NUCLEAR MARKETS | REBUILDING PERCEPTION
perceptions of nuclear energy
Rebuilding
If nuclear is to reach its full potential it must win over a largely sceptical public. What measures can be taken by industry and government to re-invigorate the nuclear sector and its relationship with the public?
By Professor Adrian Bull, Chair in Nuclear Energy and Society at The University of Manchester’s Dalton Nuclear Institute
IT’S FAIR TO SAY THE nuclear industry has had a fairly tumultuous relationship with wider society over the years. Early perceptions of nuclear energy were generally
positive, with it viewed as a beacon of how technology went hand in hand with increasing prosperity. However, a history of highly publicised leaks, discharges and assorted incidents have created a legacy of societal mistrust of nuclear energy. Consequently, there has been long-standing reluctance
from some (often vociferous) parts of society to endorse and support the activities of an industry it sees as intruding malevolently into its communities, rather than adding value. This is undoubtedly one of the biggest barriers to
expanding the nuclear capacity in the UK and further afield, which we know is key to the success of Net Zero and green energy plans. As such, both government and industry need to start thinking deeply about how we can change this narrative.
Advocating nuclear energy as a power for good There are perhaps some encouraging signs that the narrative is already beginning to shift – not always driven by a greater support for the nuclear industry, but more by the changing priorities and values of society itself. The past twelve months have crystalised our concerns around negating the impact of climate change (or at least to avoid making things worse with more fossil fuel use) and energy security.
As such, the general public is more open to nuclear
energy as a greener alternative to fossil fuels that is, arguably, more reliable than other alternative sources such as wind and solar. This hasn’t completely negated the concerns but opens the door for us to communicate and highlight the benefits of nuclear, as well as allaying concerns about the risks. The government should ensure that policy making in
relation to nuclear energy is evidence-based, open and transparent. One of the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic is a greater familiarity with the role of science in public policy among the general public, and greater willingness to challenge those links and dig further behind
22 | April 2023 |
www.neimagazine.com
the data. It means that the science and data behind policy decisions should be published along with the decisions themselves – essentially a “show your working” approach – to reassure people that no one is hiding anything and that data is interpreted appropriately.
Building relationships in local communities An example comes from the UK, where for the first time ever the approval for a key piece of infrastructure will sit with society, rather than with government. The proposed final location of the UK’s higher level nuclear waste – a deep underground disposal site, known as the Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) – will only proceed if the community where it is to be hosted explicitly decide that they want to have it. There is a package of community and financial benefit
attached too, but it will be a far-reaching decision for a group of 21st century citizens to make an irrevocable choice to host a huge part of Britain’s nuclear waste inventory below their community for all eternity. There are currently four communities engaged in the
process to select a final GDF location and any decision on a final site is well over a decade away. But if the communities are to remain engaged, the industry needs to think and act differently. Instead of the nuclear sector focusing on a conversation about its own considerations (the nature of the waste and packaging, and the design of the planned repository) conversations should start with a focus on the community. What do they consider to be important? What are their values? How do they even come to identify themselves as a “community” in the first place? How do they want to be viewed many generations into the future? The UK government can support this approach by
encouraging its Nuclear Waste Services body to frame conversations with potential GDF host communities around the needs and values of the community itself rather than around nuclear waste and repository design. If government and industry can rise to the challenge and
start listening before speaking, then there is a real chance of turning nuclear’s relationship with wider society into a much more positive one, for all concerned. ■
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47
