In my previous post, I touched on the critical aspect of public perception on the nuclear issue. Moving on, I believe it might be of some value to examine how the UK have viewed the adoption of atomic energy, and whether public opinion may have shifted following the catastrophic Fukushima incident in Mar 2012.
Through a survey of 1822 UK citizens aged 15 and older, Corner et al (2011) observed that 71% of the respondents were concerned about climate change.
Respondents in earlier surveys who had concerns about climate change and energy
security earlier typically also harboured high ideals of environmental values
and were not willing to accept nuclear power. Nonetheless, when the questions
allowed for a ‘reluctant acceptance’ to allow respondents to express their
dislike for nuclear power alongside their conditional support (if other energy
options do not work out), this group of respondents were nudged towards support
for nuclear.
 |
| Perception Survey Results Source: Corner et al (2011) |
Subsequently, Poortinga et al (2013) examined various survey results to consider how the
Fukushima incident may have changed public perceptions of climate change and
energy futures in Britain and Japan. While British attitudes have remained
relatively stable, the Japanese public acceptance of nuclear power decreased,
even if it would contribute to climate change mitigation. Poortinga et al (2013) surmised the lack of visible accidents in the UK and Europe may have
made the British public less attentive to the risks of nuclear power.
This may then lead to wonder how countries neighbouring Japan may feel about nuclear power after the Fukushima incident? A recent study conducted by Huang et al (2013) found that acceptance of nuclear power by China's public in a coastal city of Jiangsu province decreased significantly following the incident, in particular females, non-civil servants, people with lower income, and those residing close to a nuclear power plant. The interesting point is that 50% of the survey respondents considered
it acceptable for nuclear
incidents to occur once in 100 years.
With Fukushima looming in the background, Wittneben (2012) noted that while the UK government remains adamant on the adoption of nuclear power, other EU countries such as Germany has taken a non-nuclear stance. Wittneben (2012) opined that various factors could be at work. Historical context, cultural influences, and the media could be some key reasons behind Germany's reluctance towards the nuclear option.
In my view, public acceptance would be key for any country looking to adopt atomic energy. Sailor et al (2000) cited the various challenges to be overcome when employing the nuclear option, which include enhancing nuclear reactor safety, proper radioactive waste disposal, and a rigorous safeguards regime to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation. These areas of concern still remains valid today, and any communication with the community would have to comprehensively address them.
 |
| Picture by: Watashiwani on Flickr |
| Picture by: http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/en/ |
Thanks Joon, this post very clearly sums up the connection between public perception of nuclear power and the actual implementation problems.
ReplyDeleteI, as you know, am in favour of nuclear power as a short term solution and would celebrate a better education of people in regards to how nuclear power works. Because I believe that at the moment the 'I don't know how it works so it must be evil' attitude prevails, e.g. using Fukushima as an argument not to build nuclear power plants in the Netherlands/ Germany, even though these are tectonically stable areas.
I always enjoy reading your blog, as it's clearly articulated and thought through, thanks for that :)
Hi Larissa, thank you so much for your comments and compliments! I agree with you fully that better public awareness would be key towards acceptance of nuclear energy as an option. This will nonetheless involve mindset change which would likely take some time. So I guess in the short term, we might continue to see much debate on the civilian use of nuclear energy.
DeleteMay I also wish you a happy new year! :)
Hi Joon,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post. I really enjoyed reading about public perception of nuclear energy. It was particularly interesting to learn about perception of neighbouring countries to Japan following Fukushima (I don't blame people living near NPPs being concerned about future incidents). It's such a hotly debated topic, and you're right, public acceptance of nuclear will be key to the expansion of the sector. Personally I am on the fence, but I believe that the work of regulatory bodies is crucial if we wish to use nuclear as a source of energy into the future so that we can do it safely.
Cheers,
Katherine
Hi Kathrine, thanks for the comment! I think you are certainly right that regulatory and promotional bodies of nuclear energy play equally important roles to ensure the safe use of nuclear energy. In this regard, I believe organisers such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) play a very crucial role in setting safety standards and codes of conduct that would help ensure high levels of awareness of safety for nuclear power plant operators.
Delete