Nuclear power is unpopular: promoted only by those with vested interests/
Bellona 12th March 2021,Nuclear advocates point to the development of new technologies, such as small modular reactors, which can be deployed locally, and whose small scale limits the potential for Fukushima-sized accidents.
month for Nature, the influential US scientific journal, they assert that the nuclear industry has long ago lost touch with the public it is meant to serve.
Opinion poll – 77% of Ayshire public support a total ban on all nuclear weapons.
Ayrshire CND are greatly encouraged by recent polllling which shows that 77 per cent of the public support a total ban on all nuclear weapons.
1 March 2021 Anti-nuclear campaigners across Ayrshire have been given a huge boost in their battle to force an end to the arms race, writes Stewart McConnell.
Ayrshire CND are greatly encouraged by recent polling which shows that 77 per cent of the public support a total ban on all nuclear weapons.
The survey also showed that almost 60 per cent of people want Britain to sign up to the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which came into force last month.
Group secretary Arthur West, pictured, said: “This recent polling was organised by CND at UK level in conjunction with the professional polling company Survation and the results are hugely encouraging for our campaign to rid this country and our world of the scourge of nuclear weapons.”
“The government’s own figures show that the cost of maintaining Britain’s nuclear weapons based at Faslane is an eye watering 2 billion pounds a year.
“This is frankly money which could be better spent on decent things like health and education and creating quality jobs in areas such as renewable energy and affordable house building.”
The opinion poll referred to was organised by CND at UK level in conjunction with polling company Survation and was conducted on January 12-13.
More than half of public supports UK joining UN ban on nuclear weapons.
The National 22nd Jan 2021, More than half of public supports UK joining UN ban on nuclear weapons.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19029821.half-public-supports-uk-joining-un-ban-nuclear-weapons/
EDF did a small survey of Suffolk community opinion -weighted to favour nuclear industry?
Suffolk towards the building of a new nuclear power station on the coast.
The survey was carried out by a company called ICM Unlimited on behalf of
EDF, which is looking to build the Sizewell C station. ICM interviewed a
representative sample of 500 adults in east Suffolk over the phone between
November 5 and November 19.
dismissed the research as “meaningless”, saying a sample of 500 people – in
an area with a population of 247,000 – was “hardly representative”. All
those that took part in the survey live in the area with data having been
weighted to the population profile of the East Suffolk Council adult
population.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/sizewell-c-survey-shows-favourable-results-6854678
Sizewell nuclear project: EDF messes Suffolk communities about, with yet another public consultation, after 1200 responses already
C plans which have been submitted just days after more than 1,200
respondents gave their views on the project.
– and a 30-day public consultation is to take place next month.
materials for the massive project, with an increase in trains and
alterations to the proposed beach landing facility. It was only a few days
ago that the opportunity to comment on the project closed and the Planning
Inspectorate is still verifying each of the 1,287 submissions from people,
businesses, councils and agencies.
that people are likely now to be asked all over again to submit comments on
EDF’s revised proposals. Stop Sizewell C said it could not believe EDF
had only just realised after years of consultation that Suffolk people
didn’t want a road-led transport strategy for delivery of construction
materials that would put 1,000 HGVs on the roads.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/sizewell-c-changes-provoke-frustration-from-campaigners-1-6887930
UK: consultation with 2300 people about radioactive waste dump – only 13 people supported it.
Northern Echo 13th Oct 2020, THOUSANDS of people have written to the Environment Agency over concerns that plans to dump radioactive waste in Teesside will pose a risk to
communities. An application has been made by Augean North Ltd for a low
level radioactive waste permit at their existing Port Clarence site,
between Stockton and Billingham.
The Environment Agency, which held a
consultation which ended in January, published its report yesterday. About
2,300 people took part in the four-month exercise, with only 13 supporting
the application.
The Environment Agency is now considering these in
determining whether to grant the permit, taking into account information
submitted by Augean North. The operator has been asked to provide further
information, with a decision expected to be made by the end of January
2021.
