Nuclear Development

ISBN 978-92-64-99111-8

Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power© OECD 2010
NEA No. 6859

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENTORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENTThe OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address
the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefrontof efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as
corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The
Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers tocommon problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of
the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering andresearch on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines andstandards agreed by its members.
This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed andarguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governmentsof its member countries.

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCYThe OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the name of
the OEEC European Nuclear Energy Agency. It received its present designation on 20th April 1972,
when Japan became its first non-European full member. NEA membership today consists of 28 OECDmember countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, theUnited Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities also takes partin the work of the Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:–

to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international
co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe,
environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, aswell as–to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as
input to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy
analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable development.

Specific areas of competence of the NEA include safety and regulation of nuclear activities,
radioactive waste management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technicalanalyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public information.
The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating
countries. In these and related tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International
Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, with which it has a Co-operation Agreement, as well as with otherinternational organisations in the nuclear field.

Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
© OECD 2010
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications,
databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials,
provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public orcommercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy
portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at
info@copyright.com or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) contact@cfcopies.com.

Cover credit: Akos Bodajki, Paks NPP, Hungary.

FOREWORD

Many governments are re-evaluating their energy policies in the light ofthe multiple challenges of fossil fuel price volatility, climate change andensuring security of energy supply. This report brings together a number ofparticularly insightful public opinion polls and surveys about nuclear energy
with the objective of making the assembled outcome available to a wider
audience of decision makers and opinion leaders. More than in most other areasof policy making, public attitudes are critical in shaping nuclear policies inOECD/NEA countries and the reverse may also be true, i.e. that policy itself canhave an impact on public opinion. In those countries where nuclear alreadyforms a part of the energy mix, the public tends to show distinctly more
supportive attitudes.
OECD/NEA countries will only be able to make use of nuclear energy if awell-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks, an opinion
which is not yet widely shared in the countries polled. In the absence ofdramatic events, opinion changes slowly and, in a number of countries
surveyed, it has become more supportive of nuclear energy. However, a large
minority of respondents holds no firm views. The attitude of this middle groundwill be critical for any future developments in the role of nuclear energy.
This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards
nuclear power. Support is generally correlated with the level of experience ofand knowledge about nuclear energy. Interestingly, while the public is generally
aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy
supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less wellrecognised. The public is also more concerned about nuclear waste, terrorism
and proliferation than the safety of operations. In particular, solving the waste
storage issue would significantly increase support for nuclear energy, as would
a better appreciation of its possible role in reducing the emissions of greenhousegases.
OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react tothese results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source onenergy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and3scientists. Those OECD/NEA governments that are seeking to make greater use
of nuclear energy will have to muster a sustained effort to provide the generalpublic with open, honest and balanced information.

Acknowledgements
This report was written by Pal Kovacs and Torsten Eng, Nuclear Analysts,
and Stan Gordelier, former Head of the NEA Nuclear Development Division,under the supervision of the NEA Committee for Technical and Economic
Studies on Nuclear Energy Development and the Fuel Cycle (NDC).

4

TABLE OF CONTENTSFOREWORD .............................................................................................

3

KEY ISSUES SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS ...........................

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................

91.

BACKGROUND ................................................................................

11

2.

RESULTS FROM INTERNATIONAL POLLS.............................

15

2.1
2.2

15

Eurobarometer studies ............................................................
IAEA polls – Public opinion around the world on
nuclear issues ..........................................................................
Socio-demographic matters ....................................................
International polls – general issues .........................................

34
37
38

3.

TIME TRENDS IN NATIONAL PUBLIC OPINION POLLS .....

39

4.

IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR EVENTS ON PUBLIC OPINION .....

45

5.

TRUST BUILDING THROUGH STAKEHOLDERINVOLVEMENT...............................................................................

47

6.

COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING ..........

51

7.

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................

53

2.3
2.4

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: What do you expect to be the top three energy sources in
30 years? ....................................................................................
Figure 2: The advantages of nuclear power outweigh the risks it poses ...
Figure 3: Level of personal experience and perception of risk .................
Figure 4: Level of knowledge and perception of risk ...............................

