Energy and Society: Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy

By Mieke Lek

Nuclear energy is an effective and sustainable form of energy generation; however, public opinion of it can greatly alter the way it is implemented. A look into how public opinion can shape the energy industry as a whole can be found here; this article will focus closer on the nuclear energy sector. A positive public opinion on nuclear energy allows for crucial technological advancements involving the effectiveness of nuclear power. A negative view could warrant less funding, making it much harder to expand on nuclear energy research.

History can properly show the trends of public opinion surrounding nuclear technology. When nuclear technology first gained the attention of the public in 1945, with the tragic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear technology was regarded as a frightening force across the world [1,2]. These tragedies gave nuclear technology a very negative connotation, and for good reason - it is a force to be reckoned with. While it was being further developed for energy generation post-World War II, US policymakers made an effort to distinguish nuclear energy as a peaceful technology, unlike the weaponized nuclear technology used in the war. Due to these marketing efforts, the public opinion surrounding nuclear energy became very positive, with its peak in the 1950s and 60s. Most people were fine with living near a nuclear power plant. This public support aided and accelerated nuclear research and operations, leading to the development of many more nuclear power plants around the world. [1]

However, the Nuclear Arms Race had only worsened since the 1950s, so with nuclear energy research also came nuclear weapons research. In the mid 1970s public opinion of nuclear technology became increasingly negative once again, due to the fear of another nuclear bombing [1]. This negative connotation toward nuclear energy was worsened by the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 [1,2,4]. Both nuclear accidents had displaced communities and caused long-lasting impacts to environmental and human health. These disasters made the public increasingly afraid of nuclear technology; and at this point there was major public opposition to the development of nuclear technology. Most people did not want their community within a 5 mile radius of a nuclear power plant [1]. From the 1980s to the 2010s, many people have a negative opinion of nuclear energy, as seen in Figure 1 [4].

Figure 1: Public Support for Nuclear Energy in the United States since 1973 [4]. Original image can be found here.

In Figure 1, the red line indicates public support as a percent value, while the blue line indicates energy insecurity, where there was fear that there would not be enough energy to power the U.S. [4]

While nuclear technology has been researched and it is suggested that nuclear is a much safer alternative than fossil fuel products, we are still seeing disasters occur that reinforce that negative public opinion. An example of this occurred in 2011, when a tsunami caused a meltdown at the Fukushima power plant in Japan [1,2,4]. This event resurfaced discourse surrounding all of the negative impacts of nuclear energy in our communities that was highlighted as a result of  previous disasters. However, social studies conducted as recently as 2019 have shown that the public opinion of nuclear power is the highest it has been in over 35 years! In fact, in the United States, there are more people in favour of nuclear energy than opposed! [3]

Figure 2: Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy in the United States Today [3]. Original image can be found here.

With this recent influx of positive public opinion of nuclear energy, it has been easier for companies that function within the nuclear industry to research and implement new technologies without public backlash and opposition. This can be seen with the refurbishment of Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG’s) Darlington site, where in 2020 it was announced that a new small modular reactor design is going to be implemented [5]. For more information on small modular reactors in Canada, we have an article about it here!

For the nuclear energy industry, having a positive public opinion on such a topic is crucial in order for research and development to be done. If, say, the plans for the small modular reactor went ahead with a less than positive public outlook on nuclear energy, the government and energy companies involved would likely receive a lot of backlash and create a sense of distrust between the public and the government. It would also be much harder to implement it if people were against the idea, especially if it was being developed in their immediate vicinity. Nuclear power is only effective as long as people are okay with having it around!

References:

[1] J. Baron, S. Harzog, “Public opinion on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons: The attitudinal nexus in the United States,” Science Direct. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629620301432?via%3Dihub. [Retrieved April 27, 2021].

[2] ROPER, “ Energy Solution or Accident Waiting to Happen? The Public and Nuclear Power,” ROPER. [Online]. Available: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/energy-solution-or-accident-waiting-happen-public-and-nuclear-power. [Retrieved April 27, 2021].

[3] A. Bisconti, “Public opinion on nuclear energy: Turning a corner?” Nuclear Newswire. [Online]. Available: https://www.ans.org/news/article-314/public-opinion-on-nuclear-energy-turning-a-corner/. [Retrieved April 27, 2021].

[4] K. Gupta, M. Nowlin, J. Ripberger, H. Jenkins-Smith, C. SIlva, “Tracking the nuclear ‘mood’ in the United States: Introducing a long term measure of public opinion about nuclear energy using aggregate survey data,” Science Direct. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519304665. [Retrieved April 27, 2021].

[5] World Nuclear News, “OPG plans SMR construction at Darlington,” World Nuclear News. [Online]. Available: https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/OPG-plans-SMR-construction-at-Darlington. [Retrieved April 27, 2021].