The proliferation of country and state-level net zero-emission commitments, rising energy costs, and the quest for energy security in the wake of the Ukraine crisis have renewed the debate about the future of energy sources. As opposed to elite discourse, the energy policy preferences of the public remain less explored. While many public opinion surveys report preferences for a specific type of clean energy, there is less work on understanding choices among different types. We explore whether support for nuclear over wind energy at the state level depends on how people assess the impact of these energy sources on health, local jobs, landscape disruption, and the stability of the electricity supply. Importantly, we seek to understand where people physically reside (and their experience of existing energy possibilities) might influence their energy policy preferences. We estimate multiple regression models with OLS with our original survey data of a representative sample of Washington residents (n = 844). We find that the physical proximity to existing energy facilities does not influence support for nuclear over wind energy. However, this support is shaped by the importance respondents attach to health (-), jobs (-), landscapes (+), and supply stability (+) dimensions of energy source. Moreover, the physical proximity to existing energy facilities moderates the importance respondents attach to these dimensions.
Copyright: © 2023 Uji et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.