Last week, Nuclear Innovation North America (NINA) released a “poll” that they claim shows strong support both across Texas and in Austin for building more nuclear power plants in the state, but the dirty secret of polling in the corporate world is that corporate clients don’t conduct polls to find out public opinion: they conduct polling to buy results, which they can then trot in front of the media and elected officials to prove how popular they are.
Although the polls were done by taking random samples of registered voters (1,004 in the statewide survey and 700 in the Austin market), the questions were worded in such a way to elicit a positive response. The Littlefield Consulting is one such poll, and its results were presented in a misleading fashion to the public. It does not accurately reflect the voters of Austin’s true feelings on nuclear power which is, at best, mixed.
We’d like to run down the problems that we see with this poll below.
Major problem 1:
The poll says that 64% of Austin voters think nuclear power should play in important role in the city’s future. But question 1 of the actual poll tells a very different story:
In general, do you favor or oppose nuclear power plants to generate electricity for Austin Energy?
Strongly Favor: 18.5% / Somewhat Favor: 28.5% / Somewhat Oppose: 16.2% / Strongly Oppose: 19.9% / Don’t Know 17%
Favor: only 47% with Oppose / Don’t know: 53%
Support is tepid at best, with not even a majority of voters in favor of nuclear energy, much less nuclear expansion. There are more voters who strongly oppose nuclear than strongly support it, meaning it is a bad issue at the ballot box.
By the end of the poll, after hearing all of the positive messages, support only increased to 64%. Support is not only tepid, but even after hearing only one side of the argument, voters are not overwhelmingly convinced.
Major problem 2:
This poll makes false comparisons between energy choices.
Would you favor or oppose Austin Energy purchasing nuclear power if AE signed a contract to purchase the power at a rate competitive with coal and natural gas that is set and will not rise for 40 years?
Favor: 65% / Oppose: 23% / Don’t Know: 12%
Given current economics, this is not possible. Cost estimates for new nuclear from STP 3&4 are generally 7.5 – 8.5 cents per kwh, while coal, gas, and renewables are all under 5 cents.
Major problem 3:
This poll presents inaccurate information to those people being polled and then asks them if that makes them more favorable to nuclear energy.
The poll touts STP’s stable price, reliable electricity, and environmental benefits without giving the true history of cost overruns, bailouts, enormous carbon footprint of construction or the mining and milling of uranium and storage of radioactive waste. It also falsely connects nuclear power to energy independence, although nuclear power will not affect oil consumption in Austin at all.
Please tell me if each statement more likely or less likely to support Austin Energy purchasing more nuclear energy from the South Texas Nuclear Project:
Nuclear power plants are cleaner for the environment than plants fueled by coal or natural gas because they don’t produce emissions. More: 75% / Less: 25%
More nuclear energy could lock in stable prices and affordable prices for AE customers- especially for lower income customers. More: 75% / Less: 25%
The US needs to become more energy independent and not rely on energy from politically unstable parts of the world. More: 85% / Less: 15%
None of these answers actually show Austin’s support for nuclear power, only that positive messaging makes them more likely to support it, which is exactly what the people paying for the poll wanted.
Major problem 3:
The poll glosses over major opposition to the plant due to water usage. Furthermore, no other negative messages are presented to those being polled, meaning they are given a one-sided description of nuclear power.
For example, support evaporates (no pun intended) for STP expansion or Austin buying power from nuclear expansion at the slightest mention of the water cost.
Would you favor or oppose the building of these new units if the daily operation of these new units increased the amount of water that the STNP draws from the Colorado River?Strongly favor: 9.8% / Somewhat favor: 19.9% / Somewhat oppose: 26.1% / Strongly oppose: 26.2% / Don’t Know: 18.1%
Total Favor: 30% / Total Oppose: 52%
Total Oppose /Don’t Know: 70%
When faced with the facts on the cost overruns, the dangers of radioactive waste, the performance and safety record at STP and nuclear power nationwide, allegations of fraud when dealing with CPS and San Antonio, you will see drastically different results.
