Canadians Shun Nuclear Energy and Use of Coal

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/28588/canadians_shun_nuclear_energy_and_use_of_coal/

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research

Canadians Shun Nuclear Energy and Use of Coal

October 13, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in Canada believe the country should rely on renewable energy sources, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 89 per cent of respondents think both wind power and solar power are positive, because they are better for the environment.

Conversely, 50 per cent of respondents believe nuclear power is negative because there is no long-term solution for nuclear waste disposal, and 69 per cent question using coal to generate electricity, because the process still causes pollution.

On the topic of using natural gas to generate electricity, 45 per cent of respondents express positive views because it releases fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels, while 33 per cent disagree because natural gas still contributes to global warming.

The survey also showed high support for two vehicle-related energy sources. 69 per cent of respondents think using cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells is positive because they do not generate carbon dioxide, and 64 per cent support using ethanol—a fuel that can be manufactured from sources such as corn and wheat—because it could eventually become a substitute for oil.

...

[enid602]

1. Canada

Yeah, that's why they're stripmining half of Alberta and the Arctic for shale oil.

[XemaSab]

2. There's not liking it and having a choice

and there's not liking it and having no other choice. :P

[NNadir]

3. If Canadians 9 out of 10 Canadians believe a polar bear is a fish, that doesn't make a polar

bear a fish.

So called "renewable energy" is a failure. It doesn't work on a significant scale, not in Germany, not in Canada, not in the United States, not in Swaziland, not in Antarctica.

The poll is probably bullshit anyway. Most of these mindless anti-nuke polls are pretty much the same as the rest of the rest of the stuff from the anti-nuke industry.

Canada will either burn dangerous fossil fuels or it will go nuclear.

To this day the scientifically illiterate highly paid (off) anti-nuclear industry cannot produce a single case, not ONE, of a person killed by the storage of so called "nuclear waste" in Canada or anywhere else. And, of course, the anti-nuke industry couldn't care less if there is a storage system for dangerous fossil fuel wastes, which kill millions of people around the world.

[spag68]

4. Sorry Mr. NNadir

This is the second post i've read with you pimping for nuclear power, and other fossil fuels. Why don't you understand that the investment money for those methods have already been spent and paid for by the taxpayers. Power lines, plants tax breaks for oil companys, for the last 100 years. Don't cry that solar gets a small subsidy, keep your nickers on rabbit. Solar can be had for abour 9$ akwh installed or about 35to40 thousand for a functioning systym. Rebates and such cut that about in half, and the payback comeas between 5 and 8 years. Since the solar cells are good for 25 years, it looks good to me. Saving money is not the prime reason to do this, as we in the business know, it is just to do the right thing and still make it pay for you, As lomg as your electric cio has nedt metering you make out ok. Just think the p[ower is yours charge your car, run the housr and may pay the man nothing. If you don't like that there is something wrong with you. By the way I've worked in Beaver Falls and Turkey Point and short stint at shoreham, saw a few construction people die there, but many more in the coal to gas plant factory I worked from start to finish.saw signs like"caution high cancer area" made me feel secure. If you can't gut this to penitrate your obviously thick skull, then there may be no hope for you. I however have done a couple of these systyms and plan to do mors, one roof at a time.

[NickB79]

5. I'm sure there's an argument in there somewhere

And if you'd work on your punctuation, it might become readable.

[NNadir]

7. Sigh...

I always love these, "I worked at the nuclear plant and there was cancer everywhere" tales.

I don't actually believe a single one of them of course, but I always enjoy them.

There's a classic poster like this over at another website who was a witness to Harrisburg being totally wiped out by Threee Mile Island. The scientific illiteracy demonstrated by this "nuclear expert" is spectacular.

I couldn't care less why the solar industry is a spectacular failure, I only know that it is a spectacular failure.

There is something that is completely unknown in the anti-nuclear industry. It's called numbers.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html

The highly paid (off) anti-nuclear industry simply and clearly opposes the largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy.

By the way, how come I never hear from someone claiming to have had health effects from working in a coal plant?

