[Editors] MIT Survey: Americans Warming to Nuclear Power

[Patti Richards]

MIT News Office
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Room 11-400
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA  02139-4307
Phone: 617-253-2700
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/www

======================================
MIT Survey: Americans Warming to Nuclear Power
======================================

For Immediate Release
MONDAY, JULY 23, 2007
Contact: Patti Richards, MIT News Office
Phone: 617-253-8923
Email: prichards at mit.edu

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--Americans' icy attitudes toward nuclear power are 
beginning to thaw, according to a new survey from MIT. The report 
also found a U.S. public increasingly unhappy with oil and more 
willing to develop alternative energy sources like wind and solar.

Moreover, the national survey of 1,200 Americans' opinions on 
different types of energy indicated growing concern about global 
warming -- but an apparent reluctance to pay to fight it.

Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, the MIT political scientist who 
conducted the survey through Knowledge Networks, a consumer 
information company, said he hopes that tracking Americans' attitudes 
toward energy will help policy-makers decide how to chart the United 
States' energy future.

"We're trying to understand what public policy in the U.S. should do 
to encourage new kinds of energy development or different patterns of 
energy consumption," Ansolabehere said.

The report, "Public Attitudes Toward America's Energy Options: 
Insights for Nuclear Energy," was recently published by MIT's Center 
for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems. Ansolabehere conducted a similar 
survey in 2002 as part of the MIT study, "The Future of Nuclear 
Power."

In the five years since the last survey, public preferences have 
remained fairly stable, but the percentage of people who want to 
increase nuclear power use has grown from 28 percent to 35 percent. 
That increase in popularity is likely due to concern over global 
warming caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuels, Ansolabehere 
said.

The Bush administration has been pushing to expand nuclear power, 
which doesn't produce carbon dioxide, but Americans are still 
concerned about storing nuclear waste. Nearly 40 percent oppose the 
proposed storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and only 28 percent 
agree that "nuclear waste could be stored safely for long periods of 
time."

Because of those concerns, "getting the public behind a serious 
expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. is going to be difficult," 
Ansolabehere said.

While Americans have some doubts about nuclear power, they are more 
opposed to oil, which has dipped below nuclear as the least popular 
fuel source. In the 2007 survey, 74 percent wanted to decrease oil 
use, compared to 56 percent in 2002.

"People have really turned on oil in a big way," said Ansolabehere, a 
trend he attributes to rising prices and growing concern over the 
United States' oil dependency.

"People say, if not for our oil dependency, we wouldn't be in Iraq," 
Ansolabehere. Also, rising prices at the gas pump provide a daily 
reminder of the high cost of oil.

Not surprisingly, cost is one of the primary factors that people 
consider when making their energy choices, along with perceived 
environmental harm. Coal, which is seen as cheap but harmful, is 
unpopular.

The survey shows that people have an accurate idea of how much oil, 
gas, coal and nuclear power cost, but they tend to underestimate the 
costs of alternative sources like wind and solar.

Ansolabehere found that people strongly favor using more wind and 
solar power, until they are told that they are more expensive than 
traditional energy sources.

"People have a sense that wind and solar are a solution for now, as 
opposed to a solution for the future," he said.

The survey also found that even though concern over global warming 
has been rising in the past five years, that doesn't translate to a 
willingness to pay to combat the problem.

When people are asked how much more they would pay for their 
electricity to counteract global warming, the average answer is $10 
more on their monthly electric bill. The amount needed would likely 
be closer to $25, Ansolabehere said.

That shortfall can be partly explained by the difficulty of 
visualizing the impacts of global warming, he said.

"It's something that will affect not this generation, and not the 
next generation, but the generation after that," he said. 
"Willingness to pay is going to be a big obstacle."

Ansolabehere said he also suspects that many people don't associate 
electricity generation with burning of fossil fuels, because the 
generation process is so removed from the home.

As people learn more about different types of energy and the costs 
and benefits of each one, it will be informative to see how their 
views change, said Ansolabehere, who plans to re-do the energy survey 
every few years.

The report was funded by MIT's Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems.

                                                  ###