This does not even begin to discuss issues like whether Austin needs more baseload power (we don’t— we need more peak power, which can more reliably and cheaply be provided by efficiency, renewables, and natural gas peakers)
Bottom line: STP expansion and further power purchase agreements with STP are, in a word, radioactive. Support is soft, at best, and based on easily debunked and misleading claims. Smart elected officials will stay away from this issue and reaffirm the City Council’s previous decisions to not buy into the nuke.
Too see a breakdown of both polls’ questions and answers, click here.
###
UPDATE AND EDITOR’S NOTE: We received a comment on this post that we found to be helpful and removed a section our commenter, Bliz, found to be a “Karl Rove-ish” attack. The lessons we learn are the following: YES, we read your comments. And give them the attention they deserve. Second, when we make a mistake we try to fess up to it. Mea culpa, as it was I who wrote the majority of this, not Carol. And third, while we generally don’t like to flush things down the old memory hole, there are times when it is worthwhile to delete something. This is one of those times. But we confess that we are deleting in and not trying to cover up for the fact that it never happened. So thanks, and good night and have a pleasant tomorrow. ~~Andy Wilson, TexasVox editor.
Related Articles
- How to make people ‘love’ nuclear power | Ben Goldacre (guardian.co.uk)
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Hey, Austin doesn’t want to put up the $$ for STP U3&4, then they ought not be able to use any of its electric power when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Simple as that.
Let their “smart grid” figure it out.
I support your position on this issue but the Karl Rove-ish attacks on the pollster himself are distasteful to say the least and far beneath the usual conduct of your organization.
One of your links is to a rant (as Paul Burka notes here http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/?p=964 “this is not the way grownups write”) from an opposing political consultant who lost that race as the pollster predicted (http://www.caller.com/news/2008/nov/05/todd-hunter-predicted-to-upset-garcia-targeted/)!
Another link is to an ANONYMOUS poster (Morter Forker, get it?) with an ax to grind against Glen Maxey. Enough said.
The only legitimate link is to a 5 year old article that says the pollster was “under investigation” for fraud and irregularities in a petition drive. The relevance of this to the issue at hand seems tangential at best.
I have worked with Littlefield Consulting on numerous occasions and have relied on their polling and data services for bond campaigns for parks and open space preservation and a multi-modal transportation initiative. I have found them to be extremely reliable. Please consider removing these personal attacks from your otherwise informative post.
Thanks Bliz. We’ve updated the article and given an explanation in an editor’s note at the end.
Meresa, you’re exactly right. This is exactly what we want, because we don’t want Austinites paying double or triple the going rate of electricity for power we don’t need. STP 3 and 4 are a financial boondoggle the same way 1&2 were– or have you forgotten the delays, the cost overruns, and the eventual bailout? In the words of W– “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on… I won’t get fooled again!” : )
You mean like San Antonio, whose residents pay some of the lowest rates in the country, thanks in no small part to STP U1&2?
FYI the cost overruns were the fault of Brown and Root, not the nuclear industry in general.
Last time i checked, CPS was having cash flow problems, had pulled down 60% of their line of credit, delayed needed upgrades to the old Deely plant, raised rates by 7.5%, and is asking for another rate increase. .0105 is not the cheapest by far, I pay that for 100% renewable green choice plan.
“.0105 is not the cheapest by far, I pay that for 100% renewable green choice plan.”
Thanks to the subsidies from taxpayers like me.
You’re welcome.
PS when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesnt shine You *do* get your power from baseload sources like coal gas and nuclear. Without them you would be powerless.
Meresa,
Please name for me a nuclear project that came in on time, on budget, and that didn’t pick the taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ pockets with massive bailouts. You can’t.
The only reason STP 1&2 are “Affordable” now is because the reactors are old and paid off, but required a massive bailout from Houston Power and Light back in the day.
And with San Antonio, when NINA was trying to sell them on nuclear expansion, need I remind you that NINA and NRG spent the entire summer of 2009 using FALSE numbers about how much it was going to cost in an attempt to get San Antonio taxpayers to put up city bonds for construction? And that San Antonio and CPS Energy ended up suing NINA for FRAUD!!!! This was within the last 18 months– or is your short term memory just that bad?
