Slashdot Asks: Do You Support Nuclear Energy? (gallup.com)

Reader mdsolar writes that for the first time a majority of Americans have told Gallup they oppose nuclear energy. Support peaked at 62% in 2010, but "as Americans have paid less at the pump, their level of worry about the nation's energy situation has dropped to 15-year-low levels," Gallup reports. Their latest poll found 44% of respondents still supported nuclear energy, while 54% opposed it, a trend which could eventually affect the future of nuclear power. The New York Times reports that operating licenses will expire for 36 of America's 99 reactors between 2029 and 2035. What do you think? How strongly do you support (or oppose) generating electricity with nuclear energy?

Comments

YES

[Anonymous Coward]

In particular, that fusion reactor we orbit.

Re:Not about fear

[AmiMoJo]

Better alternatives, distrust of the people building and running the reactors, the extremely high cost, a proper understanding of the risks... And the attitude of people who dismiss legitimate concerns as blind fear of radiation.

Yes I support nuclear energy.

[nbritton]

Yes I support nuclear energy, it is the only viable solution to meet the world's energy demands and the need for clean energy. Burning coal releases more radioactive martial into the environment then any nuclear plant has. People are scared of radiation and it's unfounded, we are bombarded with radiation on a daily basis from the sun. People are also scared that nuclear plants can blow up like a bomb, but this is complete impossible. The waste they produce can be managed, in fact it can be recycled to produce more fuel. We need to figure out how to harness fusion into a viable solution.

Re:Yes I support nuclear energy.

[Jeremi]

People are also scared that nuclear plants can blow up like a bomb, but this is complete impossible.

I think that is a mischaracterization. What most people are actually worried about is rather the possibility of a nuclear meltdown that results in significant amounts of radioactive material being released into the environment, which could render the surrounding area largely uninhabitable for decades or longer. That is something that clearly is possible, as demonstrated at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Saying that won't ever happen again in the future (because reasons) isn't particularly convincing, since that is what the designers and operators of those nuclear power plants promised also.

Yes

[phantomfive]

I especially support research in nuclear energy, Thorium reactors are a great place, right on the edge of practicality.
Also, I support nuclear fusion research, and I think we should fund more of it, and this graph shows why.

If we can make energy cheaper by an order of magnitude compared to how it is today, that opens the door for some great things.

Re:Do I support nuclear power?

[modzer0]

We have four AP1000 Gen 3+ reactors under construction now. These are the shining examples of what the next generation design can be until the NRC approves any gen 4 or the number of MSR reactor designs being proposed. Nuclear can be much safer and more efficient if we can bring more next generation designs with drastically better safety measures online and retire the old units which do have a good safety record, but don't have near the number of safeguards as something like the AP1000 which can be kept safe even with a total loss of power unlike the older generations. Yes I support nuclear, and I support solar and wind, but those not familiar with the power industry don't realize how delicate a balance the grid is with supply and demand. There has to be a source to keep the grid stable with the varying wind and solar input. The best choice for that is nuclear be it fission, or fusion.

Re: Not about fear

[Rei]

. Almost all of the problems are lawsuits,

[Citation needed]

I see this trope often, but whenever I look into specific plants that are behind schedule and over budget, NIMBY lawsuits are almost never part of the reason.

For example, one of the most (almost comically) behind schedule / overbudget reactors being is Olkiluoto Unit 3, which is a decade behind schedule and still not expected to be finished for years. The reasons for the delays are numerous - and not one of them is due to NIMBY lawsuits. The concrete for the foundation was bad. The forgings were wrong and had to be recast. The welders for the containment structure were given incorrect instructions. There were compensation disputes. Automation planning was behind schedule.

The head of their nuclear planning division's main excuse was that it's hard to deliver nuclear power plants on schedule because workers aren't used to the exacting standards required for them. But regardless of the reason, NIMBY lawsuits were not the reason. In fact, the only lawsuits involved were between the two construciton contractors, suing each other. By the time it's all said and done, the unit will likely be more expensive than the LHC and be one of the most expensive structures on Earth.

Nuclear reactors end up this way all too often. Reactor operators managed to convince enough investors that there would be a new "nuclear renaissance" because their new plants will produce plants cheaper that are more reliable. Their construction track records thusfar are scaring away most investors from followup.