( By Carrington Dillon )
I found this poll (courtesy of Zogby International) a while back while searching for material to stash in my Favorites for this website. After seeing some polling data previously, I thought that most of the polling data was typical and to be expected. However, something just came off the screen and really hit me in the face. One piece of data… 18-24 year olds were the least supportive age group for nuclear power!
Only 47% of 18-24 year olds were supportive of building new nuclear plants. 67% of adults are supportive of nuclear power and 78% of those over the age of 65 are supportive. The technology generation is against one of the most advanced technologies that the human race has ever created. Is it popular culture, video games, rap music?
There are so many things that went through my head for a couple of days after I saw this. But instead of telling you what I think is the reason for this trend, I’d like to try something new. I’d like for my fellow NA-YGN members to comment and let me know what they think the cause is. I would also like for them to come up with some ideas on how we can reach this college-aged group.
We may be able to use some of these ideas for our advocacy efforts in the future. Recently, I have been working with others in NA-YGN on ideas to reach school-aged kids with nuclear advocacy. This will go along perfectly with those efforts and hopefully create some good ideas in the process. Feel free to let loose with the discussion. Let’s see what you can come up with.
Hi,
I just think that this generation (18-24) is still pursuing school and some entertainment in their lives and once they start to have to pay their electricity bills in their new house they will reconsider seeing how nuclear power plants are keeping down the cost of energy. Also I think they see it still very naive and at this age it is cool to be against something like nuclear energy.
So long my thoughts…
One of the major contributing factors is ignorance. I don’t mean that in a bad way, but the younger generations are ignorant of the facts about nuclear power. They have been taught by the schools, media and in some cases their parents that anything nuclear is bad. I have had the opportunity to go to schools and talk about engineering and nuclear power and once the students understand the benefits and the safety that we build into the designs and the low risk of an accident their opinions change. As they used to say on the GI Joe cartoon, “now you know, and knowing is half the battle”
I’m new to the nuclear industry and when I told people what I was going to be doing with my new job they always said “Uh, oh, nuclear huh?” And then I had to go on and explain that of all the energy sources available nuclear is by the far the most economical and safest for the environment. Wind is unreliable, uncontrollable, and unschedulable. Hydro wastes a lot of land in flooding for the dam and then poses a serious risk if that dam breaks. Solar is terribly inefficient, and unreliable, and therefore unschedulable. Coal and diesel are horrible for the environment. And Biomass can’t produce the amount of energy needed to be a serious contender.
I think nuclear gets a bad wrap because everyone thinks about the waste of the used reactor fuel and what the incidents at Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl. I’ve explained that Three-Mile Island wasn’t nearly as bad as the media portrayed and that all the safety systems worked as designed and the local population and workers were safe. Chernobyl occurred long before the massive regulations that are now in place and have to be adhered to. The nuclear fuel is an unwanted by product but when compared to the by products of coal (CO2, ash, etc.) and diesel (CO2, and forced political ties to oil producing countries, limited resource) a small amount of reactor fuel, safely and securely contained is not too bad.
Schools don’t teach about the disadvantages of wind and solar power such as obscene land required, obscene cost required, and only generates power when sunny or windy. They just preach that wind and solar and hydrogen are the future of green energy. All these kids know is that nuclear power generates nuclear waste which is bad, so they all favor solar and wind not realizing that nuclear has lots of advantages over these.
Schools didn’t have global warming and alternate sources of energy in their curriculums until more recently, so the older generations didn’t have those lessons in school and so are more open-minded. Poll the science teachers, you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.
I also found it surprising that this age group is the lowest supporter of nuclear. I would expect the opposite! I considered some of the major outlets from which this group gets its information. Take the ‘Daily Show’ for example. The nuclear industry does not often appear on the show, but the few appearances are not positive or informative. Here are two examples: http://www.thedailyshow.com/tagSearchResults.jhtml?term=Nuclear+Power+Plant
Similar snippets can be found sprinkled into the shows, magazines, and radio programming targeted toward this age group. Without positive reinforcement from a credible source, these media sources might be the only information about the nuclear industry that a person receives. One single comment or joke may seem insignificant, but the cumulative affects appear to be devastating to our industry.
The survey also noted that natural gas plants were preferred by this age group over nuclear. I believe that nuclear power is an easier target for criticism than natural gas. Along this line of thinking: Natural gas is cleaner than coal and oil, cheaper than wind and solar, and not as mysterious as nuclear. This seems like a logical progression of thoughts, and without information about nuclear I would most likely come to the same conclusion. This is why advocacy is so important. Nuclear sells itself as long as people are presented with the facts.
The real question is how do we reach this age group with as much impact as the liberal media?
Ignorance and apathy…
Our generation was born right after TMI and Chernobyl, so we have grown up watching related videos in science / physics class. It puts a bad taste in a young person’s mouth about nuclear when he/she sees that sort of distruction.
There have not been plants being built like there were in the 70s, so we haven’t witnessed or been affected by the jobs created, increase in energy independance, etc.
The media will sometimes focus on the security of the fuel, waste storage issues, and proliferation concerns instead of the absolute facts.
Our generation is the green generation and yet most of our peers do not understand the need for nuclear to be a part of the carbon free energy solution. Many of our peers only think of wind, solar, hydro as “green” energy. These sources only generate 2.8% of our energy needs, and yet they consume 80% of our conversation.
Bottom line… BASELOAD NEED…
I have two guesses about this phenomenon. First and foremost, I think we fear the unknown. People are generally comfortable with hydro (you see a dam and know they use the water’s power), wind (you see a fan-like object), coal (you know about grills, fires, etc). With nuclear however, it is an unseen force that makes it happen. In everyday life, we don’t encounter fission or learn about it. To alleviate the fear of fission, somehow people need to be convinced that we can safely control it. Second, I think the fear created by TMI and Chernobyl has been passed down from the baby boomers to their kids. However, this is inconsistent with the data if the older generation is more in favor of new plants…
All that has been said is true. Also, for those of us that were around for TMI and Chernobyl, we grew up with our parent’s fears of what it meant to the world and what it would mean for OUR futures. Parents fears are all too often passed on to their children. Unfortunately, our parents are also the first generation to get most of their news (education) from 30 second teasers on radio and TV. In that time frame you can only feed fears, not educate on the facts. Even worse, the current youth seem to be even further…do I dare say “brainwashed”…by TV, liberal media, popular music (since when was Hollywood the leading voice in science?) and the like. If its not easy people won’t dig for the answer. Fortunately for us, all it takes to educate these youth is to spark their curiousity. Get someone curious and they will go google what you have talked about. We may be brainwashed, but we also have the greatest access to knowledge that man has ever known. So…get out there and talk to someone! Talk to the people at work (yes nuke workers also need educated), talk to your neighbors, talk to politions, talk to our clients. We (and this website) are taking a big step in the right direction. Keep it up and the tide will turn.
Bullard and Daniel are right. It seems as though wind and solar are the only things that are taught in schools. And the 18-24 age group are people who are still influenced by what is “new and cool.” Nuclear power has been a proven technology for decades, and is therefore sometimes forgotten. Couple that with the fact that the average person doesn’t necessarily understand fission and what happens in a nuclear reactor and it is soon written off. If people can simply “see” wind and solar power as simple, rational technologies, they can easily gravitate towards them. They may do so regardless of their disadvantages, or more importantly, regardless of the advantages of nuclear power.
This really points towards Keith’s final question. How do we reach this age group as well as the liberal media? Obviously this is a daunting task, and the answer might be to make sure that students in middle schools and high schools are introduced to the facts and realities of nuclear power. I would say that this poll is the most significant example yet, of why we should start asking schools/science departments to allow us to speak about nuclear power, and explain the technology in a more tangible way. It might not convince everyone, but that’s okay - so long as that decision is made through a clear rationale and not what is deemed “new and cool” by certain parts of media.
I currently work in the industry and I am of the age group being discussed. One thing came to my mind immediately. Does anyone remember playing SimCity 2000 or Civilization? If you happened to purchase a nuclear power plant in those games it was almost a guarantee that you’d have a catastrophic meltdown during your play time. This is how far the fear has permeated society. My own father worked in the Nuclear industry for a short time and I came into my college years still thinking that a NPP could blow up like an atom bomb (needless to say my dad never discussed his love of nuclear power with me until recently). Our society needs to get a better understanding of all things nuclear. It is an uphill education battle but it needs to be done.
I have enjoyed reading the dialoque that this post has generated. I was OVER-joyed when I found that this website exists. The organizers have taken a critical step (pun intended) towards what you all seem to acknowledge as the inherent problem with acceptance of nuclear energy: lack of education and information. I would like to float two ideas on how the industry could accomplish that goal. While I was a research professor at the Delft University of Technology I had the pleasure of being an adult sponser for a Dutch Young Generation field trip. One of the facilities we visited was Swiss BWR. There at the plant they had a visitors center which simulated the reactor containment the minute you walked in the building. A scaled version of the reactor, turbine, etc were also included with loads of information screens. While I have seen similar “science museums” at national laboratories, I have never seen such an impressive education tool at a US power plant. Second, the University of Pittsburgh is developing a GUI-based NPP simulator as a part of their graduate Nuclear Operations Certificate Program. I wrote the reactor kinetics portion of the software. I attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain funding to “dumb down” this engineering tool to make it more accesible for a Wii, GameBoy, Simcity audience. I proposed the “game” be given free to high school science teachers. If mass media can generate an anti-nuclear game, why cannnot we issue a pronuke version? I think the keep it simple stupid (KISS) principal applies here. Just some thoughts.
As a public school teacher and a parent I can say that much of the support for alternative energy and specific opposition to nuclear in that age group comes from the years of propaganda in public education and in the culture. Textbooks tend to be anti-capitalist, anti-growth, and pro-environmental extremism. Dozens of movies over the years (most of them animated and directed at children) have overt messages that humans are destroyers of the earth. Many childrens’ books have the same message. Science classes often have these ideas either covertly or overtly. My daughter (who is in the age group mentioned)came home from elementary school with some of the most outlandish ideas. I was able to counter them, but many parents can’t or won’t. I have students who have no idea at all about the scientific method and how it applies to energy or environmental science and my students are in high school and my classes are honors level. This kind of ignorance will be perpetuated in future generations through the schools.
Rather than get into the reasons why for the trend, the challenge of what to do about it is obvious - improved public relations and education.
One thing that really makes an impression on me is when I hear from nuclear workers talk about their work and the pride they show. They are understandably busy people, but time needs to be taken out to visit them, make a video of it, and post it on youtube.
To be popular these days, we all have to be on facebook, twitter, and youtube to reach out to the younger crowd. Showing them people, rather than concepts, that they can relate to and who want to make a difference in this world is a better way to reach this younger generation I think.
Like Jason, I believe that we need to focus on the actionable item that is shown by the polls. If young people do not understand nuclear energy, we should not blame “the media” but instead use the tools at our disposal to BECOME the media. Carrington and the other creators of Clean Energy Insight are doing just that, but let’s think a little broader.
How many of you are creative musicians - write some songs with positive nuclear energy themes. If you are artistic, do some work like what Suzy Hobbs and her team are doing at PopAtomic.org. If you like to create amusing videos, YouTube is a wonderful option (let me know and I will do what I can to promote it). If you do not like the way that SimCity treats nuclear, produce your own games or write to the producers of SimCity and try to influence their next version. If you are a good talker and have a story to share about atomic energy, contact me and I will put you on an upcoming episode of The Atomic Show.
I do not believe that the reason nuclear has been poorly treated by the media has anything at all to do with liberal versus conservative views. Instead, I want to remind you that “the media” is largely supported by advertising. Nuclear companies do not do very much advertising, so they are a safe target of opportunity. In contrast, fossil fuel companies advertise heavily so they are more lightly treated by editors who are worried about keeping the income flowing. Any honest person who has ever written for a general use publication can tell you how story selections are influenced by the interests of the people who write the checks.
Rod Adams