Public preferences for nuclear power and expansion of on-site nuclear-related activities: pre & post Fukushima 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 CRESPJanuary 2012

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?

2

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.

3

Increase reliance on energy source for electricity, %

• Type 2008 2010 2011• (Sites-USA) SS USSS USSS US

• Coal 39 33 30 35 33 35• Dams/hydro 67 73 na na 70 74• Natural gas 52 52 63 66 70 68 NUCLEAR

49 42 63 53 49 37• Solar & wind 90 91 na na 88 91

4

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

5

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

•

6

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

7

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

8

Preferred transport modes, 2011, %

• Choice Site-specific US

• Truck on interstates 28 14• Railroad 53 57• Barge over waterway 21 29

9

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

10

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.

11

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

12

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.

13

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.

14

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

15

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

16

Stealth - <1%

• Can’t be found in surveys• Politically connected major players• Control local media said on boards and other powerful

decision-making bodies

17