Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy has always been one of the most divisive sources of energy; with support depending on the country, how well informed the public are, and the events occurring around the world at the time. There are a number of factors that influence the public such as nuclear waste, security, cost of energy, reliance, safety, the media, climate change and many more.

Chernobyl

There isn’t much data on public opinion prior to the Chernobyl disaster; but in a poll conducted by Harris in the US in 1975, 63% supported building more nuclear power plants (Rosa et al., 1994). This dropped however, to 44% in 1979 after the Three Mile Island accident, and further still to 34% after Chernobyl in 1986 (Rosa et al., 1994). However, the American public recognised nuclear energy as a potential large scale energy source, as in a poll by Cambridge during the late 1980’s; 67%-78% said that nuclear energy was a good or realistic choice for the future (Rosa et al., 1994). In West Germany, one of the closest Western nations to the Chernobyl disaster, polls suggested around 15% supported a withdrawal from nuclear power prior to the disaster; after the disaster, this rose to 37% the following year, and 65% the year after that (Peters et al., 1990). It is noted however, that even after the Chernobyl disaster, parties who supported withdrawing from nuclear power (along with public opinion) didn’t have much, if any, increase in support in Germany’s parliamentary elections the following year, suggesting that although there was a concern, nuclear energy is not something at the forefront of the public minds.

(Rosa et al., 1994)

Fukushima

After the Fukushima disaster in 2011, the German parliament chose to phase out nuclear power (Dorothee et al., 2016). This was in direct contrast to a decision made 6 months earlier to extend the nuclear power plant run-time. This would mean that Fukushima had a direct effect on the decision of the German parliament; but perhaps this was also influenced by the medias reporting? Prior to the Fukushima disaster, Nuclear power was a dividing issue in Germany, with 43% in support and 37% opposed. A few days after the accident, global support fell from 57% to 49% which is to be suspected (Dorothee et al., 2016). News in Germany in the following year also changed dramatically; with the economical (-21%) and energy aspects (-11%) of nuclear energy seeing much less coverage, and on the other side, a large increase in the coverage of the risks of nuclear (+23%) and the demonstrations (+12%) against (Dorothee et al., 2016).

Level of  different themes represented in the news (Dorothee et al., 2016)

Present

Global public opinion on Nuclear Issues (Mycle Schneider 2009)

In today’s time, opinion is very much split depending on the country in question, with a Globescan poll of 18 countries in 2005 suggesting 34% of respondents are not in favour of building new nuclear plants, but prefer to just keep the old plants, 28% want to build new nuclear plants, and 25% want to close down all plants as soon as possible (OECD 2010). Support for closing all nuclear power plants is highest in countries which don’t have any, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia (OECD 2010). Support in the EU is also slightly lower than the global average, with issues such as safety, security and reliance being a concern on the continent.
Support is also dependent on the level of knowledge around the subject. When respondents were informed about the positive impacts of climate change, support for nuclear expansion increased on average by 10% (OECD 2010). This is mirrored in the US, with 60% either slightly opposing or slightly in favour of nuclear energy; when they feel very well informed, 54% are strongly in favour with another 22% somewhat in favour (Bisconti Research 2016). Even a moderate amount of knowledge on the subject, leads to a 77% in favour for nuclear energy.

(Bisconti Research 2016)

There is even a split in views between the genders, with woman in a range of countries such as the US, UK, Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Japan and more, being less supportive than men towards nuclear energy since the 1990’s, roughly 39% support for men, compared to 27% for woman (Sundström et al., 2016). This is seen throughout the range of issues with nuclear, with woman being less accepting of nuclear power in general, more opposed to constructing new plants and more concerned about the produced waste (Sundström et al., 2016). The 'health and safety concerns' argument is most commonly used to explain this difference,  with woman believed to have heightened concern for the health and safety of others, and greater sensitivity to the associated risks of technologies such as nuclear, which has potential for a catastrophic accident. (Sundström et al., 2016)

In conclusion, support for nuclear energy has fluctuated greatly over the years, in response to the disasters and development in the world. Prices of fuel, level of education and even gender can have an effect on support towards nuclear energy. What can be seen though is that when the advantages are explained to people, especially involving climate change, the public are much more willing to get behind the idea of nuclear energy; it just depends if they think those benefits outweigh the risks.

Nuclear power in France: A Success Story?

In my last couple of blog posts, I’ve been talking about when Nuclear energy goes wrong. But it is important to remember that Nuclear energy does have its successes. In one place this is evident is France, which produces the largest amount of nuclear energy as a percentage of its total electricity production compared to any of country in the world; around 70-80% depending on France’s electricity demand for the day (Philip Ball 2011). In 2007, France had the second largest EU population of 63 million, the world’s 7^th largest GDP, and 8^th largest energy consumption, while still providing 47% of all nuclear energy in the EU (Mycle Schneider 2009). Hopefully this gives you a picture of the scale of France’s nuclear power programme.

