The Observatory: Nuclear Energy has a PR Problem
The Observatory is a new weekly series that brings together students, alumni, and professionals associated with OSU Battelle Center to write about topics that are relevant to the mission of our center. This week we invited Brian Capobianco, a doctoral student in the School of Environment and Natural Resources and EmPOWERment Program at The Ohio State University, to write on Nuclear Energy.
Last month, a utility company announced four reactors in Illinois would shut down, the latest in a trend of early decommissions. Some energy experts question this trend, asserting an increase in nuclear energy is necessary to meet climate and sustainability goals. The International Energy Agency states that nuclear capacity needs to double by 2040 to meet sustainable development goals. Nuclear power generators like the United States and France are set to significantly reduce capacity in the coming decades. Germany is planning to move completely away from nuclear in the years ahead.
The transition from nuclear is due to the high perception of risk regarding waste, weapons, and large-scale accidents, like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Though the statistical risks related to nuclear are low compared to other fuel types, the perceived risk is quite high, in part because of nuclear energy’s history. This is perhaps best summed up by K.R. Smith who stated “nuclear energy was conceived in secrecy, born in war, and revealed to the world in horror”. This association with weapons made nuclear energy an early opponent of the environmental movement. As the movement shifted to climate change, the environmentalist perception of nuclear did not significantly change. This contrasts with groups like the IEA that believe nuclear energy is necessary to fight climate change.
The perception of nuclear energy has not changed, in part, due to a communication failure by scientific institutions. Nuclear energy proponents may give information about nuclear energy, believing that with more information on a topic, someone is more likely to support it. This theory, called the science deficit model, has been shown to be incorrect and counterproductive to the educator’s desired goals. This is because the theory does not consider an audience’s actual issue with the technology and makes them feel their concerns are not being heard. In fact, when people are given a pro-nuclear message, they are more likely to interpret it as propaganda than reliable information.
Overcoming the high perception of risk will be a difficult hurdle for the nuclear industry. One opportunity for genuine public engagement could come with a technical shift in nuclear energy generation. Molten-salt reactors using thorium fuel do not have the same weapons potential as traditional nuclear generation. This new fuel source would allow the industry to shed some of nuclear power’s negative historical associations. Novel thorium-fueled reactors would enable new, meaningful communication with the public, and could lead to greater acceptance and support for nuclear energy.