Let me guess...

There are no members of the anti-nuclear industry who give a rat's ass about dangerous fossil fuels.

Millions of people could die each year from coal plants and you couldn't care less. How I know? Millions of people do die each year and you have nothing, zero, to say.

[kestrel91316]

14. (taps NN on shoulder) - psssst, you forgot to call the OP a sockpuppet

You're slipping.

[kestrel91316]

16. Yeah, we have nothing to say other than "Wean this country the hell OFF

fossil fuel dependence!"

Not sure why you are perpetually denying that. Why do you think we want alternatives? So we can use LESS fossil fuels.

Don't forget to call me an illiterate sockpuppet, now.

[kestrel91316]

15. Oops, NN:

"Canada will either burn dangerous fossil fuels or it will go nuclear"

You forgot to refer to nuclear as "perfectly safe". You are DEFINITELY slipping.

[GliderGuider]

6. The myth of Canadian intellectual superiority dies hard and ugly

"64 per cent support using ethanol ... because it could eventually become a substitute for oil." Like everywhere else on the planet half our population has an IQ under 100, and it would seem we're just as under-informed as everyone else too.

On the other hand, even with the way the questions were designed there was significant support for nuclear and opposition to ethanol. The natural gas and coal questions show a clear concern for climate problems. On the third hand, the level of "I dunno" on all questions is very disheartening. That tells me that people just aren't thinking about these issues, and as a result the opinions they do have are easily manipulated by media pronouncements.

[razzleberry]

8. these polls are meaningless

the people polled will say anything,
up to the point where they are either,
presented with the bill,
or some type of personal inconvienence.

a little off topic, but,
does Canada have the 'no nuclear fuel recyling'
limitation, as the US does?

[Canuckistanian]

9. Support for hydrogen fuel cell cars?

And where is all this magical hydrogen coming from?

[GliderGuider]

12. Where will it come from? Simple:

Natural gas.

Oh, wait a second... :banghead:

[Kolesar]

10. You people who are outraged by the ignorance here should do something about it

I wonder how many of you have done *anything* to educate the public, press, or elected officials about energy concepts.

[GliderGuider]

11. Well, I'm doing my share.

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/WEAP/WEAP.html

On my web site there are now over 20 articles on energy issues as well as a link to the YouTube video of a CBC news story featuring one of my public lectures on Peak Oil. I've given eight such lectures so far. I'm running around with my hair on fire, yelling at anyone who will listen. That includes Canadian federal and provincial Members of Parliament as well as city councillors.

Education is the key, but very few want to listen. Hell, the public just started to accept that global warming is real, and those activists had pictures of polar bears. Peak Oil doesn't have any heartbreaking imagery yet.

[phantom power]

13. Participation in this forum is a kind of outreach.

I know I learn things by coming here and participating in discussions.

[phantom power]

17. It's easy to "shun" energy sources in a poll. Somewhat harder to shun them in reality.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Of course it is

However, it indicates that people appreciate that there is a difference and care about the difference.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/071004-gw-poll.html

Americans Willing to Pay for Global Warming Remedies

By Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff Writer

posted: 04 October 2007 01:11 pm ET

Nearly three-quarters of Americans are willing to pay more taxes to support local government efforts aimed at mitigating global warming, according to the findings of two recent national surveys conducted by Yale University.

Americans were willing to pay more money in property taxes, home costs and utility fees to support initiatives that would encourage people to use less energy and get that energy from alternative sources, the surveys showed. They follow other polls that have found concern for the environment is growing among Americans and bolder action is desired.

A poll conducted by the Associated Press and Stanford University last month found that Americans are pessimistic about the current state of the environment and disapprove of how the government has been handling environmental issues.

Another national Yale poll conducted in July found that a majority of Americans believe that society must take action to reduce the effects of global warming, partly by enacting a new national treaty that would require much more drastic reductions in carbon dioxide than those required by the Kyoto Protocol (which the United States never ratified). This earlier poll also showed that about 50 percent of Americans say they are personally worried about global warming.

...