Members of the public, as well members of Stockton on Tees Borough
Council and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council commented on the
socioeconomic impact and the general impact on the area, as well as the
potential impact on regeneration plans. Last year, Tees Valley Mayor Ben
Houchen criticised the plans, which he said were against the interests of
those living in surrounding areas. The report can be viewed by visiting
consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/north-east/port-clarence-landfill-permit-application
USA Government Accountabilty Office calls for assessment of costs for planned new nuclear warheads
 NUCLEAR WEAPONS: NNSA Should Further Develop Cost, Schedule, and Risk Information for the W87-1 Warhead Program, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-703
GAO-20-703: Sep 23, 2020. The National Nuclear Security Administration plans to replace the W78—an older type of nuclear warhead used in intercontinental ballistic missiles—with the W87-1, starting in 2030. But it’s unclear if NNSA can produce enough of the W87-1’s fissile cores in time to meet its planned production schedule.NNSA estimated that the new warhead could cost up to $14.8 billion, which could make it the most expensive program of this type to date. Upcoming design decisions for the weapon could affect cost. But the agency didn’t have formal plans to assess the costs and benefits of these decisions. Our recommendations address these and other concerns. |
|
|
Opinion poll shows unpopularity of nuclear power in the USA.
Nuclear Energy Among the Least Popular Sources of Power in the U.S., Polling ShowsNearly half of U.S. adults oppose increasing the country’s number of nuclear energy facilities, Morning Consult, BY LISA MARTINE JENKINS, September 9, 2020
- 1 in 3 adults think the U.S. should keep current nuclear plants online but not build any new facilities.
- 16% believe the U.S. should keep existing nuclear plants operational and build new reactors.
- 29% view nuclear energy favorably and 49% view it unfavorably, making it the most unpopular energy source other than coal.
But new Morning Consult data shows that 21 percent of U.S. adults believe that the country should both stop constructing new nuclear energy facilities and halt current production, while 33 percent agree that new construction should be stopped but think that existing sites should continue producing energy.
Sixteen percent believes that the country should build more reactors, and just 6 percent says that the country should keep current plants running, build more reactors and promote civil nuclear programs abroad (as the United States has done most recently with Poland).
The Aug. 24-27 survey polled 2,200 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of 2 percentage points.
The survey results come as the Trump administration pushes the development of nuclear energy both domestically and internationally, investing especially in the development of advanced technology in order to speed nuclear’s adoption amid carbon emission reduction goals coming due.
And Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has also expressed interest in developing advanced technology and leveraging existing nuclear capabilities as part of his wider energy plan released in June. (When contacted by Morning Consult, the Biden campaign did not provide information on the former vice president’s views on nuclear beyond what is included in the publicly available plan.)
And while the popular progressive platform the Green New Deal makes no specific mention of nuclear energy, one of its sponsors, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), said last year that it “leaves the door open on nuclear.”
But even with its political support, when compared with other energy sources nuclear seems to have a bad rap among the general public. As compared with a number of energy sources, coal was the only option respondents regarded less favorably than nuclear, with 24 percent viewing coal favorably and 58 percent unfavorably.
Nuclear energy’s net favorability — the favorable share minus the unfavorable share — is similarly underwater, at minus 20 points; this is nearly 70 points below that of natural gas, a fossil fuel whose emissions contribute to climate change. Zero-emission sources such as solar and wind topped the list, with net favorabilities of 76 and 65 points, respectively. ………
Overall, the survey found that more U.S. adults oppose increasing the number of nuclear facilities in the United States than support doing so, ………..
Overall, the survey found that more U.S. adults oppose increasing the number of nuclear facilities in the United States than support doing so… https://morningconsult.com/2020/09/09/nuclear-energy-polling/
KILDARE OPINION SOUGHT ON NEW BRITISH NUCLEAR PLANT
KILDARE OPINION SOUGHT ON NEW BRITISH NUCLEAR PLANT, Kildare Nationalist, SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2020 UNDER provisions made at the United Nations, submissions are invited from interested parties in Kildare to comment on the development of a new nuclear power station planned for the east coast of England.Under the terms of the 1991 United Nations Convention, the Transboundary Environmental Public Consultation allows citizens in neighbouring nations have their say on certain public and private projects likely to have significant effects on the environment.
For this purpose, the member state of the UN in whose territory the project is intended to be carried out is required to send to its neighbours – no later than when informing its own public – a description of the project and any available information on its possible transboundary impact.
