The energy debate: Coal vs. nuclear

Jun 13, 2011

As America struggles down the road toward a coherent energy policy that focuses on a higher degree of self-reliance, policymakers face numerous issues and realities. These include: the finite supply and environmental impact of fossil fuels, the feasibility and costs to implement a widespread switch to renewable energy sources, and the variables that lead to consumers' preferences for particular types of power generation.

They also need to find and employ tools to effectively communicate such a policy to a range of constituencies.

When it comes to traditional sources, , with its attendant and link to , and nuclear power, with the potential for radiation-spewing accidents, such as befell Japan's Fukushima's Nuclear Power Plant, remain two of the most controversial.

Professor Michael Greenberg, who studies environmental health at Rutgers' Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, and Heather Barnes Truelove, a postdoctoral fellow at the Vanderbilt Institute for Energy and Environment have researched consumers' attitudes toward these two energy sources. Both are members of the Consortium for Risk, Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP). Their recent article in the journal examines Americans' risk beliefs and preferences for coal and nuclear energy, and finds factors other than global warming and the potential for nuclear power plant accidents figure into their choices.

The U.S. Department of Energy funded the 2009 landline telephone survey of 3,200 U.S. residents – 800 selected randomly and 2,400 who lived within six, 100-mile-radius regions containing many nuclear and coal-fueled electricity generating and waste management facilities. The study was to learn the association, if any, between some common risk beliefs about coal and nuclear energy and consumer preferences; if global warning and serious accidents were the strongest risk beliefs associated with preferences; and the characteristics of "acknowledged risk-takers" who were aware of the sources' shortcomings yet wanted to increase reliance on them. The response rate to the survey was 23.4 percent.

The research followed an earlier survey by Greenberg that measured public preferences for various energy choices and their associations with respondent demographics and also trust, among other correlates. Due to widespread media coverage (and dramatized accounts) of global warming and the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, it was expected these two factors would be the "signature risk beliefs" about coal and , respectively.

In the second study, the researchers investigated five sets of characteristics for respondents: age; the role of cultural, social and political identity; the effects of values about the environment and trust; respondent location; and risk beliefs about coal and nuclear energy.

Results from the total sample showed that about 25 percent of participants wanted to increase reliance on coal and 66 percent preferred to decrease dependence on it. The analogous proportions were 48 percent and 46 percent, respectively, for nuclear. Belief that coal use causes global warming, as expected, was related to preferences for coal, but, for example, ecological degradation was a slightly stronger correlate of coal-related preferences than global warming. With regard to preference for use of nuclear energy, there was a strong correlation with the possibility of a nuclear plant accident, but other risk beliefs, such as about nuclear waste management, nuclear material transport and uranium mining had just as strong or stronger relationships with preference for increased reliance on nuclear energy.

About 30 percent of respondents favored increased reliance on nuclear energy, despite admitting the possibility of a serious accident. About 10 percent favored greater reliance on coal, while acknowledging the fossil fuel's role in global warming. The strongest correlates of the two groups were socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity. The acknowledged nuclear risk-taker group was affluent, educated white males, and the coal group was relatively poor, less educated African-American and Latino females. The three consistent factors across both groups were older age, trust in those who manage energy facilities and the belief that energy facilities help the local economy.

The authors conclude their findings have a role to play in the formulation of a national because they show "one or two simple messages that attempt to persuade the public to change its preferences for or against specific energy sources are unlikely to succeed, especially if the public has a negative image of the source." More important, regardless of the existence of subpopulations with specific views about , "The United States needs a clear and comprehensive energy strategy that addresses the energy life cycle, beginning with securing the energy and transporting it, then to producing and transmitting the energy, and managing the wastes."

Explore further: Intelligent façades generating electricity, heat and algae biomass

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Nuclear power vital to cutting CO2 emissions: report

Jun 16, 2010

Roughly a quarter of global electricity could be generated by nuclear power by 2050, requiring a tripling in nuclear generating capacity but making a major contribution to reduced CO2 emissions, a report said ...

Values predict attitudes toward nuclear power

Mar 25, 2009

Concerns about climate change and energy independence have led to renewed calls for the resurgence of nuclear power. Therefore, it is important to understand the level of and bases for public attitudes, both supporting and ...

Nuclear cannibals

Mar 04, 2008

Nuclear energy production must increase by more than 10 percent each year from 2010 to 2050 to meet all future energy demands and replace fossil fuels, but this is an unsustainable prospect. According to a report published ...

Renewables could bring job boon to Poland: Greenpeace

Mar 11, 2011

An ambitious switch from fossil fuels to green energy could generate up to 350,000 new jobs by 2020 in the Poland, the European Union's most coal-dependent member, Greenpeace said Friday in Warsaw.

Recommended for you

Fuel cells to connect our smartphones to the outside world

13 hours ago

The potential of hydrogen and fuel cell applications goes way beyond the development of green cars. The FCPOWEREDRBS team is determined to prove this with a Fuel Cell technology to power off-grid telecom stations. They believe ...

The state of shale

Dec 19, 2014

University of Pittsburgh researchers have shared their findings from three studies related to shale gas in a recent special issue of the journal Energy Technology, edited by Götz Veser, the Nickolas A. DeCecco Professor of Che ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rwinners
not rated yet Jun 14, 2011
Modern nuclear provides that total path, as evidenced by the French nuclear industry. We chose a different path and are paying for it as measured by inefficiencies. Big mistake.
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 14, 2011
Without nuclear fission the classical fuels aren't sustainable. But the ignorance of cold fusion is even much more serious problem. Italians and Germans probably hope, the will replace fission with cold fusion earlier, than they get into problems with fossil fuel supplies.

http://pesn.com/2...A_Chief/
Sepp
not rated yet Jun 18, 2011
Coal vs. nuclear? Certainly those are by far not the only options. Perhaps they are the only options that will let the status quo unchanged, which of course makes this debate a sham.

What is wrong with looking beyond fossil fuels?

Both coal and nuclear are practically the same technology - heating water to get steam to run turbines. Only the fuel is different. But that very same technology - steam turbines - can also be fueled by concentrating the sun's rays to high heat. Certainly there are enough desert areas in the US to not dismiss the concentrated solar thermal option.

Yes, the sun does not shine in the night. So why not store some of that thermal energy to be used at times of no sunshine. Is energy without fuel use not worth some engineering and investment? C'mon - it's always boiled water! Boil it with coal, boil it with hot and heavy elements, or boil it with the sun ... I would take the latter any day.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.