IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v37y2009i8p3242-3249.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data

Author

Listed:
  • Greenberg, Michael

Abstract

To understand public preferences for energy sources, 2701 US residents were surveyed; 2101 of the respondents lived within 50 miles of a major nuclear facility. Over 90% wanted greater reliance on solar and wind, and over 70% wanted more reliance upon hydroelectric sources. Less than one-third wanted more use of oil and coal. Nuclear and natural gas sources were closer to an even split. Notably, those who lived near nuclear facilities favored the same sources, although a larger proportion of these respondents favored increasing use of nuclear power than in the national sample. These results are consistent with other United States surveys. The study found striking differences in preferences by age, ethnicity/race and other demographic characteristics that need in-depth investigation in order to help decision-makers and everyone else better understand public preferences about energy policy choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Greenberg, Michael, 2009. "Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3242-3249, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:37:y:2009:i:8:p:3242-3249
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(09)00273-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Energy sources Preferences Surveys;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:37:y:2009:i:8:p:3242-3249. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.