In this case, the Department of Environment, Planning and Local Government (DEPLG) was contacted by the British authorites in July about their plans to build a third reactor at the Sizewell nuclear power campus in Suffolk, to afford Irish citizens their chance to offer an opinion.
The letter from the UK’s Planning Inspectorate states that the Secretary of State has received an application to build two reactor units, giving a total site capacity of approximately 3,340MW, along with associated development required for the construction and operation of the Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station. …….
the Secretary of State decided to notify Ireland as if the development is likely to have significant adverse transboundary effects on the environment in this
State, as provided for in the UN Convention.
All documents related to the application are available to view on the Department of Environment’s website, and at the Planning Department, Kildare County Council – but by appointment only.
Submissions made in relation to the potential transboundary environmental effects of Sizewell C may be made in writing to the Planning Department, Kildare County Council, Aras Chill Dara, Naas, Co. Kildare or by e-mail to plandept@kildarecoco.ie by 28 October………….the Secretary of State decided to notify Ireland as if the development is likely to have significant adverse transboundary effects on the environment in this
State, as provided for in the UN Convention.
All documents related to the application are available to view on the Department of Environment’s website, and at the Planning Department, Kildare County Council – but by appointment only.
Submissions made in relation to the potential transboundary environmental effects of Sizewell C may be made in writing to the Planning Department, Kildare County Council, Aras Chill Dara, Naas, Co. Kildare or by e-mail to plandept@kildarecoco.ie by 28 October……..https://kildare-nationalist.ie/2020/09/06/kildare-opinion-sought-on-new-british-nuclear-plant/#.X1ViXHkzbIU
Survey finds that U.S. Democrats and Republicans both want to phase out land-based nuclear missiles
|
Democrats And Republicans Agree: Phase Out Land-Based Nuclear Missiles https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewkorda/2020/08/12/democrats-and-republicans-agree-phase-out-land-based-nuclear-missiles/#74441be7109d Matt Korda I write about the nexus between nuclear weapons, climate change, and injustice. Although Democrats and Republicans increasingly seem worlds apart, when it comes to nuclear weapons issues, they’re actually much closer than one might think.
According to a new report by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, 61 percent of Americans–including both Democratic and Republican majorities–are in favor of phasing out the United States’ aging fleet of 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles. This finding is highly noteworthy, as it runs in direct contrast to the Pentagon’s current plan of spending approximately $100 billion to buy a brand-new generation of ICBMs by 2030. The survey, entitled “Common Ground of the American People,” is a compilation of studies conducted over the past five years, collecting data from nearly 86,000 individuals throughout the polling process. It specifically aimed to place the respondents into the shoes of a policymaker: respondents were first given an issue briefing, and were then asked to evaluate arguments for and against various policy proposals, before finally offering their recommendations.
The survey’s unique methodology is highly illuminating, because it allows readers of the report to see which arguments were deemed to be most or least convincing, and by whom. For example, Republicans preferred a proposal to phase out ICBMs while maintaining the same number of deployed warheads, while Democrats preferred a proposal to phase out ICBMs and reduce the arsenal to a lower number of deployed warheads.
The main takeaway though, is that–regardless of how the ICBM phase-out takes place–69 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of Republicans agree that the land-based leg of the nuclear triad should be eliminated entirely.
It makes sense that both Democrats and Republicans would agree on phasing out ICBMs: they are outdated, destabilizing, and very expensive. Intercontinental ballistic missiles are largely relics of the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union alike feared a “bolt-from-the-blue” nuclear attack. At the time, it was believed that both countries having large land-based nuclear arsenals would prevent each other from launching a massive surprise attack. However, in today’s multipolar nuclear environment, the likelihood of such an attack is extremely slim, and so ICBMs no longer hold much strategic value. Given the abundance of more flexible options in the U.S. arsenal, U.S. Strategic Command would certainly turn to nuclear bombers or submarines–not ICBMs–in the event of a low-level nuclear crisis.