Nuclear share of total energy generation (Adamantiades et al. 2009) 

Why and How

In 1973, an oil crisis occurred caused by an embargo by the members of OAPEC (Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries) due to American involvement in the Middle East (no surprise there). This led to France’s president at the time, Pierre Messmer, to release a plan in 1974 to gain energy independence for France through Nuclear power (WNA 2016). This led to a large scale nuclear power project which was envisioned to produce 170 nuclear power stations by 2000 (Sezin Topçu 2007); while the number of stations was only 58 in 2011 (Philip Ball 2011), the efficiency of their energy production makes up for the lower amount. The rise in nuclear power was backed with at least 75% of all public research and development expenditures for energy being used for nuclear fission between 1985 and 2001 (Mycle Schneider 2009).

As France is relatively low in energy resources apart from coal that is out-priced by cheap imports (Philip Ball 2011), Nuclear energy was one of the only viable options that could give France the energy independence it desires. Other advantages of nuclear over coal is the fuel used; Uranium doesn’t degrade over time while coal does, It has 1/10 the cost of coal in terms of equivalent energy produced, and is 4 magnitudes (10⁴) smaller than coal in terms of equivalent energy (Adamantiades et al. 2009) .

From the outset, the French Government chose to reprocess used fuel to re-cover uranium and plutonium, to help reduce the amount of high-level waste that needs disposal. This has led to 20% of all the electricity produced by EDF (Electricte de France) to come from recycled fuel (Philip Ball 2011). For the disposal of final waste, France is planning on opening a deep geological repository for a permanent solution. Research at its facility in Bure, has confirmed the rocks suitability to the task and should this go ahead, it could store all of France’s current nuclear waste, and that created in the coming 20 years from its completion (Declan Butler 2010).

Is it a true success?

Final energy supply in France in 2007 (Mycle Schneider 2009)

From what I’ve talked about already, it seems this is a total success. France produces a large amount of nuclear energy, should soon have the capacity to store its waste and you would think also has a decreased CO₂ emission. However this isn’t the whole case. In terms of final energy, only 16% of this comes from nuclear energy, a large difference from the ~75% of electricity that nuclear produces (Mycle Schneider 2009). This is due to the fact that only 21% of final energy supply is electricity, with a large chunk of the final energy supply, 73%, being fossil fuels (Mycle Schneider 2009). Of this 73%, 48% is oil, which begs the question; Has France gained energy independence through nuclear? To me it seems like a no. It is true that they have covered large strides since 1973 in terms of nuclear production, but this doesn’t really include sectors that aren’t electricity production. Transport, residential and industrial use is not really affected by the increase in nuclear power, and won’t be until electrification of vehicles and processes reaches a wider audience. CO₂ emissions haven’t really fallen either, and since the 1990s, have either remained stagnant or increased slightly over the years .The fact that in 2007, per capita oil consumption in France was higher than the EU average, than in a non-nuclear Italy, and in Germany who is phasing out nuclear (Mycle Schneider 2009); Too me it is the final nail in the coffin for France’s energy independence.

CO2 Emissions from France in 1970-2006 (Mycle Schneider 2009)

France’s story makes me wonder, that for how far France has come in terms of nuclear energy, it has a long way to go if it wants to be energy independent and for nuclear energy to be a big part of that. But is it possible for a country to be powered solely by nuclear? Can all the processes be powered by nuclear that are now driven by fossil fuels? Electric powered cars are available now, but larger costs and reduced range stops them from becoming the main source of transport. Perhaps the technology is not where it needs to be, for nuclear power to become the large force in energy production it could be.

Fukushima - A Nuclear Disaster II

Today will just be a quick blog on the second disaster to score a 7 on the International nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, the Fukushima Disaster (WNA 2016). The result of the damage caused by a 15-metre tsunami following a major earthquake of magnitude 9.0 on Japans East Coast; this disaster has forced around 154,000 people to be evacuated from their home with no real knowledge of when, or if, they will be able to return (Reconstruction Agency).

Location of the Fukushima power plant and evacuation zones (CNN 2011)

The first video is slightly technical, but it is a very good explanation of the events that unfolded from an objective point of view. It explains how this particular nuclear reactor works, which in turn will allow a better understanding of why the reactors went into meltdown and the path it followed.

The second video is produced by Greenpeace and looks at the impacts that the radiation has had on the environment and the local population. As Greenpeace is a noted activist against nuclear power, it is good to keep in mind that this video will most likely contain some bias against nuclear power which may or may not be true (Greenpeace).

If you have a bit more time to spare and want to watch a documentary style video of the disaster such as those on TV, here is another option.

If you are really interested in the details of the Fukushima Disaster, I'd recommend taking a look at this web page by the World Nuclear Association; it contains a good summary with lots of detailed subsections for you to investigate depending on your interest.

