. Excuse me?

I was the one asking the question... you're the one with the diversion.


Do you think that the proportion of total energy production in Europe... say 20 years from now... that comes from nuclear power should be greater than it currently is, less than it currently is, or about the same?

[kristopher]

48. Answer the question,

Enough of your nonsense.

[FBaggins]

49. What question?

Do you need to talk to someone about getting a dosage increased? I asked the question and am trying to get bananas to answer it. You can feel free to as well, but what question are you insisting that I answer?

[kristopher]

50. So you CAN'T answer the question.

[FBaggins]

51. You're just plain, nuts, aren't you?

You haven't ASKED a question.

[kristopher]

52. Resorting to personal attacks because you can't answer the question?

Typical.

[FBaggins]

53. Nope... not answering "the question" because no question has been asked.

The fact that your OCD forces you to spam the thread rather than type the question you want answered should be embarrassing (though not surprising) to you.

[kristopher]

54. Not that dodge again. You have lost all credibility.

[FBaggins]

55. Nope...

I already answered it.

[kristopher]

56. Typical pronuke evasion and spin - answer the question

[FBaggins]

57. Which question would that be?

Type it out and I'll answer it.

Unlike you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. It's not ambiguous; you are just assuming that 39% of people can't understand their language

It is possible that some of that 39% misunderstood it as "don't run out and shut them all down, but don't build anymore", but you have no evidence for that. The question is straightforward in English: "In your opinion, should the current level of nuclear energy as a proportion of all energy sources be reduced, maintained the same or be increased?" It says 'level', it mentions a 'proportion', not "existing reactors" or anything tied to current plants, so it's not about 'them' but about 'it', and it doesn't say anything about shutting down or building more.

Don't assume people are more stupid than you are.

[kristopher]

10. It's clear you've never done polling or designed polls.

If you had you'd know I'm assuming nothing, I'm pointing out an obvious weakness in the wording of the question. No, it doesn't say anything about shutting down or building more, and that is the problem with the wording; it captures people with both points of view.

Since you don't agree with me perhaps you can tell me how the poll differentiates between those who DO NOT want replacement plants built and those who ONLY want plants built to replace aging ones?

While you are at it, explain the logic of a person who supports building more plants, but only to maintain the current level of generation from nuclear? What beliefs would a person have to motivate that response?

Your criticism doesn't track.

[FBaggins]

14. Simple,

Since you don't agree with me perhaps you can tell me how the poll differentiates between those who DO NOT want replacement plants built and those who ONLY want plants built to replace aging ones?

Simple. It assumes that people understand that maintaining a constant proportion of a growing total requires replacing retiring production and increasing new production in line with overall demand growth.

A far more reasonable assumption than your "they just don't want to shut down existing plants now"

While you are at it, explain the logic of a person who supports building more plants, but only to maintain the current level of generation from nuclear?

To maintain the current PROPORTION from nuclear... not the absolute level. Why would someone want that? Presumably because they think that the current mix is getting the job done. A bit short sighted, but that's how we got in this mess in the first place isn't it?

it captures people with both points of view.

No... it really doesn't. Retaining the current number of reactors and letting it decline as they age out would mean an ongoing reduction the "level of nuclear energy as a proportion of all energy" - Your position assumes that they can't understand this simple fact and answer "reduced" if that's how they feel.

[kristopher]

18. ROFLMAO

Wrong.

[FBaggins]

21. Translation "I can't rebut that"

Do you think anyone was surprised?

At least you typed more than a period and a Jacobsen paste. :rofl:

[kristopher]

23. ROFLMAO

Still wrong.

[FBaggins]

26. "Still wrong" yet you can't come up with any reason why?

What a surprise. :rofl:

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. My pleasure

Since you don't agree with me perhaps you can tell me how the poll differentiates between those who DO NOT want replacement plants built and those who ONLY want plants built to replace aging ones?

Those who do not want replacement plants built vote for 'reduce the level'; those who only want plants built to replace aging ones choose 'maintain'; and those who want more than there are at present vote for 'increase'.

If you can't understand that, then I recommend you don't design any poll questions yourself in the future. It might be better for you not to answer them either.

While you are at it, explain the logic of a person who supports building more plants, but only to maintain the current level of generation from nuclear? What beliefs would a person have to motivate that response?

They think that nuclear power is a worthwhile contributor to electricity production - less CO2 than coal or gas, and a good candidate for base load generation. But they don't want it dominating, and think that renewables can replace the coal and gas plants. They may well think that new sites for nuclear reactors may not be a good idea - a lot of possible opposition from locals, but that building replacement reactors on existing sites is OK - the infrastructure is there, the people living close have the expertise and may want to keep their jobs.

[kristopher]

28. No cigar, champ.

The idea of "build plants" is tied inextricably to "increase" unless it is clearly differentiated.

This area of the poll is ambiguous and there is nothing you can say to change that. I'd guess (using forced choice oppose/support figures as a guide) that about 1/3 of those who say maintain actually do not want new plants built.

[FBaggins]

34. Only if you assume that Europeans are idiots.

Idiots who think that power plants last forever. Why do you assume that?

This area of the poll is ambiguous

Or so you wish... and there's nothing you can say to change that.