Additionally, the inherent vulnerability of the ICBM fleet actually creates a psychological pressure to launch them during a nuclear crisis, before an adversary’s missiles can wipe them out. This is why siloed ICBMs–like those deployed across the United States––are commonly referred to as “use ‘em or lose ‘em” weapons. In the event of a false alarm, accident, or miscalculation, this pressure to “use ‘em” could inadvertently trigger a nuclear war. No other nuclear weapon in the US nuclear arsenal comes with this kind of destabilizing psychological pressure. ……
Perhaps knowing this, the Pentagon argues that ICBMs are necessary as a “hedge” in case technological advances suddenly render the United States’ nuclear-armed submarines vulnerable. However, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review admits that “When on patrol, [ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)] are, at present, virtually undetectable, and there are no known, near-term credible threats to the survivability of the SSBN force.” This condition is likely to continue as US submarines get even quieter, thus making these fears seem relatively exaggerated. On top of this, replacing the ICBMs with brand-new missiles would be extremely expensive. The latest estimate for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, as the replacement program is called, totals approximately $100 billion. In reality, these costs are expected to rise, given that the contract will be sole-sourced to Northrop Grumman NOC -0.7% after Boeing BA -2.6% pulled out of the competition last year. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has called this development “very troubling,” and the sole-source contract has since triggered a Federal Trade Commission investigation into Boeing’s allegations that Northrop Grumman was engaging in anti-competitive behavior.
Given these underlying programmatic and strategic concerns––in addition to the new survey demonstrating that both Democrats and Republicans want to phase out ICBMs entirely––why is this $100 billion project still moving forward? In the midst of an election, a recession, and a devastating pandemic, it seems like common sense to delay the program at the very least.
However, a robust lobbying effort by weapons contractors has impeded public scrutiny of the program. Northrop Grumman––the only bidder for the ICBM replacement contract––spent more than $162 million on lobbying between 2008 and 2018, with the bulk of the contributions going to members of the “ICBM Caucus”––a coalition of Senators from states where ICBMs are deployed. In 2018, this lobbying effort helped kill an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which called for a feasibility study on extending the life of the current ICBM force, rather than rebuilding it from scratch. This has had the effect of suppressing public debate over the future of the ICBMs; without studies like this one, the public is being asked to blindly swallow the pro-ICBM claims of those that would materially benefit from their replacement.
The University of Maryland’s report offers a new tool to push back against the “business” of nuclear policy. The survey suggests that corporate lobbying and “special interests” are alienating the public from their elected representatives, and dividing the two political parties even further. Therefore, treating its respondents as neutral “policymakers” clearly demonstrates that without the presence of moneyed interests, Democrats and Republicans agree on much more than one might think. And in this particular instance it is clear: majorities from both parties want to phase out intercontinental ballistic missiles.
|
|
Poll shows that Americans favour a no-first-use of nuclear weapons policy
|
Poll: What the American public likes and hates about Trump’s nuclear policies, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jonathon Baron, Stephen Herzog, April 27, 2020 It is difficult to overstate the importance of nuclear policy in determining a US presidential candidate’s fitness to be commander-in-chief. Such priorities are evident in the Bulletin’s recently published special issue dedicated to discussing nuclear weapons policy ahead of the 2020 election. Nuclear issues played a prominent role in the 2016 election, but despite some anomalies, they have hardly factored into the 2020 campaign. This is almost certain to change even as priority is given to the COVID-19 pandemic response. Nevertheless, very few recent polls (with one notable exception) have attempted to identify preferences among the US population for President Donald Trump’s nuclear policies.
