Gallup: For First Time, Majority in U.S. Oppose Nuclear Energy.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This is a bad sign. Nuclear power is one of the few fossil fuel alternatives that is actually viable on the free market.

hhahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahhahah

I actually laughed IRL, well done.

[P123]

This is obviously terrible news, but as someone pointed out upthread it probably has been this way in the past.

[Adam Griffin]

Did anybody consider that this is part of a tracking poll of sorts and may just be a horribly skewed result/blip on the radar?

[Figueira]

Low information voters are becoming the norm.

I'm not entirely against nuclear energy, but calling people "low information voters" for disagreeing with you on this issue is a bit disingenuous.

(Before anyone asks, my avatar is about ideology, not party.)

[ProgressiveCanadian]

I guess the pro-nuke propaganda isn't having much of an effect anymore.

The future is in green energy - not nuclear.

Brilliant!

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Low information voters are becoming the norm.

I'm not entirely against nuclear energy, but calling people "low information voters" for disagreeing with you on this issue is a bit disingenuous.

(Before anyone asks, my avatar is about ideology, not party.)

Most of the disagreements on this issue, especially in this country, are based on scare-tactics by professional anti-nuclear activists. It's by far the safest, most reliable, and most cost-effective way to keep our country lit without relying on increasingly scarce and environmentally damaging fossil fuels and coal.

[Virginiá]

Most of the disagreements on this issue, especially in this country, are based on scare-tactics by professional anti-nuclear activists. It's by far the safest, most reliable, and most cost-effective way to keep our country lit without relying on increasingly scarce and environmentally damaging fossil fuels and coal.

Agreed. Their efforts have held nuclear energy research back decades. The older plants were more vulnerable to issues/meltdowns but there are much safer generation III+ plants/designs that mitigate a lot of these issues and even research into generation IV designs that eliminate the risk of a meltdown entirely, such as MSRs.

These yuppies have set back what were, and still are, extremely promising candidates for clean energy, all based on this ignorant view that somehow because some older, sometimes poorly designed plants had meltdowns decades ago, that it can never be safe. Many early versions of our commonly used technologies weren't safe to start with, either.

[DINGO Joe]

Most of the disagreements on this issue, especially in this country, are based on scare-tactics by professional anti-nuclear activists. It's by far the safest, most reliable, and most cost-effective way to keep our country lit without relying on increasingly scarce and environmentally damaging fossil fuels and coal.

Agreed. Their efforts have held nuclear energy research back decades. The older plants were more vulnerable to issues/meltdowns but there are much safer generation III+ plants/designs that mitigate a lot of these issues and even research into generation IV designs that eliminate the risk of a meltdown entirely, such as MSRs.

These yuppies have set back what were, and still are, extremely promising candidates for clean energy, all based on this ignorant view that somehow because some older, sometimes poorly designed plants had meltdowns decades ago, that it can never be safe. Many early versions of our commonly used technologies weren't safe to start with, either.

I'm dubious about the assertion that nuclear energy research has been held back decades , or at all for that matter.  Really, the issue with nuclear still seems to be affordability both Vogtle and Sumner seem awfully pricey and continue to have issue with being built in a timely manner--adding even more to the cost.  Really, wind, solar and CC NG plants seem the way to go right now in the US (along with efficiency).  Maybe there will be a breakthrough in Nuclear, maybe there will one in battery storage, but right now those should be the big three.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The case for nuclear was more compelling when nuclear plants would be replacing coal plants which have problems beyond greenhouse gases. Replacing gas plants which have no problems with ash and far fewer particulate emissions isn't nearly as compelling. That combined with improvements in renewables and currently cheap gas are enuf to explain the public's disdain without blaming the increased costs of nuclear due to excessive regulation due to a lower tolerance of nuclear risk compared to other forms of energy generation.

[Virginiá]

I'm dubious about the assertion that nuclear energy research has been held back decades , or at all for that matter.  Really, the issue with nuclear still seems to be affordability both Vogtle and Sumner seem awfully pricey and continue to have issue with being built in a timely manner--adding even more to the cost.  Really, wind, solar and CC NG plants seem the way to go right now in the US (along with efficiency).  Maybe there will be a breakthrough in Nuclear, maybe there will one in battery storage, but right now those should be the big three.

