Social impacts and public perception of nuclear power

F. BAZILE, CEA, France

Abstract: Social impacts of nuclear power are significant but difficult to quantify, as there is no consensus on a method. The first part of this chapter presents a review of the advantages and drawbacks of nuclear power compared to other power generation sources, as they have been assessed in recent publications. The second part presents public perceptions of nuclear power and tries to identify levers for a better acceptance. Beyond specific national issues, two main points can be identified. First, there is a link between education level, knowledge of energy matters and acceptance of nuclear power; in particular, knowledge of its potential contribution to a low-carbon energy mix, and an awareness of the physical limits of renewable energies (such as solar and wind) contribute to an acceptance of nuclear power. Second, the more concrete a knowledge of nuclear power people have, for example by living in the vicinity of a nuclear plant, the more they accept it, as its economic benefits and safe operation are better understood.

Key words: energy policy, economics, public perception of risk, safety, externalities, low-carbon energy mix, Chernobyl, radioactive waste management, opinion surveys, stakeholder involvement, public debate, political decision.

16.1 Introduction

The social impacts of choosing nuclear power have to be assessed from a long-term perspective, i. e. by a minimum of a century, or much more if one takes into account waste management. Fifteen years are needed between the decision to launch a nuclear build and the beginning of operation, with those 15 years including time to undertake all the political work to establish the infrastructure (such as the creation of a regulatory authority and the promulgation of an institutional and legal framework). The lifespan of operation can be about 50-60 years, perhaps even more with future designs, depending on the safety rules acknowledged in each country. Dismantling and decommissioning require several decades, depending on technologies and on the availability of waste management facilities. Whatever the length of time involved, choosing to include nuclear power in a country’s energy mix is a political commitment and not just a technical decision.

Sustainable development is widely recognized, at an international level, as a relevant objective of energy policies. And it is agreed that three inter­related dimensions — economy, environment and social — need to be taken into account, and that there needs to be an equilibrium between present and future generations. Nuclear choice should be assessed from this per­spective, since it has significant impacts on all these dimensions.

But the benefits resulting from choosing nuclear power are not always, or spontaneously, evident to the public at large. Indeed, nuclear energy often has a negative visibility, since many people perceive and overestimate the risk of major accidents (referring to Chernobyl or to Fukushima), the terrorist risk and uncertainties about waste management, and, moreover, because of the ‘original sin’ of nuclear technology — the nuclear bomb — and the risk of proliferation.

The first part of this chapter exposes some of the main issues regarding the social impacts of nuclear power, even if they are difficult to quantify and therefore possibly controversial. The second part focuses on public perception of nuclear power, including risk perception, as shown by opinion polls and qualitative surveys.