To fill this gap, we worked with the firm YouGov in late 2018 after the release of the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review to conduct a nationally representative survey of 1,000 Americans. Previous surveys have illuminated US public attitudes on nuclear energy, extending the New START treaty, and even hypothetical nuclear retaliatory scenarios. It isn’t clear, however, how Americans view the core elements of the Trump administration’s nuclear policy: its Nuclear Posture Review and its overall strategies toward Iran and North Korea. We report our study results publicly for the first time here, offering insights for policymakers and presidential candidates as they weigh their positions on nuclear issues Nuclear Posture Review. The study highlights how the US public as a whole and various demographic groups view Trump’s positions on nuclear weapons. To begin, we asked respondents to indicate whether they supported, opposed, or were unsure about key parts of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. Of course, many elements of the Trump administration’s nuclear posture are continuations of longstanding US policy that have been preserved by Republican and Democratic presidents alike. Our survey questions did not indicate the current US administration’s policy on different parts of the Nuclear Posture Review. So the results convey the respondents’ natural preferences for the policies themselves, not for the current occupant of the White House. Such data should prove useful to politicians staking out campaign stances on nuclear weapons that would have broad public appeal. Our findings reveal that Americans overall express fairly low support for the administration’s nuclear weapons policies, though indecision also runs high among the public. Further, the table of group preferences indicates—with a few surprising exceptions—that males, Republicans, and older Americans are the most likely groups to back President Trump on nuclear issues. Even so, support is relatively modest among Trump’s base, and several elements of the Nuclear Posture Review do not receive majority or even plurality support from Republicans……. Only 34 percent of Americans support the longstanding policy of providing the nuclear umbrella in principle, and that number drops to 27.9 percent for nuclear deployments in Europe. …..men and Republicans remain the most supportive of the nuclear umbrella and forward-deployed B61 nuclear bombs. Women, Democrats, and Independents respond less favorably. Additionally, Americans who came of age during the Cold War are more favorable toward these policies than their Millennial and Generation Z counterparts……. fewer than 20 percent of Americans support possible US first use of nuclear weapons. By contrast, disapproval stands at 63.5 percent……The public is also broadly unsupportive of using nuclear weapons in response to cyberattacks……. a majority of every demographic group of Americans—whether by gender, political party, age, race, education, income, or region of residence—oppose a first-use doctrine. Public opinion may accordingly present opportunities for presidential candidates to favor a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons………. https://thebulletin.org/2020/04/poll-what-the-american-public-likes-and-hates-about-trumps-nuclear-policies/# |
|
|
44% of Americans oppose a pre emptive strike on North Korea, 33%, mainly Trump supporters, support that idea
|
ONE-THIRD OF U.S. SUPPORTS NUCLEAR WAR ON NORTH KOREA, KNOWING IT WOULD KILL ONE MILLION, REPORT SHOWS, NewsWeek, BY ON 6/24/19 One-third of the United States population would support a preemptive attack on North Korea, even in a nuclear scenario, knowing it would kill one million innocent people, according to a recent survey.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in collaboration with U.K.-based research firm YouGov, published a new study Monday detailing U.S. public opinion on military conflict with North Korea at a time when the pace of a historic peace process between the longtime rivals appeared to slow. Among the most “disturbing” results discovered was that “a large hawkish minority lurks within the U.S. public; over a third of respondents approve of a US preventive strike across the scenarios and appear insensitive to informational cues that most security experts would expect to reduce such levels of support.” Little changed when the U.S. first-strike was switched from conventional to nuclear as “33 percent preferred.” In fact, “there is no significant change in the percentage who would prefer or approve of a U.S. nuclear strike when the number of estimated North Korean fatalities increases from 15,000 to 1.1 million, including 1 million civilians.” The researchers said these results actually demonstrated a previously-established pattern among the U.S. public, which “exhibits only limited aversion to nuclear weapons use and a shocking willingness to support the killing of enemy civilians.”………. Answers were also influenced by political beliefs. While most respondents overall opposed military action against North Korea, the “majority of Trump supporters prefer the US strike in every scenario, except when confidence in the effectiveness of the US conventional strike is 50 percent”—and even then it remained at 44 percent as opposed to a mere 8 percent for non-supporters. Separately, those who backed the death penalty were actually more eager to inflict a higher death toll among North Korean civilians. ….. https://www.newsweek.com/us-support-north-korea-nuclear-war-one-million-dead-1445578 |
|
Eight in Ten Support Nuclear Arms Control with Russia, Disagree with Trump Decision to Withdraw from Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
|