[Statistical]

38. Kris thinks this poll is also ambiguous.

Somehow based not this "ambiguous" poll he reaches the conclusion that
1) support for nuclear energy is falling
2) only 28% of people support nuclear power (because "only" 28% STRONGLY support nuclear power - the highest number yet)

Poll clearly has 4 possible choices:
STRONGLY SUPPORT
SOMEWHAT SUPPORT
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE
STRONGLY OPPOSE

However using "Kris logic" only people saying STRONGLY support actually support nuclear power. Despite the word "support" in SOMEWHAT SUPPORT the person saying that "really" means OPPOSE.

It is all very simple:
What the person actually says doesn't matter. What Kris "knows" the person "really" thinks is what is valid.

On a related note he also thinks majority of Democrats don't support nuclear power:


See it is "obvious".

[kristopher]

39. Exactly, it's the same issue as it too captures both views.

First lets look at the party affiliation and how it shakes out when you DON'T fudge the numbers with an ambiguously worded question:

The President and Nuclear Power
January 28, 2010 1:21 PM
If anyone doubts that President Obama did at least a little reaching across the aisle in his State of the Union address
last night, consider nuclear power. His call to expand it is most popular in some of his weakest support groups – and
quite less so in his base.

We polled on this in August, finding 52 percent support for building more nuclear plants, up a bit from 46 percent
eight years previously – but with sharp divisions by partisanship, ideology, age and sex. It also has a strong NIMBY
component, with support steeply lower if a plant’s to be built relatively near your community.

Support for more nuclear plants in our poll reached 61 percent among Republicans and 55 percent among
independents, the crucial center where Obama’s been in trouble of late. Among Democrats, by contrast, it dropped to
41 percent, with nearly six in 10 opposed.

Ideology tells a similar story. Conservatives favor building more nuclear plants by a 23-point margin. Moderates –
remember the middle – by a closer 54-44 percent. Liberals, on the other hand, oppose it as broadly as conservatives
are in support....

And then the reply to your assertion that the question you like to use is not poorly worded to capture the actual level of support:
Response to Gallup nuclear poll graph

That presentation of data is not the sentiment that the underlying poll reveals. First, here is a clear image of public support for nuclear:

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

What the graphs stats used charts is actually how worried people are about energy and climate. The underlying poll asks if nuclear should be "one of the ways" to provide electricity for the US.

Influences on that graph:
1) Nuclear already IS one of the ways, so the reader must be in favor of decommissioning nuclear power in a time of uncertainty regarding energy security and climate change to be "opposed".

2) The answers are divided into 4 categories; and what isn't shown is that the shift to "strongly support" has only changed a couple of percentage points.

3) When you compare the Gallup poll with the two posted above (those are typical of polling on the issue) you can see the way energy security is a higher priority than environmental issues for those who state direct support for nuclear power as it is identical to the results for building more coal plants, and tracks the approval of drilling for petroleum closely.

The use of that graph is a standard attempt to create foster "the bandwagon effect"


I wonder what the results of polling would be if respondents were shown this graph first:


Full cost report by Cooper here:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. So what you're saying is that 13% are so stupid

that, like you, they can't understand the question and they agree with you?

[kristopher]

40. No, I'm saying the question has a weakness - because it does.

If you are driven to construct a strawman argument as your reply, that is one you, not me.

[kristopher]

11. It's clear you've never done polling or designed polls.

If you had you'd know I'm assuming nothing, I'm pointing out an obvious weakness in the wording of the question. No, it doesn't say anything about shutting down or building more, and that is the problem with the wording; it captures people with both points of view.

Since you don't agree with me perhaps you can tell me how the poll differentiates between those who DO NOT want replacement plants built and those who ONLY want plants built to replace aging ones?

While you are at it, explain the logic of a person who supports building more plants, but only to maintain the current level of generation from nuclear? What beliefs would a person have to motivate that response?

Your criticism doesn't track.

[kristopher]

16. Lower than Congress...

[kristopher]

17. Lower than CHENEY....

[bananas]

30. That really puts it in perspective! They'd rather have Dick Cheney than nuclear energy!

[madokie]

6. Kick

[bananas]

29. From almost two-thirds to less than half

People are starting to see through the nuclear marketing PR campaign:
"In the 2006 report, 62% of EU citizens people thought that nuclear power could help combat climate change. That number has plummeted to 46%."

[kristopher]

31. Only in the world of nuclear industry PR would this polling be positive...

17% support?
:rofl:

[FBaggins]

35. Oh no... see... you don't understand.

It's a poorly worded question. :rofl:

20% of them obviously accounted for by the people who no longer believe that climate change exists... so they don't think that nuclear power can help with something that doesn't exist.

If only they had asked the question more clearly.

[Statistical]

37. Exactly.

It is strange that in every survey the "poorly wordedness" is always used an an excuse by Kris to interpret what the person sampling "REALLY" was thinking.

I mean this is coming from the same guy who based on this clear question reached two conclusions:
1) support for nuclear energy is falling
2) "REALLY" only 28% of people support nuclear energy.

[kristopher]

42. Nope

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x246927#247198

[FBaggins]

45. A post without credibility

doesn't gain any by being repeated... in fact it loses some (if that were even possible).