Slight majority support relicensing Seabrook Station - 249 participants
Jun 25, 2016
Last month in Hampton, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held its annual public information meeting where one topic of discussion was the future of the Seabrook Station nuclear power plant. Currently, NextEra Energy, which owns Seabrook Station, is in the process of extending its license from ending in 2030 to 2050. Read more about this issue. On June 25, the LFDA decided to put the issue to its Facebook members, posting the question, “Should Seabrook Station nuclear power plant receive a license extension?”
Should Seabrook Station nuclear power plant receive a license extension?
Participation: 249 participants gave 640 responses.
A total of 79% of those participating gave a 'yes or no' response to the question. The remaining 21% of participants, a higher than average percentage, engaged in the discussion but did not give a yes or no response. In total, the LFDA received 640 responses from 249 individuals. (Click here for details on our methodology.)
What Participants Said
Yes: A slight majority, at 59% of ‘yes or no’ respondents, supported re-licensing Seabrook Station.
- “Seabrook nuclear plant provides clean cheap nuclear power to millions of New Hampshire residents and we cannot afford to go without it.”
- “Yes. It has never been cited for anything wrong. It makes NH an energy exporting state.”
- “Do you have any idea how much wind / solar you would need to come anywhere close to the power output of that one reactor? You'd be wiping out nearly half of NH's power—all clean energy—for something that cannot plausibly come anywhere near what we have now.”
No: The slight minority of ‘yes or no’ respondents, at 41%, opposed re-licensing Seabrook Station.
- “I'd rather see a 1200MW biofuel plant replace it or build a solar field, wind field, or a tidal power generation plant in its place. No need for a power plant that makes waste we can't get rid of safely.”
- “By 2030, it won't be worth the risk even if the risk is small. I think 2050 is pushing our children's luck.”
- “Residents are not receiving the tax breaks they used to. Energy costs are rising. [There is] no benefit for the risk.”
Other: As noted above, 21% of those participating did not give a yes or no response, instead addressing their comments to related questions and issues. These included:
- Questioning safety concerns: “It'd be nice if they don't wait until emergency status to fix it.”
- Discussing whether the general public is knowledgeable enough to weigh in on the matter: “How about we leave that to the experts to decide?”
- Debating the value of nuclear power: “Nuclear power is the most efficient power source—period.”
*Editor selection of actual participant quotes.