🚨 Just released: @RadiantEnergyG 's latest polling on U.S. public attitudes toward clean energy surveyed over 20,000 people across 23 states.
The most striking divide in nuclear energy opinion? Gender.
In our data, the gap between men and women’s views on nuclear power is larger than the differences found between political affiliation, age, education, or race.
Men's support for nuclear energy varies widely depending on factors like:
- Income
- Party affiliation
- Age
- Race
- Education level
But women? Far less-divided demographically. Across the board, they just don’t like it.
To put this into perspective:
🔹 Net support for nuclear among Republicans: +26%
🔹 Among Democrats: +4%
Yet Republican women have lower support than Democratic men. That’s how deep the gender divide runs.
Many are quick to attribute the gap to a lack of information — or even widespread misinformation.
However, previous research testing the “knowledge gap” hypothesis suggests it doesn’t actually explain the difference in support.
I have my hypotheses, but without deeper inquiry, they remain guesses. Regardless, something is going on here, and it needs careful, thoughtful exploration.
Why does this matter? Because women make up 50% of the population. And public sentiment matters a lot.
Public opposition can derail new projects and force the early shutdown of economical, operational nuclear plants (as seen with Indian Point).
Policymakers closely watch public sentiment to gauge which energy policies are politically viable — and which are too toxic to touch.
Without broad support, even the best ideas can stall.
Big tech companies like Amazon, Google, Meta, and NVIDIA are starting to pursue nuclear power to meet the soaring energy demands of AI and new data centers. In response, states are overturning nuclear moratoria to position themselves for these investments.
But without broad public support, these plans remain precarious.
More work is needed to understand the factors shaping women's views on nuclear energy — and how to meaningfully engage with their concerns to build broader support.
Nuclear stakeholders and advocates can’t afford to ignore this divide.
Visit our website to read the full report, explore the data with interactive charts, see what people in your ZIP code think about clean energy — and try the survey yourself!
Oppenheimer is a profound exploration of nuclear fear, offering clarifying insights into the nature of our anxieties and revealing why this fear seems to be unique to nuclear
Some highlights from my latest:
(WARNING, SPOILERS AHEAD)
NEAR ZERO:
The movie implies the existence of a very small chance that the world might've ended as a result of the Trinity Test.
In actuality “near zero” simply means non-disprovable – the inability to say something cannot happen through theory or observed evidence.
INSIGHT #1:
Our deepest fears of nuclear exist in the realm of “near zero”. They manifest in fantastical scenarios with probabilities infinitesimally small and no definite way to disprove their existence.
Yesterday, the same lawmakers in New York who frequently demand we Believe the Science instead went with Feels Over Reals, passing a bill to ban the release of wastewater from the shuttered Indian Point nuclear plant into the Hudson.
Here's what you need to know:
The wastewater in question is tritiated water — water containing trace amounts of a radioactive isotope of hydrogen called tritium.
Tritiated water is regularly released by nuclear plants as part of normal operations because the concentration of tritium is so incredibly low.
How low?
The EPA sets an annual dose limit from liquid releases at 25 millirem, & the Indian Point site has a more conservative limit of 3 millirem.
In 2021, the total possible dose to the public from Indian Point liquid releases was 0.011 millirem, 0.3% of the allowable dose.
@RobertKennedyJr asserts that energy policy is written “to benefit the dirtiest, filthiest, most poisonous, most toxic, most war-mongering fuels from hell”
“[Polluters] raise standards of living for themselves by lowering quality of life for the rest of us”
Cringe aside, it's dishonest to look at pollution from energy in a vacuum.
Increasing energy consumption over time has coincided with greater levels of healthcare, education, democracy, security, & economic freedom.
Historically, these advances have been powered by fossil fuels
@jackdarin – director of @SierraClubIL – claimed that the Sierra Club doesn’t support lifting the state’s ban on new carbon-free nuclear because “we believe that nuclear is not clean energy”
Frustrating to have to debunk this anti-nuclear talking point in 2023, but let’s do it:
@jackdarin says nuclear’s “full life cycle has very serious impacts”
@OurWorldInData studied the lifecycle emissions of our energy sources, including from mining, transportation & maintenance over a power plant’s life.
The data shows nuclear has the LOWEST lifecycle emissions.
@OurWorldInData also studied lifecycle land use – not just the land for the power plant, but also to mine the materials for its construction and fuel, to connect to the electricity grid, and to manage any waste that is produced.
Illinois is *SO CLOSE* to lifting its ban on new nuclear
To get these bills over the finish line, representatives and senators need to hear from all Illinoisans that this is the right thing to do for our state
Alan explains exactly how to make your voice heard👇