More nuclear, say UK residents

[wtmusic]

As a replacement for retiring nuclear power plants, EDF's new-build project at Hinkley Point C theoretically enjoys the support of 61% of the public.

"A majority of people in the UK think the government should increase the use of low-carbon nuclear, solar and wind energy and reduce the use of oil, gas and coal-fired power stations, according to the findings of a recent poll.

The YouGov/Sunday Times survey found that 40% of the 1734 people polled felt that the UK government should use more nuclear power stations than at present, up from 35% in November 2011. Maintaining current levels was preferred by 21%, while 20% felt that there should be less nuclear power plants than at present (down from 27% in 2011). Men were more clearly supportive of increasing nuclear than women: 54% of men, and only 26% of women, felt that there should be more nuclear. However, women's opinion was almost equally divided, with 23% supporting the status quo, 25% calling for a reduction in nuclear and 25% declaring themselves unsure.

<>

Carbon-emitting power stations remain unpopular: more people felt that the government should be looking to use less oil, gas and coal power stations than felt that it should maintain current levels or build new ones. With 45% and 43% respectively calling for a reduction in the number of coal and oil power stations, 36% felt that the number of gas power stations should be reduced."

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-More_nuclear_say_UK_residents-231012.html

[bananas]

1. Great example of nuclear spin: 72% want more solar, 55% want more wind, only 40% want more nuclear

and the nuclear spin-doctors try to hype up nuclear with misleading wording,
by lumping it in with solar and wind.

Clearly the majority do NOT "want more nuclear", yet that is the title of the article.

You just can't trust the nuclear industry - or it's spin-doctors.

As well as nuclear, respondents clearly demonstrated continued support for increasing solar and wind power in the UK, with 72% in favour of increasing solar provision and 55% in favour of more wind farms - almost identical results to the November 2011 findings.

[FBaggins]

2. Sorry... it's your post that is "spin"

Only the rabid anti-nukes have this false dichotomy in their heads that says we need to decide between nuclear and renewables... that it's one or the other.

What the poll clearly shows is that the citizens of the U.K. want both.

Which, coincidentally, happens to be the right answer. So kudos to them.

only 40% want more nuclear

You conveniently forget that their current fleet of reactors is approaching retirement. So maintaining the existing nuclear proportion involves building lots of new plants. So it's 61% who believe that those new plants should be built.

More importantly... it's only 20% who believe there should be less nuclear power.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. No, your post is spin; the OP talked about a *majority* wanting an *increase*

but only 40% want an increase in nuclear. The article is highly misleading - the title is ambiguous ('more' in time, or 'more' in quantity?), and the lede then lies, by lumping "low-carbon nuclear, solar and wind energy" together, and claiming a majority, when the majority figures only apply to the last 2.

The majority of UK citizens do not want an increase in nuclear capacity. That's what the poll says.

[FBaggins]

4. Wrong again.

They make pretty clear that the majority is supporting replacing existing retiring plants. That is "more nuclear" - particularly since the current debate is whether or not to build the new plants.

The larger point that you're trying desperately to avoid (and failing) is that your position is supported by only 20%.

On edit - Oops. My apologies... I assumed you were Bananas responding. I don't actually know that your position is that the UK should reduce their reliance on nuclear power.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. No, it's not clear; and I already explained why they proceed to lie

and you seem to have ignored that. 'More' can mean "in the future", or "an increase in numbers". But the first paragraph lies. It then specifies 'increase', literally. And that it a lie. They stick solar and wind onto the end of nuclear, which is, I think, what they want to use if they have to defend themselves against accusations of professional misconduct. That makes it 'spin', of the worst sort.

My personal position is that the UK should replace at least some of the existing nuclear stations, because they're way better than coal, and, from a CO2 point of view, better than gas - though I worry about the waste problems. And I don't think we'll get enough renewables with the necessary storage in time to replace all of the coal stations, and to phase out gas. But it's a shitty 'least worst' option. Demand reduction will help; but with a move away from petroleum for transport needed, it's damn difficult.

[caraher]

6. Consider the source

Another headline on exactly the same survey: "Poll: 74% of Brits want more solar than present"

That article includes a link to the actual survey results.

The actual question and choices:

Thinking about the country's future energy provision, do you think the government should be looking to use more or less of the following?

Solar power
Wind farms
Nuclear power stations
Oil power stations
Gas power stations
Coal power stations

[wtmusic]

7. The two aren't mutually exclusive

but it's also significant that twice as many Brits want less gas power stations than want more - even though more solar and wind will make gas power stations necessary for an indefinite period of time.

[caraher]

8. Right, they're not

I think the two main things the survey shows are broad support for reducing reliance on fossil fuels and weaker support for nuclear than things like solar and wind. But weaker support still reflects that Britons consider nuclear a better option than coal or gas.