Gallup: Americans now slightly opposed to building nuclear reactors

[Tender Branson]

WASHINGTON — Americans' support for nuclear power has fallen, as 70% of those surveyed in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say they've grown more concerned about the industry's safety based on the crisis unfolding at reactors in Japan.

Americans oppose building nuclear plants by a 47%-44% ratio, according to the poll. Support for constructing reactors was at 57% when Gallup asked a similar question about a week before Friday's earthquake and tsunami left Japan struggling to avert catastrophic meltdowns and fires at three damaged nuclear plants.

The new poll shows that worries about a similar disaster in the USA have climbed amid the crisis in Japan: 39% of those surveyed say they've grown "a lot more concerned," and 31% say they've become "a little more concerned."

The poll of 1,004 adults has a margin of error of +/–4 percentage points.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-17-rw_nukepoll14_ST_N.htm

[minionofmidas]

That poll doesn't say what your thread title says.

[Tender Branson]

That poll doesn't say what your thread title says.

Better now ?

[minionofmidas]

Yes.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Reactionary & Expected.

[Lief 🗽]

Good, good.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Good, good.

You're anti-nuke, Lief?  Environmental concerns I presume?

[Lief 🗽]

Good, good.

You're anti-nuke, Lief?  Environmental concerns I presume?

Yes, though I also don't believe they're a very good investment financially.

[courts]

Good, good.

You're anti-nuke, Lief?  Environmental concerns I presume?

Yes, though I also don't believe they're a very good investment financially.

It always amuses me how many 'libertarians' are extremely pro-nuclear when the only reason that industry is viable in the first place is because of the Price-Anderson Act.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Good, good.

You're anti-nuke, Lief?  Environmental concerns I presume?

Yes, though I also don't believe they're a very good investment financially.

It always amuses me how many 'libertarians' are extremely pro-nuclear when the only reason that industry is viable in the first place is because of the Price-Anderson Act.

Why are you surprised many support a vastly superior method of generating energy just because of some governent protection?   

[Ban my account ffs!]

Your'e going to see a massive increase in natural gas fired power plants in the coming few years since it is much cleaner than coal and much safer than nuclear... and in the past few years, has become much more plentiful and cost-effective in the U.S.  (thanks to fracking).

I don't know what environmentalists will oppose more:  nuclear or natural gas... but one of them is going to have to increase with electricity demand.  Solar and wind just won't do the job.  That is not an ideological statement... but a simple, sad fact.  (Though of course solar is showing a lot of promise and wind energy can increase... along with the most important energy efficiency/conservation)

[courts]

Good, good.

You're anti-nuke, Lief?  Environmental concerns I presume?

Yes, though I also don't believe they're a very good investment financially.

It always amuses me how many 'libertarians' are extremely pro-nuclear when the only reason that industry is viable in the first place is because of the Price-Anderson Act.

Why are you surprised many support a vastly superior method of generating energy just because of some governent protection?   

Because if they let the 'market' take its course (as it's always right) they wouldn't even get off the drawing board simply due to the liabilities and NIMBY-ism.

[tpfkaw]

Good, good.

You're anti-nuke, Lief?  Environmental concerns I presume?

Yes, though I also don't believe they're a very good investment financially.

It always amuses me how many 'libertarians' are extremely pro-nuclear when the only reason that industry is viable in the first place is because of the Price-Anderson Act.

Why are you surprised many support a vastly superior method of generating energy just because of some governent protection?

Because if they let the 'market' take its course (as it's always right) they wouldn't even get off the drawing board simply due to the liabilities and NIMBY-ism.

Agreed, but that's an argument against banning nuclear power.  There obviously should be a free market in energy.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Good, good.

You're anti-nuke, Lief?  Environmental concerns I presume?

Yes, though I also don't believe they're a very good investment financially.

It always amuses me how many 'libertarians' are extremely pro-nuclear when the only reason that industry is viable in the first place is because of the Price-Anderson Act.

Why are you surprised many support a vastly superior method of generating energy just because of some governent protection?

Because if they let the 'market' take its course (as it's always right) they wouldn't even get off the drawing board simply due to the liabilities and NIMBY-ism.

Agreed, but that's an argument against banning nuclear power.  There obviously should be a free market in energy.

Nuclear energy isn't going to be banned... though new construction will likely be scuttled.

But as I said... natural gas.. and coal.  CO2 emissions are going nowhere but up up up.  Jesus I really really hope the IPCC is wrong... or we are f**ked.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It always amuses me how many 'libertarians' are extremely pro-nuclear when the only reason that industry is viable in the first place is because of the Price-Anderson Act.

Actually, I would argue it is because of our failure to enact a carbon tax on fossil fuels sufficient to offset their social costs.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Good, good.

You're anti-nuke, Lief?  Environmental concerns I presume?

Yes, though I also don't believe they're a very good investment financially.

It always amuses me how many 'libertarians' are extremely pro-nuclear when the only reason that industry is viable in the first place is because of the Price-Anderson Act.

Why are you surprised many support a vastly superior method of generating energy just because of some governent protection?

Because if they let the 'market' take its course (as it's always right) they wouldn't even get off the drawing board simply due to the liabilities and NIMBY-ism.

Agreed, but that's an argument against banning nuclear power.  There obviously should be a free market in energy.

Nuclear energy isn't going to be banned... though new construction will likely be scuttled.

But as I said... natural gas.. and coal.  CO2 emissions are going nowhere but up up up.  Jesus I really really hope the IPCC is wrong... or we are f**ked.

     What new construction is there anyway? To my knowledge, there's only one plant currently being built in the United States. I doubt any other plans would get off the ground anyway.