Chernobyl - A Nuclear Disaster

When nuclear power is mentioned in a conversation, the Chernobyl disaster is often one of the topics quickly brought up, and for good reason; it is one of only two disasters, alongside Fukushima, to score a 7 (the highest) on the International nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (PIF). I shall quickly summarise the causes of the disaster and then look into its impacts.

International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (IAEA)

Causes

On the 25^th April 1986, the crew at Chernobyl reactor 4 began arrangements for a test that would run the plant at a very low power, to determine how long the turbines would carry on spinning and supplying energy to the water circulating pumps after a loss of power (WNA 2016). The design of these reactors was such that they were highly unstable at the low power that this test would operate at, mainly due to accelerated nuclear chain reaction and power output if the cooling water for the reactors was lost. For the test to be carried out, the automatic shutdown mechanisms also had to be disabled, which did not comply with operational procedures; however, the operators had not even been informed of the possible explosive consequences of the test they were about to perform (WNA). These factors all combined to put the reactor in a very unstable condition before the test had even started.

Location of Chernobyl in Ukraine (Wordpress)

The test began in the early morning of the 26^th, with the inserting of control rods into the reactor creating a large power surge that created a large increase in heat (NEI 2015). The hot fuel interacted with the cooling water to rapidly create steam which in turn increased the pressure. This increase of pressure partially removed the 1000 ton cover off the top of the reactor, jamming the half-inserted control rods, and rupturing the fuel channels (WNA 2016). The steam generation spread throughout the rest of the core and created a steam explosion, which released the radioactive fission products into the atmosphere. The Chernobyl power plant lacked the containment structure that is seen in most nuclear power plants around the world. Without this, the radioactive fission products were free to escape into the atmosphere (NEI 2015).

Impacts

Soviet scientists reported that between 13% and 30% of the 192 tonnes of fuel was released into the atmosphere for a period of roughly 10 days (NEI 2015). The main problematic radioactive materials released were the short-lived Iodine-131 with a half-life of 8 days; and the longer lived Caesium-137 with a half-life of roughly 30 years (WNA 2016) (A half-life being the amount of time it takes for the amount of material to decrease(decay) by half). Substantial amounts of radioactive material were deposited in North-West Ukraine, Belarus and parts of Russia, with Belarus receiving 60% of contamination that fell on the Soviet Union (NEI 2015). This resulted in the resettlement of civilians over the years, with 116,000 resettled by the summer of 1986, and a further 230,000 in the coming years (UNSCEAR 2008).

Map of Caesium-137 deposition levels as of December 1989 (UNSCEAR 2008)

Around 350,000 clean-up workers, or liquidators, were brought in to help contain and clean up the radioactive debris during the following two years after the disaster. 240,000 of these liquidators received the highest radiation doses while working within the 30km zone around the reactor (WHO 2006). 134 liquidators received doses even higher and were diagnosed with acute radiation sickness (ARS), with 28 workers dying in 1986 due to this (UNSCEAR 2008). In the table below, you can see that the level of radiation that populations received following the disaster is actually quite low and comparable to natural background levels. It is estimated that in the top three exposed populations, Liquidators, Evacuees and Residents of the SCZs, cancer deaths from radiation exposure has only increased 3-4% above the norm; while in the residents with low contamination, it has potentially only risen 0.6% (WHO 2006).

Average radioactive dose accumulated over 20 years (WHO 2006)

There was a large increase in thyroid cancer following the disaster in those exposed as children or adolescents (>14 years old) (UNSCEAR 2008). This was due to the release of radioactive iodine which was then taken up into the thyroid. This was not the result of direct exposure however, poor management in the following weeks meant milk was consumed from cows that had pastured in iodine contaminated fields. Radioactive iodine became concentrated in their milk, which when drank by children with preexisting iodine deficiencies, caused the iodine to accumulate in the thyroid at greater concentrations (WHO 2006). If milk had been brought in from elsewhere, a lot of the radiation-induced thyroid cancer could have been avoided. The prognosis for thyroid cancer is very good however, with treatment being highly effective even in advanced stages (WHO 2006).The graph below shows that as Iodine has a low half-life, thyroid cancer was only prevalent in children under the age of 10 at the time of the incident and has not affected those born after the disaster.

Thyroid cancer incidence rate in Belarus for children under 10 years old at diagnosis (UNSCEAR 2008) 

Estimated average thyroid doses to children and adolescents living at the time of the accident (UNSCEAR 2008) 

Overall the Chernobyl disaster has had a massive effect on the local human population and the local environment, clearly showing the extreme negative effects that a nuclear disaster could have with a 4300km² exclusion zone now in place around the old reactor (WNA 2016). Also needing to be factored in is the continued maintenance of the structure that houses the old reactor to prevent further radioactive leaks. However studies done at the time seem to have overestimated the effects that radiation would have on its immediate surroundings. Recent studies have shown that deaths from the resulting radiation are much lower than they had anticipated, and that the environment inside the exclusion zone is in fact thriving, with a much greater biodiversity and abundance of species than before (WNA 2016). Perhaps this disaster was not as bad as we once thought?