The social impacts of a nuclear power choice need to be accepted by the main stakeholders and by public opinion, even if this means allowing the expression of opposition to the policy and, moreover, even if the full meaning of that ‘acceptance’ is unknown. It needs to be underlined that many people have no real concerns about this topic, except those living near sites, so there is often a ‘passive acceptance’ among the public at large. It must also be observed that public opinion is very complex, sometimes con­tradictory or paradoxical or ambivalent about nuclear power, and it is impossible to have a clear understanding of this complexity using only quantitative polls (see below). In any case, there is little ‘spontaneous’ public perception of nuclear power, except memories of Chernobyl and (since 2011) of Fukushima, and a general link to the atomic bomb, which seems to imply a structural negative image. Beyond this, opinions are built by the media, by political leaders, by a country’s political history and its international context, and they can evolve, as is shown by the Swedish case (where there was a referendum with options to phase out the nuclear pro­gramme in 1980, but opinion polls in favour of moving to a nuclear pro­gramme in 2005, as the international context was increasingly in favour of nuclear power). It is the responsibility of government to give sufficient and honest information on energy to explain and justify the nuclear choice.

An impressive fact, observed everywhere in the world, is that a country’s public opinion is more in favour of nuclear energy if a nuclear programme already exists there; similarly, people living in the neighbourhood of nuclear plants are more in favour of nuclear power than the general public.

Nuclear power (and energy in general) is not one of the main concerns of the public at large, except when there is an energy crisis, such as increas­ing energy prices, or blackouts of supply, or oil spills. All quantitative surveys at a national or international level (for example, the Eurobarometer

Special Report on Energy Technologies (European Commission, 2007a), or the IRSN — Institut pour la Radioprotection et la Surete Nucleaire — Barometer on perception of risks (IRSN, 2006)) show that social, health and security issues are spontaneously cited as people’s main concerns (see Tables 16.2 and 16.3).

It must be observed that, in most surveys, when a question about informa­tion on energy is raised, the majority of people (about 70%) say that they

Table 16.2 Responses to the question ‘What are the most important issues facing your country today?’

Issue %

Unemployment 64

Crime 36

Healthcare system 33

Economic situation 30

Immigration 29

Pensions 28

Inflation 26

Education system 19

Terrorism 19

Taxation 19

Housing 15

Energy prices and shortages 14

Environmental protection 12

Public transport 6

Defence and foreign affairs 5

Table 16.3 Responses to the question ‘In your opinion, which two of the following should be given priority in your government’s energy policy?’

Issue %

Guaranteeing low prices for consumers 45

Guaranteeing a continuous supply of energy 35

Protecting the environment 29

Protecting public health 22

Guaranteeing your country independence in the field 18

of energy

Reducing energy consumption 15

Fighting global warminga 13

Guaranteeing the competitiveness of your country’s 7

industries

a Global warming is more and more considered as an important issue but many people still don’t know the link between nuclear energy and limiting climate change.

don’t have sufficient information about it. However, when public debates are organized, few people from the general public participate in the meet­ings except those in the neighbourhood of nuclear sites.

We should here consider a number of methodological issues to help us understand public perception of nuclear power. There are many quantita­tive opinion polls, realized at both a national and an international level, which are very useful to measure a population’s degree of knowledge and concern. Eurobarometers, realized under the aegis of the European Commission, are well known and often taken as a reference tool. Such Eurobarometers have addressed different topics regarding nuclear energy: Europeans and Nuclear Safety Report (2007b), Energy Technologies: Knowledge, Perception, Measures (2007a) and Radioactive Waste (2005). The main results of these polls are discussed below, but it is important first to note several limitations of this kind of tool. First, most of the questions raised are closed questions: sometimes the wording doesn’t have the same sense for all respondents, and may even be very far from the respondents’ concerns. Second, it is worth noting that there are significant differences between European countries, so it is impossible to speak about something like ‘European public opinion’ regarding nuclear power.

To complement quantitative approaches, qualitative studies (in-depth analyses of people’s opinions by non-directive interviews, open questions, etc.) are also useful to have a sound understanding of people’s representa­tions, in all their complex and sometimes paradoxical or contradictory aspects. Such a qualitative approach is necessary in order to be aware of all obstacles to nuclear acceptance. For instance, a qualitative study under­taken in France in 2005, before the passing of a new Act on waste manage­ment, showed that the public at large were not ready to accept the idea of long-term geological disposal, one of the reference solutions for managing HLLL radioactive waste, because the time-scales involved in waste man­agement (for some categories of waste being as long as a million years) seemed to be, from a philosophical point of view, beyond human responsi­bility. The appropriate answer was of course not to avoid such a solution in the new Act, but to take into account people’s expectations of the reversibil­ity of disposal. The 2006 Act on Sustainable Management of Radioactive Materials and Radioactive Waste requires that any geological disposal be reversible for a minimum of 100 years.

Taking another example, many quantitative polls ask simple questions but phrase them in terms which are not those used by the public in everyday life, or which are difficult to interpret. When discussing nuclear power, ques­tions that are too simple are not relevant. For example, the simple question ‘Are you against or in favour of nuclear power?’ does not take into account or explain that, in several countries, about 50% of the public have no precise opinion on nuclear power, or have ambivalent perceptions, with some people thinking that ‘it is good for the economy and bad for the environ­ment’ whilst others think the opposite.

It is also difficult to interpret answers to closed questions such as ‘Do you agree/disagree with the following opinion: waste disposal may be imple­mented in safe conditions’, because we do not know what each of the dif­ferent respondents consider to be ‘safe conditions’. The same can be said about the following question asked in the EU Waste Eurobarometer: ‘Would you be more in favour of nuclear energy if one would have solved the problem of waste management?’, which requires an understanding of what is meant, to the public at large, by having ‘solutions’ for the problem of waste management; we know that technical solutions already exist but their social acceptance remains problematic.

It therefore seems appropriate to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches: the quantitative approach to have a rough vision of the accept­ance and evolution of public opinion, and the qualitative approach to acquire an understanding of people’s concerns.