A new in-depth survey on U.S. nuclear weapons policy finds that 68% of voters (Republicans 59%, Democrats 74%), support Congressional legislation prohibiting the President from using nuclear weapons first without Congressional approval and a declaration of war. An overwhelming 8 in 10, of Republicans as well as Democrats, do not support a policy shift in the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review that explicitly declares the U.S. would consider using nuclear weapons first and specifies examples of non-nuclear attacks that would prompt such consideration. The study was conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) and the Center for International and Security Studies (CISSM) at Maryland, with consultation by the Center for Public Integrity. Support for nuclear arms control remains very robust across party lines. More than 8 in 10 (83%, Republicans 84%, Democrats 83%), favor the US continuing to have arms control treaties with Russia. Eight in ten (82%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 89%) favor the United States agreeing to extend the New START Treaty. “A large bipartisan majority opposes ideas for making nuclear threats a more usable instrument of policy and favors continuing efforts to constrain and reduce nuclear weapons through arms control treaties,” comments Steven Kull, director of PPC. ………. The public is not convinced that having intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is necessary. Six in ten, including a majority of Republicans, favor phasing out the 400 US land-based ICBMs that are aging and are vulnerable to a first strike. However, only one-third favor unilaterally reducing the net number of strategic warheads in the U.S. arsenal to 1050 rather than adding warheads to U.S. submarines and bombers if the Russians still have 1550 warheads (the number allowed under New START). Overwhelming bipartisan majorities agree that the US must have a nuclear arsenal destructive enough that no country could think that there would be any advantage in attacking the United States with nuclear weapons. A plurality (49%) also agree that this minimum requirement is sufficient, and that the US does not need a nuclear arsenal which could also respond in-kind to any nuclear attack. However, when asked about a proposal in line with that requirement, in which the US would put low-yield nuclear weapons on submarines so that it can retaliate against a Russian attack using a similar weapon, two thirds were in favor. Contact: Steven Kull (PPC) 301-254-7500, skull@umd.edu |
|
Chinese public’s trust in government means that nuclear power better able to go ahead in China
|
China and the Nuclear Debate, China’s nuclear energy sector is expanding amid the glow of positive public opinion. The Diplomat, By Layne Vandenberg, May 15, 2019 “……… The Diplomat sat down with Tobi Du, a Yenching Scholar at the Yenching Academy at Peking University to discuss nuclear issues in East Asia, how Chinese view nuclear threats, and the development of nuclear energy…….. Although China is one of the five official nuclear weapons states as designated by the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, China has historically supported North Korea. While China does facilitate denuclearization talks, it definitely does not feel threatened in the same way that the U.S. and Japan do considering North Korea has explicitly stated that its nuclear weapons program is intended to deter the U.S. and its allies. Because of this, people in China are not currently as sensitive to nuclear threats as they are in other countries. …… Despite the lack of public support for development of the nuclear energy industry in most other countries, research shows that the Chinese public is not strongly against nuclear power. …… [following the Fukushima nuclear accident] despite a negative outlook for nuclear energy globally, China is unique in that the public did not become as opposed to the development of nuclear energy. Trust in the government has a lot to do with this. Since Chinese citizens generally possess a low level of knowledge about nuclear energy and related issues, the public places a significant amount of trust in the government to conduct its own assessments and accepts the results. Generally, the Fukushima nuclear accident did not affect the direction of Chinese policy for nuclear energy but prompted a more careful and measured attitude towards implementation. Considering China’s unique ability to interact with and shape public discourse around sensitive topics, public input in decision-making is minimal because of this control. The central government is able to implement the nuclear energy industry in China as it sees fit. In contrast to China’s more receptive public opinion, most countries are keenly cognizant of issues related to nuclear weapons, and mostly focus on these issues and their accompanying negative connotations. ….. So while it is true that Chinese people generally have a more positive opinion of nuclear energy in China than in other countries after Fukushima, it is China’s political governance that allows the country to push forward with nuclear power.…….. https://thediplomat.com/2019/05/china-and-the-nuclear-debate/ |
|
|
In USA most men support nuclear power, but most women do not.
Americans love clean energy. Do they care if it includes nuclear?
A new poll gets deep into voter preferences on climate policy. VOX, By Nuclear power: The numbers on nuclear power are fascinatingly all over the place. More Republicans than Democrats support it, and more Democrats than Republicans oppose, but not by a ton in either case. The biggest split was not by party but by gender, with 62 percent of men somewhat or strongly supporting it and just 32 percent of women. ……. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/23/18507297/nuclear-energy-renewables-voters-poll
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (184)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 