By the late early 80s, many new plants had been cancelled and that industry sort of went stagnant until I believe 2012 or 2013 when a few new ones were approved. Past that, where was the government funding for new research and incentives for the private sector? Where were all the new plants? Where was/is all the new testing and new R&D? If you're saying R&D never stopped, then where are the fruits of that research? I need examples because I'm talking about large-scale operations that would be present were nuclear energy a vibrant, growing industry, as it would have had govt properly supported it and public opinion not been so stupidly ignorant on it.

If there is no demand and no incentives or funding, then the private sector's interest in nuclear energy goes down. The US Govt was researching MSRs like 40 years ago until they scrapped it, and only recently has it gotten interest and actual development in China. That design is one of the safest but most technologically complicated at the moment, and if we had put half as much effort into it as we have solar, then 40 years of that and we'd probably have at least rudimentary but operational versions those plants today.

I actually do think Solar and other clean energy sources are more viable now, but I still think irrational and ignorant public opinion pushed away a very promising candidate for clean energy that we could have maximized use of years ago.

[DINGO Joe]

I don't think you can view the lack of a breakthrough as proof that research is lacking--I have no idea how govt or private  funding of nuclear research compares to past funding, but it certainly exists.  Even if the US weren't to embrace it,  I think the incentive still exists in the supposition that the Chinese will try anything, and there's money to be made off of that. (You could say similar things about "clean coal" research too) Also, while there haven't been any new nuclear plants in the US for some time there have been advancements in extending the life of current plants and several successful uprating projects.  There's also been the notable failure of SONGS out in California. 

[TJ in Oregon]

I don't think you can view the lack of a breakthrough as proof that research is lacking--I have no idea how govt or private  funding of nuclear research compares to past funding, but it certainly exists.  Even if the US weren't to embrace it,  I think the incentive still exists in the supposition that the Chinese will try anything, and there's money to be made off of that. (You could say similar things about "clean coal" research too) Also, while there haven't been any new nuclear plants in the US for some time there have been advancements in extending the life of current plants and several successful uprating projects.  There's also been the notable failure of SONGS out in California. 

The US has numerous rules effectively forbidding things like fuel reprocessing and the construction of test reactors. Compared to the alternative energy areas, nuclear receives negligible research support--and much of what it does get is dedicated to fusion. In our current setup, it would be nigh impossible to ever have a breakthrough, at least in the US.

[dax00]

I am pro-nuclear, for sure. This is clearly a case of the low-information voter. We need to stop using uranium, however, switching to the much more efficient thorium.

[Derpist]

Nuclear power is a green alternative to solar and wind energy, and I say this as someone who used to work in the latter two industries.

[Frodo]

Anyone who doesn't also include nuclear energy as part of the assortment of tools to fight human-driven climate change cannot be taken seriously on the issue.  

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Anyone who doesn't also include nuclear energy as part of the assortment of tools to fight human-driven climate change cannot be taken seriously on the issue.  

Well that's just a stupid statement.

[Frodo]

Anyone who doesn't also include nuclear energy as part of the assortment of tools to fight human-driven climate change cannot be taken seriously on the issue.  

Well that's just a stupid statement.

Is it?  Germany had to turn to coal after deciding to shut down their nuclear power plants, because renewables alone couldn't adequately meet their energy demands.  

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Low information voters are becoming the norm.

More like low information forum posters.  At least the average American knows the price of natural gas.  Nuclear power plants are just not economically viable in the current environment.  I don't know why you would denigrate people for knowing that.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Anyone who doesn't also include nuclear energy as part of the assortment of tools to fight human-driven climate change cannot be taken seriously on the issue.  

Well that's just a stupid statement.

Is it?  Germany had to turn to coal after deciding to shut down their nuclear power plants, because renewables alone couldn't adequately meet their energy demands.  

This was because of three factors: the "nuclear phase out" was a badly unchoreographed U-turn rather than a well-thought-out move,  the collapse of the European Cap and trade mechanism leading to coal being effectively aubsidised compared to its rivals and nativist demands to use "German coal" rather than imported gas.

If you want to rely on nuclear for a grid with renewables, the big baseload plants that Germany are killing are dead anyway. If something can't be quickly mobilised it's effectively useless in a flexible grid.

[Badger]

hooray for global warming!