{"id":13629,"date":"2011-06-22T07:03:23","date_gmt":"2011-06-22T14:03:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/?p=13629"},"modified":"2011-06-22T07:03:23","modified_gmt":"2011-06-22T14:03:23","slug":"californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/","title":{"rendered":"Californians: No Thanks to New Nukes"},"content":{"rendered":"

Survey shows confidence in existing plants but little enthusiasm for new ones<\/strong><\/p>\n

A fresh poll from the Field Research Corporation shows statewide support for nuclear power plummeting.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
PG&E's Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, near Avila Beach. (Photo: Craig Miller)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The survey, taken earlier this month, shows that support for expanding nuclear power in California has dropped to 38%, from 48% last year, when only 44% opposed the idea. In the newest poll, 58% surveyed said they did not agree that more nuclear power plants should be built in the state.<\/p>\n

Field analysts say the numbers are a clear reflection of the shift in sentiment worldwide, since the Fukushima nuclear crisis in Japan, a tense series of events that have remained front page news since March 11. Since then, Germany, Switzerland and Italy have all decided to scrap their nuclear energy programs.<\/p>\n

In spite of it all, confidence in California’s existing nuclear plants<\/a> remains high. Only two plants remain in service, PG&E’s Diablo Canyon<\/a> facility on the Central Coast, and the San Onofre<\/a> plant, operated jointly by Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric. And according to the Field Poll, Californians expressed confidence in the safety of those installations by almost two-to-one (56%-32%). Just 39% of respondents said that the state should phase out nuclear power over ten years.<\/p>\n

A report accompanying the poll results says that attitudes toward nuclear power have closely tracked high-profile incidents over the years, with support dropping after accidents at Three Mile Island<\/a> (PA) in 1979 and Chernobyl<\/a> (Ukraine) in 1986. Support peaked in 1976 at 69% and has not crested 50% since the Three Mile Island incident. Statewide, opposition is most concentrated in the San Francisco Bay Area, according to Field.<\/p>\n

The poll has a margin of error of +\/- 4.6 percentage points.<\/p>\n

UPCOMING Coverage: In July, <\/em>Climate Watch<\/a> and our content partners will provide a series of reports on seismic safety and the problem of accumulating nuclear waste at California’s nuclear power plants. The latter will include a three-part radio series, to air on KQED’s <\/em>The California Report<\/a>, in advance of a national commission report, due out on July 29.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Survey shows confidence in existing plants but little enthusiasm for new ones.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":221,"featured_media":13634,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[390,391],"coauthors":[],"series":[],"affiliates":[],"programs":[],"collections":[],"interests":[],"class_list":["post-13629","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-power","tag-nuclear","tag-nuclear-power"],"acf":{"template_type":"standard","featured_image_type":"standard","is_audio_post":false},"yoast_head":"\nCalifornians: No Thanks to New Nukes | Climate Watch<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Californians: No Thanks to New Nukes | Climate Watch\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Survey shows confidence in existing plants but little enthusiasm for new ones.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Watch\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-06-22T14:03:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/cdn.kqed.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/54\/2011\/06\/DC_034_blog.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"348\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"261\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Craig Miller\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@voxterra\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Craig Miller\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/\",\"name\":\"Californians: No Thanks to New Nukes | Climate Watch\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-22T14:03:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-06-22T14:03:23+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#\/schema\/person\/f7222c517400a6c4b0336fca3652c323\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Californians: No Thanks to New Nukes\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Watch\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#\/schema\/person\/f7222c517400a6c4b0336fca3652c323\",\"name\":\"Craig Miller\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/dd8f4f4f978df3faac9db4c510939ea0\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b91661df645e001a9cafe0861fa685f9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b91661df645e001a9cafe0861fa685f9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Craig Miller\"},\"description\":\"Craig is a former KQED Science editor, specializing in weather, climate, water & energy issues, with a little seismology thrown in just to shake things up. Prior to that, he launched and led the station's award-winning multimedia project, Climate Watch. Craig is also an accomplished writer\/producer of television documentaries, with a focus on natural resource issues.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/voxterra\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/author\/cmiller\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Californians: No Thanks to New Nukes | Climate Watch","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Californians: No Thanks to New Nukes | Climate Watch","og_description":"Survey shows confidence in existing plants but little enthusiasm for new ones.","og_url":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/","og_site_name":"Climate Watch","article_published_time":"2011-06-22T14:03:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":348,"height":261,"url":"https:\/\/cdn.kqed.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/54\/2011\/06\/DC_034_blog.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Craig Miller","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@voxterra","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Craig Miller","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/","url":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/","name":"Californians: No Thanks to New Nukes | Climate Watch","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-22T14:03:23+00:00","dateModified":"2011-06-22T14:03:23+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#\/schema\/person\/f7222c517400a6c4b0336fca3652c323"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/06\/22\/californians-no-thanks-to-new-nukes\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Californians: No Thanks to New Nukes"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#website","url":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/","name":"Climate Watch","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#\/schema\/person\/f7222c517400a6c4b0336fca3652c323","name":"Craig Miller","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/dd8f4f4f978df3faac9db4c510939ea0","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b91661df645e001a9cafe0861fa685f9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b91661df645e001a9cafe0861fa685f9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Craig Miller"},"description":"Craig is a former KQED Science editor, specializing in weather, climate, water & energy issues, with a little seismology thrown in just to shake things up. Prior to that, he launched and led the station's award-winning multimedia project, Climate Watch. Craig is also an accomplished writer\/producer of television documentaries, with a focus on natural resource issues.","sameAs":["https:\/\/twitter.com\/voxterra"],"url":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/author\/cmiller\/"}]}},"template_type":null,"featured_image_type":null,"is_audio_post":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13629","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/221"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13629\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13634"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13629"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=13629"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=13629"},{"taxonomy":"affiliates","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/affiliates?post=13629"},{"taxonomy":"programs","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/programs?post=13629"},{"taxonomy":"collections","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collections?post=13629"},{"taxonomy":"interests","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/interests?post=13629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}