Joe Sixpack and Nuclear Power
Pro-nukies obsess over polls. If only we could get the public to recognize that nuclear is much safer than fossil fuel, that spent fuel is at most a small, 600 year problem, then all would be well. How many times do we have to show Joe Sixpack Figure 1 before he comes to his senses?
Figure 1. Joe, look how safe and clean nuclear power is!
But the polls numbers remain flat.
Figure 2. Gallup Poll on nuclear power, 2000-2022.
May I suggest a reason why Joe is not impressed with nuclear power? Money.
If I'm Joe, I'm not that taken with an electricity source that requires me to help millionaires pay their taxes
If I'm Joe, I'm asking myself do I want to see the Department of Energy shoveling still more of my taxes down rabbit holes like Nuscale. Most of the bastards getting my money are pulling down bigger salaries than mine. And I'm getting nothing in return.
If I'm Joe, I'm looking at Vogtle 3 and 4 and thinking to myself: Man, I'm glad I'm not paying for that electricity. Or worse, I could be a SCANA ratepayer. I don't care how safe and clean nuclear is, do not load up my electricity bill with these monstrosities.
If you want Joe's support, you will need to make nuclear power cheap.
I'm with Joe. If Gallup asks me tomorrow, do I support nuclear power? The answer is no. Not at these costs.
As regular readers of Gordian Knot News know, I believe nuclear power is inherently cheap. Thanks to its remarkable energy density, in a competitive environment it could easily produce dispatchable electricity at less than 3 cents/kWh. The Joe Sixpack post is a plea for nuclear supporters to stop focusing on safety and start focusing on why nuclear's did-cost is five or more times higher than its should-cost. However, the piece in isolation could be read to imply that nuclear is inherently costly, which is the opposite of the truth. Mea culpa.
Solar and wind get big subsidies at taxpayer expense. Why doesn't that make them more unpopular? I doubt most people answering a poll have any idea of the relative cost of nuclear.