Pro- or anti-nuke? Depends how you ask

[bananas]

Pro- or anti-nuke? Depends how you ask

By MIKE MOKRZYCKI – 1 day ago

Americans' support for nuclear power skidded in polling after the Three Mile Island accident 30 years ago and slipped more after the Chernobyl disaster seven years later. In more recent years, nuclear power has regained popularity, but the level of support depends greatly on survey question wording.

<snip>

A variety of national polls found support for nuclear power climbing back into the 40s through the 1990s and over the 50 percent mark in this decade — as long as the survey question provided a rationale for building new reactors, such as to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy or help curb global warming.

In contrast, ABC News-Washington Post polls since 2001 asked simply "In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?" and found majority opposition — most recently, 53 percent opposed in July 2008.

<snip>

Gallup also has documented a "NIMBY" — not in my backyard — effect. In 2006, for example, Gallup asked its standard nuclear power question of half its sample and 56 percent favored it. But when it asked the other respondents about building a nuclear plant "in your area" to provide electricity for the United States, 55 percent opposed it.


Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

After the next meltdown, support will drop again.

[excess_3]

1. when you take their electricity away ...

support for nuclear will rise

[bananas]

2. Nobody's taking their electricity away.

[excess_3]

3. you wouldn't know that by what is written in E/E

I see that lots of people want to rip out
existing, paid-for, electical capacity.

but nobody willing to spend their own money
to provide electricity to me or anyone else,
at the same price I pay now.

If you don't like nuke, fine,
build something else. let me
know when the generators start turning

[bananas]

5. New nukes won't provide you electricity at the price you pay now

In Florida they are already paying higher rates for nuclear plants that won't come online for ten years.
They are paying for "Construction While In Progress" (CWIP), a rate increase that will increase gradually each year.
There's a lot of bullshit in this forum about the cost of new nuclear.
In this forum, some people use bullshit numbers around $2000/kW.
CWIP wouldn't be needed if that's all it cost.
Utilities have filed DOE loan guarantee applications - the average was around $6500/kW.
Moody's estimated $7500/kW last year.
Other independant estimates are much higher.
The Congressional Budget Office said the risk of default on the loans is "very high - well above 50%".
If you think new nuclear plants will provide you with electricity at the the same price you pay now,
you have been lied to.

Some reality-based reading for you: http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/07/nuclear-power-plants-troubled-assests-credit-risk/

[excess_3]

6. that may be true, at least in the US

doesn't change my opinion, that I don't like
people who advocate ripping something out,
without (them, not me) suppling the alternative

[bananas]

7. I hope you're not talking about me

You're in Texas, where T. Boone Pickens has been building wind farms with his own money to supply you with electricity at the same rates you're paying now, and he's been making money doing it. Solar thermal is becoming cost-competitive with coal, and solar PV will be there eventually.

I point out that renewables are cheaper and faster than nuclear, and people hate me, because they've been fooled by a huge marketing campaign by Hill & Knowlton:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=131986&mesg_id=132039
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_and_Safe_Energy_Coalition

[angryfirelord]

4. The answer

is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQE-YIzDpQc