New research digs into how much the sense of dread around nuclear power negatively affects decision-making about its deployment.
In the ongoing effort to decarbonize US energy production, one energy source often attracts great controversy. Nuclear power has been a part of the American energy portfolio since the 1950s and generates one in every five kilowatt-hours of electricity produced in the country.
Still, for a number of reasons, including the association between radiation and cancer, the general public has long felt a significant dread about it.
This fear, may cause people to want less of this zero-carbon energy source in the nation’s electricity generation mix than they otherwise would, suggest Parth Vaishnav, an assistant research professor in the engineering and public policy department at Carnegie Mellon, and Ahmed Abdulla, a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at the University of California, San Diego. Their paper appears in Energy Policy.
To quantify how much fear is a factor in decisions around nuclear power, the researchers asked a sample of more than 1,200 US respondents to build their own power generation portfolio, aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
The researchers split respondents into two groups: they showed half of the sample the power sources they could choose from by label (solar, natural gas, nuclear, etc.), while they showed the other half how much environmental and accidental risk the technology posed.
Crucially, the researchers showed all respondents information about the number of deaths that had historically occurred in the worst accident associated with the technology. This is important for nuclear power, since accidents are rare but can have dire consequences if they do occur.
“Despite decades of analysis focused on public attitudes about nuclear power, there remains a gulf in understanding the difference between the technology’s statistical risks and the dread it evokes,” the team writes.
“Experts often emphasize statistical risk levels—for example, the often-cited claim that radiation releases from the Fukushima nuclear accident didn’t kill anyone—with the hope that better public awareness will yield greater political support for the technology.”
The results of the research, however, suggest that engineering efforts to make the technology safer and communicate this improvement to the public, while admirable, will not by themselves persuade people to choose more nuclear power.
The respondents who saw the names of the energy sources consistently deployed less nuclear energy than those who only saw the risks. This occurred despite the fact that both groups had the same statistical information. This suggests that respondents’ anxiety around nuclear energy caused them to shy away from its use.
“Our results suggest,” the team writes, “that dread about nuclear power leads respondents to choose 40 percent less nuclear generation in 2050 than they would have chosen in the absence of this dread.”
With these results, the researchers hope to be able to quantify just how much nuclear power the American public might be willing to accept, if the fear associated with it could be reduced or eliminated.
While the researchers note that the study only focuses on nuclear power, the methods by which they use survey to disentangle the root causes of public opinion are more widely generalizable to other important decarbonization technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration.
Source: Carnegie Mellon University