These people are not to be trusted.
And just to add, during deregulation the ratepayers got stuck with a bill for 5 billion+ dollars for STP 1&2 plus 30 years of interest all paid back in 3 years. Called a stranded cost, it was a shaft given to the rate payers, who did not get any return for the dollars invested. Over 75% of the reactors operating today have ended up in bankruptcy court and the investors, taxpayers and rate payers end up with the bill, not the company that built the project. Helps make it affordable when somebody else has to pay the bill.
Lots of interesting things could have been done with that 5 billion dollars, If it had been invested in a solar incentive plan at the time (2003), Texas would now be the world leader in solar manufacturing and have several hundred thousand jobs.
Nuclear power has a high capital cost to be sure, but once those costs are amortized, there’s nothing cheaper, safer, and more reliable. Fact.
Your choice of the word “bailout” is highly misleading. What the nuclear industry is looking for is loan guarantees. Loans are repaid. With interest.
By contrast, solar and wind are heavily subsidized by taxpayers (who are never repaid). T Boone Pickens and Warren Buffett give large returns to their windfarm investors entirely from taxpayer subsidies. Without producing a single megawatt of electricity.
Further, electric service providers are *required* to purchase a fraction of their electricity from wind and solar. That’s not free trade *or* fair trade. Why, as a consumer, can’t I choose to buy all of my electricity from nuclear? If wind and solar are that good they too should not receive any “bailouts”. You can’t have it both ways.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: When your “smart grid shuts off your A/C on the hottest day of the year (and it *will* once you have succeeded in killing off all forms of baseload electric power sources) don’t come complaining to me.
No reason you cant buy all your power from the nukes. Does make for a slight problem when they shut them down for a couple of weeks for refueling and maintenance.
Seems Comanche peek has a reactor down right now. So it would be lights out.
There is aslo a requirement the 50% of all new generation built in Texas has to be natural gas fueled (the enron portfolio standard lives on).
AE shut off my A/C 8 times last summer (I’m a member of the power partners program). Never noticed it, If I didn’t have it wired into my home energy management system I would have never known. They use sophisticated programs to rotate the delay in compressor turn on amongst 1000′s of partners so nobody is effected for more than ten minutes at a time, it’s voluntary and saves almost 200 Mw of generation. They have started doing it on ozone alert days to help keep the air quality high.
HL&P had 80,000 homes in Houston setup on the same program all through the 90′s, its not a new idea and it works well.
Oh and the “false” numbers you speak of were the fault of Toshiba, not NINA or CPS.
“No reason you cant buy all your power from the nukes.”
Nope. Can’t. My friends and I have tried. Every provider has wind and solar in the portfolio. By law.
“Does make for a slight problem when the shut them down for a couple of weeks for refueling and maintenance.”
Not at all. Outages are planned in spring and fall to coincide with minimum demand. There’s never more than one of the 4 ERCOT reactors offline at any given time. Other types of baseload plants (coal and gas) schedule their outages during that time too. Fall and spring are known as “outage season” to those in the power industry.
Meresa,
You say loan guarantees aren’t a subsidy, but the CBO estimates that 50% of all loans will FAIL. That means that if we put up 500 billion, we are flushing $250 down the toilet. That is a subsidy, and it’s the worst kind. The bankers get made whole, the big energy companies get made whole, but a city who puts up their bond rating to provide the rest of the construction capital gets screwed.
Nuclear also receives a larger PTC than wind or solar, which is also a subsidy.
The nuclear industry has been around since the 60s but still can’t function in the marketplace. Wind and solar, once up and running, undercut the market because they have no fuel cost, and so will not need the endless to subsidies that nuclear has needed.
Mark Littlefield was quoted in 8/09 saying: “Nuclear is a non-starter.” http://tinyurl.com/5vm3rrd
Guess NRG’s wad of cash was enough to jumpstart him…
Bliz, you defended Mark…and I agree, this doesn’t make sense from what I know of him. I get you had issues with things now removed, but you never lay out what part of Andy’s poll analysis you disagree with…or is there any disagreement on that part?