1 / 17

Michael R. Greenberg for CRESP January 2012

Public preferences for nuclear power and expansion of on-site nuclear-related activities: pre & post Fukushima . Michael R. Greenberg for CRESP January 2012. Objectives. 1. What fuel sources do residents favor? Why? ( Biof , coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, hydro, wind)

ruana
Download Presentation

Michael R. Greenberg for CRESP January 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Public preferences for nuclear power and expansion of on-site nuclear-related activities: pre & post Fukushima Michael R. Greenberg for CRESP January 2012

  2. Objectives • 1. What fuel sources do residents favor? Why? (Biof, coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, hydro, wind) • 2. Do people who live near existing nuclear facilities favor new nuclear sites in their area? Why? (CLAMP policy? new sites elsewhere in the USA? energy parks?) • 3. What has been the impact of the Fukushima events on these preferences?

  3. Design and Implementation • Random digit dialing landline with 8-11 call back design in 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. • 1100-2100 site-specific samples focusing on Hanford, Idaho, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, SRS, WIPP. (within 50 miles of site boundary) Also some nuclear power site areas in CA, PA-NJ-NY, TX. • 600-850 USA samples for comparison • 11 published papers from 2005-2010 surveys and 4 more in press. • Now working on a book to be submitted in August 2012. Nuclear waste management, nuclear power and energy choices: public preferences, perceptions, & trust, Springer.

  4. Increase reliance on energy source for electricity, % • Type 2008 2010 2011 • (Sites-USA) SS US SS US SS US • Coal 39 33 30 35 33 35 • Dams/hydro 67 73 nana 70 74 • Natural gas 52 52 63 66 70 68 NUCLEAR 49 42 63 53 49 37 • Solar & wind 90 91 nana 88 91

  5. Fukushima event impact, 2011, % • Response Site-specific US • Remain firm supporter 27 18 • Supportive but concerned 45 42 • Open-minded to against 15 19 • Remain opposed 13 22

  6. Nuclear power & global climate change, %- • Location Site-specific US • Year 2010 2011 2010 2011 • Support nuclear power 41 30 33 22 • Oppose nuclear power 21 31 30 40 • GCC made me more • open to nuclear 38 38 37 38

  7. Prefer new nuclear-energy activities at DOE sites, % • Option 2010 2011 • Favor in own state 48 33 • Favor in another state 10 9 • Favor, no location preference 20 22 • Neutral 17 28 • Against 5 10

  8. Preferred options for storing used fuel, 2011, % • Options Site-specific US • In casks to 3-4 DOE waste sites 42 52 • In casks to 3-4 new storage sites 20 20 • Yucca repository 27 18 • New repository 11 10

  9. Preferred transport modes, 2011, % • Choice Site-specific US • Truck on interstates 28 14 • Railroad 53 57 • Barge over waterway 21 29

  10. Change in Trust • Strongly agree with statement • Indicator, % agree site-specific • Year 2010 2011 • (Strongly Agree, Agree) SA AG SA AG • DOE prevent off-site contamination 26 50 15 50 • DOE communicates honestly with public 19 45 10 43 • DOE manage new on-site activities 18 54 11 60 • Contractors prevent off-site contamination 25 48 16 49 • Contractors communicate honestly w public 18 42 11 43 • Contractors manage new on-site activities 14 50 10 52

  11. Critical result: growing importance of trust • Prior to Fukushima, strong associations of preferences and perception with affect, ethnicity-race, gender, affluence, familiarity, and trust • Event did not change these, but raised the significance of trust relative to the others.

  12. Find five subpopulations, Archetypes • 1. trusting affluent educated Caucasian males • 2. less trusting educated, relatively young Caucasian females • 3. economically disadvantaged • 4. young and less interested • 5. stealth

  13. Affluent Educated Caucasian Males- 5-30% • 45+ years and older • Pro nuclear power, pro-energy parks, pro-adding new waste management missions • Strongly opposed to relying more on oil and coal • Most knowledgeable about energy-related issues • Rely more than their counterparts on books, magazines, web searches • Focused on their individual needs and maintaining the economy • Trust DOE,NRC, and other stewards. • Disproportionally have themselves or have had a close friend or relative that has worked at a site – halo.

  14. Educated, relatively young Caucasian females – 10-40% • Antinuclear power, against fossil fuels, pro solar wind & other renewables • Less trusting DOE, NRC, and other authorities • Oppose new nuclear facility siting • Focused on environmental long-term issues, much less concerned with economic implications • Rely on a wide variety of sources including mass media. • Less informed about certain energy facts than group 1.

  15. Economically disadvantaged- 2-10% • Relatively poor • Disproportionately African-American and Latino • Older (brought up in era when fossil fuel energy drove the economy and brought economic growth in the country) • Concerned about price of energy, favor coal & oil • Less convinced about renewables than other groups • Not knowledgeable • Do not trust authorities responsible for managing energy and waste management facilities

  16. Young and Less Interested – 25% to 60% • Don’t know much • Don’t care to know much • What they do know is mostly from the mass media and much of it is confused

  17. Stealth - <1% • Can’t be found in surveys • Politically connected major players • Control local media said on boards and other powerful decision-making bodies

More Related