5

20
22
23
24

Figure 5: Degree of support for nuclear energy in countries with
nuclear programmes ..................................................................
Figure 6: Degree of support for nuclear energy in countries without
nuclear programmes ..................................................................
Figure 7: It is possible to operate a nuclear power plant in a safemanner .......................................................................................
Figure 8: Terrorism is a major threat to nuclear power plant ...................
Figure 9: The disposal of radioactive waste can be done in a safemanner .......................................................................................
Figure 10: The use of nuclear materials is sufficiently protected against
misuse ........................................................................................
Figure 11: Change in acceptance of nuclear power if radioactive waste
disposal problem was solved .....................................................
Figure 12: Confidence in nuclear regulators, operators and legislation......
Figure 13: Finland .......................................................................................
Figure 14: France ........................................................................................
Figure 15: Hungary .....................................................................................
Figure 16: Japan ..........................................................................................
Figure 17: Sweden ......................................................................................
Figure 18: The United Kingdom .................................................................
Figure 19: The United States ......................................................................
Figure 20: Perceptions of Tokai Mura residents on safety of nuclear
power facilities before and after the 1999 accident ...................

25
26
27
28
28
29
31
33
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
46

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:

Table 6:

What are the most important issues facing yourcountry today? ...........................................................................
When you first think about energy related issues, what comes
first into your mind? ..................................................................
In your opinion, which two of the following should be given
priority in your Government(s energy policy? ..........................
To what extent do you trust information about energy
related issues from the following sources? ................................
Support for expansion of nuclear power before and after the
benefits of nuclear to combat climate change have been
explained ...................................................................................
Summary of time trends in support for nuclear energy .............

6

16
17
19
32

36
39

KEY ISSUES SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS• While many governments are reconsidering the role of nuclear energy intheir national energy mix, nuclear power is still a contentious issue withrespect to public opinion. This study uses a variety of public opinion poll
data to explore what the public thinks and why.
• Nuclear energy does not feature amongst most people’s highest concerns.
The highest energy related concerns are those of price and security of energy
supply.
• Public opinion on nuclear energy seems to change slowly and is notnormally volatile. Not surprisingly however, dramatic events (e.g. the Three
Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents) can cause a rapid drop in public
support, which only recovers slowly.
• The data clearly show that countries that already include nuclear power inthe energy mix have publics that are more knowledgeable on the issues andare more supportive. Which comes first is not clear.
• There are large sections of the public with no firm views for or against
nuclear energy in many countries. If governments want to introduce orcontinue to use nuclear power in the energy mix, the attitudes of this middle
ground will be critical.
• There is a clear correlation between knowledge and support. Large parts ofthe public are still unaware of (or choose not to believe) the potential benefitof nuclear energy to reduce the emissions of climate change related carbon
dioxide.
• The factors that reduce public support for nuclear energy are concerns withrespect to terrorism, radioactive waste disposal and the misuse of nuclear
materials, in that order. The concern with respect to terrorism still seems to
be strong, well after the events of 11 September 2001.

7

• When the climate change benefits of nuclear energy are explained, thesupport for nuclear energy amongst respondents increases signify-cantly.
Similarly, if the radioactive waste disposal issue was satisfactorily resolved,
support would again significantly increase.
• The data show that males are more supportive of nuclear energy thanfemales, that support generally increases amongst the more highly educated,amongst those with right of centre political views and older members of thecommunity.
• If governments wish to expand the use of nuclear energy, an ongoing
relationship between policy makers, the nuclear industry and society thatdevelops knowledge building and public involvement will become
increasingly important. This communication must be open, honest andbalanced.
• The public gains most of its information on energy and nuclear power fromthe media, but does not trust it. Scientists and environmental protection or
consumer organisations are the most trusted groups. National governments
are, in general, even less trusted on these issues than the media. This
presents a clear problem to governments who wish to educate and influence
their publics.

8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Many countries are revisiting their energy policies in the light of concerns
about to climate change, security of energy supply and fossil fuel pricevolatility. Nuclear energy is seen as having significant benefits in alleviatingthese difficulties. Despite this, nuclear energy remains contentious with thegeneral publics of most countries. This report explores a variety of public
opinion data to try to understand public attitudes towards the various issues
associated with energy and nuclear energy in particular. It uses these data to
explore what drives these opinions and how policy makers might best interact
with their publics to achieve an informed debate on energy matters.
The study first makes considerable use of Eurobarometer data, which
provides a rich source of information via its several related studies and allows
comparison across a wide selection of European countries using a consistentmethodology and consistent questions. This allows, in particular, a comparisonof countries which currently employ nuclear power in their energy mix andthose that do not.
Use is then made of an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
opinion poll, conducted on its behalf by an independent professional pollingorganisation. The data in this survey were collected from 18 countries, only fourof which are members of the European Union. A comparison of the two sets ofresults serves to show that the messages derived from the Eurobarometer studies
are generally applicable to a wider spectrum of countries.
Finally, where data were readily available (7 countries), time series data
are used to explore the trends in public opinion over time. These data show that,outside of the periods associated with dramatic events, public opinion changes
slowly and, excluding some degree of uncertainty associated with polling errors,
is not particularly volatile. Accidents, however, can cause a rapid reduction in
public support for nuclear energy, which only recovers slowly. In 6 out of 7 ofthe countries considered, public opinion has been growing more supportive of
nuclear energy in the energy mix.

9

The data show that countries where nuclear energy is already present have
populations that are generally much more supportive of its use. They also showthat these publics are generally better informed and more knowledgeable on
nuclear issues and there is a clear positive correlation between knowledge andsupport. However, a difficulty for countries wishing to introduce or continue to
use nuclear energy is that government information sources are generally one of
the least trusted sources of information in this field.

101. BACKGROUND

There is increasing concern on energy issues in many OECD and othercountries with respect to rising and volatile prices, security of supply andcarbon-dioxide releases leading to climate change. Nuclear energy is regarded
by many governments as having a potential role in addressing all three of these
difficulties, but it remains a contentious technology with the public. We cannot
hope to understand public attitudes to nuclear energy, and the issues that
influence these attitudes, without asking people for their views.
Public opinion is typically measured through opinion polls and there isstrong evidence to show that, if properly conducted, polls generally provide
objective and trustworthy reflections of public opinion. That said, there aremany points to be taken into consideration when assessing the validity of anindividual poll. Among these are:•

Whether the organisation that commissioned the poll has a vested
interest in a specific outcome.

•

Whether the question wording and ordering will influence respondents
to answer in certain ways. Asking respondents to choose between
categories (e.g. do you prefer nuclear energy to renewables?) andusing closed questions hides the reasons behind public opinion. It ispreferable to use open questions that lead to spontaneous answers.

•

Whether the sample is representative of the relevant population (forexample, gender, age, education) and contains an adequate number of
respondents.

Differences in wording and methodologies can produce misleading
comparisons between the outcomes of different polls.
Nuclear energy is a controversial issue and a difficult topic for opinion
polls. Respondents tend to have a general opinion on the matter, but nuclear
issues can provoke attitudes that are not necessarily linked to people’s level ofknowledge of the subject or awareness of current affairs. However, data on
public attitudes to nuclear energy can be found in a number of high-quality

11

opinion polls. Opinion polls may be imprecise, but they are the only readily
available tool to allow an understanding of the public’s views.
This study starts by looking at peoples’ overall concerns, to see whereenergy issues and nuclear energy in particular fit into the big picture. It thendrills down into their views on nuclear energy specifically, to understand which
particular issues give rise to concern, and why. Some of the factors driving
concerns on nuclear energy relate to a perceived lack of information; a later
Section looks at which organisations are trusted by the public to provide
understanding.
Because of the need to compare equivalent polls, with a consistent client,purpose, wording and methodology, the matters described above are mainly
summarised by reference to the Eurobarometer series of polls. In 2007,
Eurobarometer published the results of extensive public opinion surveys on
knowledge and perception of energy technologies [1] and on attitudes to nuclear
safety [2]. These surveys were carried out in 2006 on behalf of the European
Commission, to provide an insight into the views of the 500 million citizens of
the 27 European Union countries.1 A 2005 Eurobarometer poll addressed
attitudes to radioactive waste [3].
The study then looks at the outcome of an IAEA sponsored poll thatconsiders public opinion from around the world, in an attempt to judge whether
the picture in Europe is typical. It also looks at how public attitudes towards
nuclear energy have changed over the past decade, by reference to someinternally consistent national time-series polls. It then, briefly considers somesocio-demographic factors and, finally, discusses social factors andcommunications.

1.

EU countries that have nuclear power plants: Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands,
Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Bulgaria
and Romania joined the EU during the period of these polls; results from thesecountries are only included in the nuclear safety poll.
EU countries that do not have nuclear power plants: Austria, Cyprus, Denmark,Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and Portugal.

12

References[1] European Commission (2007), Special Eurobarometer,
Technologies: Knowledge, Perception, Measures, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_262_en.pdf

Energy[2] European Commission (2007), Special Eurobarometer, Europeans andNuclear Safety Report, /271/Wave 66.2 – TNS Opinion & Social available
at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_271_en.pdf[3] European Commission (2005), Special Eurobarometer, Radioactive waste,available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_227_en.pdf

13

2. RESULTS FROM INTERNATIONAL POLLS

2.1 Eurobarometer studies
Since 1973, the European Commission has been monitoring the evolutionof public opinion in the Member States. Surveys and studies address major
topics concerning European citizenship: enlargement, social situation, health,culture, information technology, energy, environment, etc. These studies can begrouped into five different sets based on the methodological approach. These
are: standard, special, candidate country, flash (or ad hoc) and qualitative
Eurobarometers.
•

The standard Eurobarometer was established in 1973. Each survey
consists of approximately 1 000 face-to-face interviews per Member
State (except Germany: 1 500, Luxembourg: 600, United Kingdom:
1 300 including 300 in Northern Ireland). Conducted between 2 and5 times per year, with reports published twice yearly.

•

Special Eurobarometer reports are based on in-depth thematic studies
carried out for various services of the European Commission or other
EU Institutions and integrated in Standard Eurobarometer’s pollingwaves.

•

Candidate Countries Eurobarometer studies were carried out inbetween 2001 and 2004 in all the 13 countries applying for membership. Its methodology was almost identical to that of the Standard
Eurobarometer. One report was published each year, excluding thespecial reports.

•

Flash Eurobarometer ad-hoc thematic telephone interviews conductedat the request of any service of the European Commission. Thesesurveys enable the Commission to obtain results relatively quickly andto focus on specific target groups, as and when required.

•

Qualitative Studies investigate in-depth the motivations, the feelings,
the reactions of selected social groups towards a given subject orconcept, by listening and analysing their way of expressing
themselves in discussion groups or with non-directive interviews.

15

Eurobarometer reports on radioactive waste (227, 297), nuclear safety(271), energy technologies (262) and climate change (300) are all special
thematic in-depth reports, while policy issues, e.g. on the EU energy policy(206a), are quick ad hoc telephone interviews, flash reports. These are theEurobarometer reports that are analysed in this study.
2.1.1 The big picture: is nuclear energy really one of the public’s major
concerns?
Some stakeholders have the impression that nuclear energy is a major
concern for many people. The Eurobarometer Special Report on Energy
Technologies [1] gives an insight into the issues that people see as importantand the relative positioning of energy issues in this overall picture. To find out
where energy issues are situated in their daily lives, respondents were asked tostate, spontaneously, which of the issues facing their country today they
consider the most important. The results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: What are the most important issues facing your country today?
Issue

%

Unemployment

64

Crime

36

Healthcare system

33

Economic situation

30

Immigration

29

Pensions

28

Inflation

26

Education system

19

Terrorism

19

Taxation

19

Housing

15

Energy prices and shortages

14

Environmental protection

12

Public transport

6

Defence and foreign affairs

5

Unemployment was cited as the issue of most concern by 64% of thosepolled, followed by crime (36%), healthcare (33%), the economic situation(30%), immigration (29%), pensions (28%), rising prices (26%), education16(19%), terrorism (19%), taxation (19%), housing (15%) and then energy,
mentioned by just 14% of respondents. Protecting the environment was cited by
12%. Nuclear energy did not figure in this spontaneous statement of concerns,
indeed energy related issues in general seem to have relatively low importance.
Table 2 shows the results from a second question requiring a spontaneousanswer When you think about energy related issues, what comes first into yourmind?, one-third said price and one-quarter said sufficiency of energy, either interms of electricity supply, limited energy sources or energy dependency.
Nuclear energy was spontaneously mentioned by just 8% of people intotal, although more by the citizens of Sweden (30%) and France (22%), whichwere also the countries where the lowest numbers of people (18%) mentioned
energy prices. Half of Sweden’s electricity supply comes from nuclear and inFrance, four-fifths. It should be noted that this 8% of respondents said “nuclear
energy” rather than, for example, “concerns over nuclear energy”. Similarly,
14% said “renewable energy sources” and 4% said “gas”. In almost every
country, energy prices were spontaneously mentioned most often as the firstthing associated with energy issues.
Table 2: When you first think about energy related issues,
what comes first into your mind?

Issue

%
33
14
12
9
8
7
6
6
4
4
3
3
3
1

Energy prices
Renewable energy sources
Electricity supply
Limited energy sources
Nuclear energy
Environmental issues
Energy consumption
FuelWays to use energy
Gas
Energy dependence
Importance of energy
Other fossil fuels
Power plants

The conclusion from these Eurobarometer Energy Technologies pollquestions is that nuclear energy does not dominate people’s everyday concerns.

17Issues that rank uppermost in importance relate more directly to economic
stability, crime and healthcare. Energy-related issues that are important in theminds of those polled are volatile energy prices, insecurity of energy supplies –matters that do affect people on a day-to-day basis – and the promise ofrenewable energy sources.
2.1.2 How much do people know about energy-related issues?
It is helpful to recognise peoples’ level of knowledge and awareness of thematters on which they are voicing opinions. The Eurobarometer poll on Energy
Technologies [1] examined citizens’ knowledge of energy-related issues,
including new energy technologies and energy dependency, both at country andat continental level.
People were asked which of coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, biomass,
wind, solar and ocean are the three most used energy sources in their country.
Citizens correctly identified the three most used primary energy sources at EU
level as oil, gas and nuclear, but tended to have only a vague idea of theimportance of the three most used energy sources in their own country. People
tend to overestimate the share of renewable energy sources, although incountries where nuclear energy is among the top three energy sources,
respondents are generally aware of this fact.
To explore perceptions of energy dependency, citizens were asked to what
extent their country and the EU as a whole is dependent on energy coming fromabroad. Almost two-thirds (61%) of people correctly think that their country isentirely or very much dependent on imported energy, whilst just over half(53%) think the EU as a whole is dependent on external energy imports.
Spanish citizens stand out as thinking their country is more energy independent
than it truly is. Only 42% believe Spain is dependent on imported energy
whereas the country actually imports 81% of its needs.
Over half of those polled claim to have heard of nuclear fusion (58%) andalmost one-third (31%) claimed to have heard of fourth generation nuclear
reactors. It should be remembered that this question measures whether
respondents have heard of the technologies, not whether they understand them.
Countries where citizens appear to be more aware than the average about newenergy technologies are France, Germany, Finland, Luxembourg and Sweden.
In summary, two-thirds of respondents understand that their country isdependent on imported energy sources. They did not always know which energy
sources were the most important in their country, although citizens of countries18with nuclear power were generally aware of this. They had a better knowledgeof important energy sources at EU level, including the fact that nuclear iscurrently a significant contributor to energy supply.
2.1.3 Energy-related threats and expectations
The Eurobarometer poll on Energy Technologies [1] also examinedpeoples’ expectations of national energy policy in their country. The results areshown in Table 3. When asked to choose two priority measures for Government
energy policy from a list, 45% said guaranteeing low prices and 35%
guaranteeing a continuous supply of energy. Protecting the environment andfighting global warming were mentioned by 29% and 13% respectively,
guaranteeing national energy independence by 18% and protecting public healthby 22%.
Again, we see that price and security of supply are the most importantenergy related issues in peoples’ minds.
Table 3: In your opinion, which two of the following should begiven priority in your Government’s energy policy?

Issue

%

Guaranteeing low prices for consumers

45

Guaranteeing a continuous supply of energy

35

Protecting the environment

29

Protecting public health

22

Guaranteeing your country independence in the field of energy

18

Reducing energy consumption

15

Fighting global warming

13

Guaranteeing the competitiveness of your country’s industries

7

When asked about energy-related threats to their country over the next
three years, 76% thought “very likely” or “somewhat likely” a doubling or moreof energy prices, 48% a significant disruption in gas supply, 40% a terrorist
attack on energy infrastructure and 36% a national electricity blackout.
The perceived potential of renewable energy sources becomes clear when
respondents were asked which would be the three most used energy sources intheir country in 30 years time. As it is shown on Figure 1 respondents expect

19the use of fossil fuel, in particular oil and gas, to drop drastically and to be
replaced by dramatic rises in renewable energy, in particular solar and wind.
Only nuclear and hydroelectric energy are expected to provide similar amountsof energy in 30 years time as they do today. Solar energy is expected to beamong the top three in 21 of the (then) 25 EU states, with citizens of Belgium,
France, Germany, Hungary and Luxembourg in particular expecting to see solar
as a significant source of energy. Only 27% think gas will be in the top three,
18% oil and 8% coal.
Figure 1: What do you expect to be the top three energy
sources in 30 years?

This examination of expectations and perceived threats shows theoverwhelming importance of energy price and security in the minds of
respondents. The poll also demonstrates that people have what may be asomewhat unrealistic perception of the contribution solar and wind energy could
make to energy supplies in the future. However, the only energy source that isin peoples’ understanding of the top three, both today and in 30 years time, isnuclear. Across Europe, people expect the share of nuclear energy to stay
approximately the same in the future as it is today, with 14 EU states expecting
it to be in the top three future energy sources in their country.

20

2.1.4 Perceptions of risk and value in nuclear energy
The previous sections reveal that, as far as energy-related issues areconcerned, peoples’ primary concerns relate to energy prices and security ofsupply. When asked spontaneously to list them, nuclear energy does not
dominate people’s concerns. Across Europe, nuclear is put in the top three mostused energy sources both today and in 30 years time.
However, when the Eurobarometer poll on Energy Technologies asked,
Are you in favour or opposed to the use of nuclear energy in your country?,1
only 20% of people overall were clearly in favour of nuclear, with 36% havingbalanced views, and 37% clearly opposed. See Section 6 for further analysis ofthese data. People are much more positive about the use of renewable energy
sources: 80% support the use of solar energy, 71% wind energy, 65%hydroelectric energy, 60% ocean energy and 55% biomass energy. Very few
respondents oppose these energy sources. As regards fossil fuels, 42% are infavour of the use of gas and about a quarter accept the use of oil and coal.
The Eurobarometer poll Europeans and Nuclear Safety [2] looked atwhether people perceive any value in nuclear energy. It found that 69% of
people agree that nuclear makes their country less dependent on energy imports
and so increases security of supply, 50% agree that it ensures lower and morestable energy prices and 46% agree that nuclear energy helps to limit global
warming.2 In all cases, respondents who agree with these three assertions are in
the largest group.
Why then are 37% of people polled clearly opposed to the use of nuclear
energy in their country? The Eurobarometer poll Europeans and Nuclear Safety[2] provides some answers by asking the question When you think about
nuclear power, what first comes to mind? The risks of nuclear power as an

1.

Eurobarometer respondents were asked to use a scale from 1 to 7, ‘1’ meaning“strongly opposed” and ‘7’ meaning “strongly in favour”. Eurobarometer took ‘1’and ‘2’ responses to be “opposed” and ‘6’ and ‘7’ responses to be “in favour”.
Responses ‘3’, ‘4’ and ‘5’ were taken as “balanced views”.

2.

A high level (23%) of “don’t knows” is seen in response to the question about
nuclear energy’s effect on global warming, implying considerable lack ofunderstanding of the low level of greenhouse gas emissions by nuclear energy
compared with fossil energy sources.

21

energy source were judged to outweigh its advantages by 53% of respondents
overall, whilst only 33% judge that the advantages outweigh the risks it poses.3
Data gathered in this poll also show that perceived levels of knowledge inand personal experience of nuclear energy have a significant impact on views
about nuclear energy. This is demonstrated in a number of ways.
First, Figure 2 presents the level of respondents’ agreement with thestatement The advantages of nuclear power outweigh the risk it poses dividing
responses into countries that have nuclear energy – where citizens are likely toperceive they have more knowledge – and those that do not. This Figure clearly
demonstrates that in countries where there is an existing nuclear power
programme, people perceive the risks as lower than do their counterparts incountries with no nuclear power. However, in only six countries do respondents
who consider that the advantages of nuclear energy are greater than the risks it
poses outnumber those who are of the opposite view. These are Sweden, where
61% of respondents think this (despite their Government’s policy at the time tophase out nuclear energy), Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland andSlovakia. Estonia is unusual in this regard, as it does not have nuclear power.
Figure 2: The advantages of nuclear power outweigh the risks it poses3.

Respondents were asked to choose between two answers: “The advantages ofnuclear power as an energy source outweigh the risks it poses” and “The risks ofnuclear power as an energy source outweigh its advantages”. Six percent of people
spontaneously said “neither” whilst 8% responded “don’t know”.

22The Eurobarometer poll on Europeans and Nuclear Safety shows that
personal experiences of nuclear issues have an impact on public opinion, albeit
rather small. This is shown in Figure 3, where the vertical axis indicates thepercentage of respondents who believe they are experienced. The experiences
polled were those of having visited a nuclear power plant, having lived within
50 km of one or having worked on nuclear energy issues or having known
somebody working on them. People in Luxembourg report high levels of
personal experience of nuclear energy, but still think the risks outweigh theadvantages.
Figure 4 (where the vertical axis indicates the percentage of respondents
who feel themselves to be informed) shows that people who feel informed about
nuclear safety tend to perceive less risk than those who feel uninformed. This isparticularly the case in Sweden. The feeling of being informed appears to play amore significant role than does personal experience when people form opinions
on the advantages and risks of nuclear energy.
Figure 3: Level of personal experience and perception of risk

23

Figure 4: Level of knowledge and perception of risk

In summary, two-thirds of people agree that nuclear power helps to maketheir country less dependent on energy imports, half agree that it ensures lower
and more stable energy prices and just under half recognise the benefits in termsof climate change. Despite this, over half of people see the risks of nuclear
power as outweighing its advantages, particularly if they live in countries withno nuclear power, and so have little personal experience of it, or if they do not
feel well informed. Only one-third of those polled thought the advantages ofnuclear outweighed the risks.
2.1.5 The spectrum of public opinion
Many opinion polls asking respondents whether they are supportive of
nuclear energy require simple “yes” or “no” answers. These can be useful todetermine time trends, as shown in Section 12, but can hide nuances in the data.
The Eurobarometer poll on Energy Technologies asked, Are you in favour or24

opposed to the use of these different sources of energy in your country. As
shown in the main text of the poll report, and described in the previous Section,
20% of people are in favour of nuclear, with 36% having balanced views, and
37% are opposed. It is useful to look more deeply at these data to understand thesignificance of that fraction of respondents said to have balanced views.
Eurobarometer respondents were asked to use a scale from 1 to 7, ‘1’
meaning “strongly opposed” and ‘7’ meaning “strongly in favour”. Eurobarometer took ‘1’ and ‘2’ responses to be “opposed” and ‘6’ and ‘7’ responses
to be “in favour”. Responses ‘3’, ‘4’ and ‘5’ were taken as “balanced views”.
Figure 5 presents these data in more detail for those countries that havenuclear power programmes. In this figure, countries are ordered by the fractionof respondents having balanced views as shown by the three centre blocks.
Figure 5: Degree of support for nuclear energy in countries
with nuclear programmesThis figure shows a broad – and rather balanced – spectrum of opinion
with 41% of people having centre-weighted views with ‘3’, ‘4’ and ‘5’
responses. In contrast, 28% gave ‘6’ and ‘7’ (in favour) responses and 31% said
‘1’ and ