Public Perceptions on Nuclear Power

[No_Rush_For_Science]

Hello, I am conducting a college research project on the correlation between different levels of education and viewpoints on the use of nuclear energy. My hypothesis is that the more educated a person is, the more they may understand this topic (a commonly frightening subject to many people), and thus they may see the net positives more than the negatives of nuclear power. I am reaching out to this forum to receive some more diverse feedback on this topic and people's own ideas on this correlation (if there is a correlation at all, just a hypothesis after all). I just want to hear people's thoughts and maybe their own viewpoints on nuclear energy as well. Thank you

[TheVat]

I think your definition of "more educated" might need some clarification, given that someone who had, for example, studied the history of Fukushima and Chernobyl, or the ongoing problems with Yucca Flats and other waste disposal options, in the course of their education might develop views that didn't support the hypothesis.  I would question if there is a predominant educational track in Western nations that leads towards greater acceptance of nuclear power.  It might be useful to differentiate between STEM and humanities majors, for example.

Another factor to consider is that less educated (say, high school and no college) may correlate with a stronger tendency to be swayed by charismatic politicians and/or social media misinformation which promotes a propagandistic view backed by industry money.  

[exchemist]

53 minutes ago, No_Rush_For_Science said:

Hello, I am conducting a college research project on the correlation between different levels of education and viewpoints on the use of nuclear energy. My hypothesis is that the more educated a person is, the more they may understand this topic (a commonly frightening subject to many people), and thus they may see the net positives more than the negatives of nuclear power. I am reaching out to this forum to receive some more diverse feedback on this topic and people's own ideas on this correlation (if there is a correlation at all, just a hypothesis after all). I just want to hear people's thoughts and maybe their own viewpoints on nuclear energy as well. Thank you

I certainly think that those with some awareness of the seriousness of climate change have become more favourably disposed towards nuclear energy than was the case, say, a decade ago. 
 

Whether awareness of climate change depends on level of education I am not so sure. That may be linked to the extent to which the climate change issue has become politicised: to a large extent in the USA but less so in Europe, for instance.

[No_Rush_For_Science]

42 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I think your definition of "more educated" might need some clarification, given that someone who had, for example, studied the history of Fukushima and Chernobyl, or the ongoing problems with Yucca Flats and other waste disposal options, in the course of their education might develop views that didn't support the hypothesis.  I would question if there is a predominant educational track in Western nations that leads towards greater acceptance of nuclear power.  It might be useful to differentiate between STEM and humanities majors, for example.

Another factor to consider is that less educated (say, high school and no college) may correlate with a stronger tendency to be swayed by charismatic politicians and/or social media misinformation which promotes a propagandistic view backed by industry money.  

I realize I should have explained that more thoroughly. What I mean by "educated" is more than just schooling. For example, as part of this project I conducted a survey, and the first few questions pertained to the answerer's level of school education (high school all the way up to a Doctoral Degree) but also the learning they receive outside of schooling such as on social media. So, I asked questions on how much they interact with or observe online social platforms and how often they come across the topic of nuclear power. Yet, although a person could have learned more, what they learned, specifically on social media, may not always be true, adding to the second factor you brought up.

You can look through the survey here if you want:

College Research Survey.pdf

[CharonY]

To count social media as learning is a bit of a oxymoron. I am moderately certain that the latter shapes perception but not by information, but which political or other bubble they see themselves in.

Especially the political dimension should be considered. In the US, the spread of acceptance for nuclear power is lower than for other power sources, but it shifts depending on how the question is phrased.

For example, left-leaning folks are more accepting of nuclear power when couched in terms of carbon emission and global warming and supplementing renewable energy (rather than replacing).

[swansont]

I think there a quasi bell curve, where people who don’t understand are afraid of it because they only know the fear-mongering, don’t trust experts, and the tendency to fear the unknown. Those who have some understanding are more accepting because they can do a more rational analysis (like coal power causing lots of deaths, but not in spectacular fashion of a nuclear accident), but the people who know enough to understand some of the nuances and more complex issues surrounding it might be more wary. (issues of profit vs safety, non-standardized plants making safety issues pretty much unique to each site)

[Ken Fabian]

I think most people don't care that much and don't so much have informed or even heartfelt opinions as tend to agree with their preferred pundits and what aligns with political views - and consistent messaging can change those opinions. I think actual policy has been more influenced by the opinions of captains of commerce and industry than by public opinion or the influence of 'green' activism on it - and mostly they have opposed emissions accountability or regulation or subsidy of low emissions energy - enough to be willing to engage in Doubt, Deny, Delay as their principle response. They have a comprehensive kit of tools for influencing government policy - Lobbying, Strategic Donating, Tactical Lawfare, Post Politics Payoffs, Tankthink. They have not used it to do emissions reductions with nuclear. I also suspect the nations that are best able to do nuclear did not and do not want every second nation in the world becoming nuclear competent, restricting it to prevent them building nuclear weapons (too).

I am of the view that nuclear was (until RE costs got competitive) more impeded by climate science denial amongst pundits and parties that ostensibly like nuclear energy (no climate problem means no need, not with fossil fuel being abundant and cheaper) than by anti-nuclear activism. Now it is impeded by lack of cost effectiveness compared to renewable energy rather than being unable to compete with fossil fuels. The climate science denial made support for nuclear into a rhetorical blunt instrument for criticising and opposing 'green' climate policies without any requirement for building nuclear power plants themselves. I note that media organisations that have aligned with Doubt, Deny, Delay politics will play the 'they should support nuclear' card but make little real efforts to inform better or defend or promote nuclear, just criticise climate activists for not doing so.

That the climate issue appears led and dominated by 'green' politics looks to me more like an enduring failure of mainstream politics to show leadership - a serious abrogation of their duty of care - than any kind of insidious, undue influence of 'green' politics. Handing the issue off to fringe politics like a hot potato and making it about opposing them instead of about the problem itself was a choice (or series of choices) and their failures to address it directly has never been the fault of 'green' (anti-nuclear) politics.

 

[MSC]

The Fukushima event is interesting in that it's one of the events that has been closely studied to put together new safeguards. 

I don't understand the physics behind this that much, all I learned was that the Introduction of different liquids with higher boiling points in the liquid "cooling" system is far better at containing radiation than the cooling system used in Fukushima, which when suffering a loss of power, was unable to contain the reaction.... Also not putting backup generators in dumb places helps.

Me personally I'm not against nuclear energy but very against nuclear weapons. I'm a highschool drop out. For me it comes down to a very simple evaluation of the context of the world I live in. The chances of me being annihilated by a nuclear weapon are far greater than me being annihilated by a powerplants reactor going "fuck all y'all!" So long as I don't live near any nuclear powerplants. We are doing a good job of burning the world without having many many nuclear catastrophes and the scientists behind nuclear power generation are actively just trying to create something helpful and not planning ways to actively kill me... I mean some of them might be the same ones helping create nuclear weapons, but I can't stop either so I'll pick my battles and I'm a deep believer in the idea of tools just being tools and how they are used defines bad behavior, not bad tools. Nuclear energy is one such tool to me. I mean I still have a preference for renewables that lack extremely toxic waste, but I dunno, maybe the science community will develop a recycling method for it one day?

[swansont]

16 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I am of the view that nuclear was (until RE costs got competitive) more impeded by climate science denial amongst pundits and parties that ostensibly like nuclear energy (no climate problem means no need, not with fossil fuel being abundant and cheaper) than by anti-nuclear activism.

The lack of US permits after Three Mile Island might have been more about perception than actual activism. i.e. they didn't want the backlash of people protesting or speaking up at hearings, or just negative press, because of what the public felt afterwards. So a PR issue more than anything.

[MigL]

The US seems to have no problem partnering with industry to announce half Trillion dollar investments into AI research ( where the 'I' is dubious at best ), or the engineering of 5 nanometer IC foundries to facilitate the AI 'revolution'..
I wonder how much more beneficial fusion reactor research would be, as currently Chinese research is starting to leave us behind, and fusion mitigates ( or eliminates ) some of the risks of fission reactors.

As Swansont says, a lot of it has to do with perception.
AI is the new cool kid at the school, and gets all the attention ( just what we need, something to do our group-thinking for us ), but imagine the possibilities for humanity, of harnessing the power of the Sun, here on Earth.

[exchemist]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

The US seems to have no problem partnering with industry to announce half Trillion dollar investments into AI research ( where the 'I' is dubious at best ), or the engineering of 5 nanometer IC foundries to facilitate the AI 'revolution'..
I wonder how much more beneficial fusion reactor research would be, as currently Chinese research is starting to leave us behind, and fusion mitigates ( or eliminates ) some of the risks of fission reactors.

As Swansont says, a lot of it has to do with perception.
AI is the new cool kid at the school, and gets all the attention ( just what we need, something to do our group-thinking for us ), but imagine the possibilities for humanity, of harnessing the power of the Sun, here on Earth.

Enormous sums of money have been and are being spent on fusion research. But we are still decades away from a practical power-generating reactor. I doubt that throwing even more money at the problems would be good value, compared to other things we could use it for to accelerate the green transition.

[swansont]

Worldwide electricity generation is around 30 x 10^12 kWh (30 trillion) At $0.10 per kWh, that’s 30 trillion US dollars a year. Chasing a few percent of that seems worth a few billion, even discounting peripheral discoveries that might happen.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Worldwide electricity generation is around 30 x 10^12 kWh (30 trillion) At $0.10 per kWh, that’s 30 trillion US dollars a year. Chasing a few percent of that seems worth a few billion, even discounting peripheral discoveries that might happen.

Are we not already spending a few billion on it though? We have several US projects, several in Europe, several in China and I think the Japanese may also be active. 

[MigL]

The first result I came across was the 'record' spending in the US of 1.4 Billion in 2023, which is still behind what China spends.
The worldwide total seems to be 6 to 7 Billion.

Compare that with the world's energy costs which Swansont provided of 30 Trillion.
Or the current investment into AI, of approx. 500 Billion, mostly going to the current US Administrations Tech Billionaire buddies.
I guess AI investments help to enrich Trump's buddies and brainwash the populace with group-think, while investing in fusion research helps keep Physicist/Engineers employed ( DOGE can't have that ) and the prospect of unlimited clean energy for the world.