Science and Society
The Latest Developments in Science and Technology

Ned Potter is the science correspondent for ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson." He has reported on such topics as space exploration, the human genome and climate change.

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Previous | Main | Next »

Quest for Power

July 25, 2007 8:37 AM

Oil_refinery_070709_main Stephen Ansolabehere, a political scientist at MIT, has done a survey of Americans' attitudes toward different sources of energy, and reports that oil has an image problem.  "Americans now strongly wish to reduce the use of oil, and they view this energy source less favorably than any other source of power," he writes in the abstract.  "It has supplanted nuclear power as the least liked energy source," he writes later.  Nuclear, in the meantime, has become somewhat more popular than it was when he did a similar survey in 2002. 

The abstract is HERE, and the full survey is HERE.

Ansolabehere said people based their preferences first on the cost of electricity from each source, "but environmental harm systematically had stronger effects on preferences." 

Despite Iraq, environmental issues, and rise in gas prices, people's views, Ansolabehere says people's views about energy have been fairly stable.  The people surveyed have, in his words, "extremely optimistic views of alternative energy sources -- solar, wind, and hydroelectric -– especially as far as price is concerned.  They have more realistic views of traditional fuels – fossil fuels plus nuclear power."   

Ansolabehere and his team surveyed 1,200 people each time

"Beyond the changing support for oil and nuclear power," Ansolabehere wrote to me in an email, "we found a striking disconnect between concern about global warming and support for nuclear power -- the two are uncorrelated.  The up tick in support for nuclear power is not driven by fears of global warming as by other considerations, such as the sense that the nation needs alternative energy sources in order to keep electricity prices low." 

Take a look at his numbers.  Do your feelings match those he found?

July 25, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (9)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

There's an old saying that, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." I think that the word "attitudes" could easily be substituted for "wishes" in that saying, with the same result. Although it's worthwhile to know individuals' attitudes about issues, unless there is some commitment or action behind those attitudes, nothing changes. Until the cost of carbon-based fossil fuels becomes unaffordable for most, or until the cost of the favored alternative energy sources becomes much more affordable, nothing in our energy picture will change, no matter what the prevailing attitudes are.

Posted by: chuck | Jul 25, 2007 10:21:09 AM

...and then when they deal with all of the dangerous nuclear waste and how long it takes to degrade, then people will be lamenting their dependence on nuclear energy, and talk about the 'evil' nuclear power plants, and how we should stop serving the big business of nuclear energy, and how to save the environment, blah blah blah. Then we'll hear calls for "alternative" energy sources, and we'll be told by experts that we're "just 10 years away." Then 10 years will pass and nothing will happen because the feasibility of these things always end up being empty promises.

Posted by: Stoic Patriot | Jul 25, 2007 10:38:38 AM

Ambiguity over nuclear energy may be due to whatever issue is most important to someone when they are answering the question. If global warming is the main concern, then nuclear power does seem like a good alternative. For those primarily concerned about the waste problems, however, it will never be acceptable. Others just want to emphasize the point that no energy source is perfect, so our first focus should always be on energy efficiency and conservation.

I would think that nuclear energy might be a good interim tool to get away from fossil fuels, except that the huge costs of building new plants makes this approach fairly impractical as a short-term investment. It is probably better to invest that money into research and subsidies for truly renewable energy and energy-efficiency technologies. Renewable energy sources will become cost-effective only when we make the initial investments needed to improve the technologies and build toward mass production. That could happen fairly quickly if we put out minds to it.

Posted by: Jock | Jul 25, 2007 11:45:08 AM

It seems that the effort to get away from oil should be founded in how the oil producing nations that provide the oil view us. Basically, they don't like us but like our money which they can use for evil acts against us. The more money we give them to feed our habit the more they are inclined to plot against us. Never mind the long term effects of nuclear energy when we are faced with short term efforts to harm us.

Posted by: Ambrose | Jul 25, 2007 12:24:18 PM

Ambrose; Like most American people, I bet you don't know that most of the oil the US imports comes from Canada.

Wake me when people choose to educate themselves, rather than simply acquiescing to the opinions & attitudes of the prejudicial mass media.

Posted by: Lana | Jul 25, 2007 1:22:24 PM

Oil economy is bulk business hence inherent defect of being monopolist charm for Cartel empires.It is not that OIL had damaged the political fabric,Bloody thurst for capturing market and resources is reason for present day uncomfort. Breaking monopolistic interest in comodities like Oil,Diamond,etc is severely damaging human lives and economic contribution and benefit to small business.North America was considered viable on industrial model to benefit workers and investors.Ideology has been exported by investors to offshore and finish produce is brought back from Asia back in North American Market. Imperialist monopolies are thriving on Bulk business where as working middle class is drifting towards powerty.
Solution may not be in socialist approach, yet continous ignoring interest of middle class for good job and fair living can't continue.People will start looking for options to move out of America. Potato crop has been stable for long time in Ireland,what intrest will hold people not to go back to County Cork-Ireland.

Posted by: Hector, Toronto | Jul 25, 2007 1:24:06 PM

I think we are believing and relying too much on nuclear and fossil power being our main power sources in future. We should understand and be aware that renewable power sources can be the alternative to them. We are at the crossroads of that happening now.

There has been a breakthrough in renewable energy base power production! I refer to solar thermal power using a cheap flat mirror system and storage by the disassociation of ammonia in an endothermic reactor then stored at ambient temperature and used at any later time even during wintertime the sun's energy is not lost being chemically locked up. Then reapplied to an exothermic reactor heat is produced at about 500 degrees to provide steam for power generation. This closed loop system enables 24/7 base power production for industry and it also is able to provide medium or peak power on demand. Not only that the storage system is easy to do and cheap and is based on mature technology and enables the sun’s energy to be stored any length of time without loss so that the energy can be extracted in the wintertime if necessary or any time in the future! No other storage system can do this and it is a real breakthrough. A gigawatt plant is right now being built in America financed by venture capitalist Vinod Khosla who says that solar thermal power is poised for explosive growth because of it’s low costs together with Australian scientist Dr David Mills. In Europe a TRANS-CSP report commissioned by the German government calculates that solar thermal power is likely to become one of the cheapest sources of power including the cost of transmission. Not producing any carbon and it does not have safety issues it’s easy to see why. This is the power that needs to be, and can be sent to third world counties and the rest of Europe via High Voltage Direct Current Transmission lines from solar thermal plants in North African deserts or the Middle East with only 3% loss in transmission. In fact the whole world could use this as a major power source as there are many deserts around. The potential for it to power the world cleanly and safely and reduce greenhouse gasses at the same time is a real bonus. And it is being done now. Lets get on with it and continue!

Posted by: viv rendall | Jul 26, 2007 1:52:50 AM

I WANT TO KNOW MORE INFORMATION IN HUMAN HEALTH APPLICATION .
CAN YOU GIVE ME FEEDBACK?

Posted by: LEMANS | Jul 31, 2007 6:24:42 AM

It appears that in our desperate search for alternative energy sources we keep recreating the wheel. The same issues that were prevalent with nuclear power previoulsy have not gone away. The important thing here is not that we are running out of oil and alternative resources, we are also damaging the envioronmnet. Instead of finding another energy source that will damage the earth's atmosphere, an effort should be made to find a source that will not damage the environment.

Posted by: Monica | Sep 26, 2007 2:49:52 PM

Post a comment





 

TECHNOLOGY VIDEOS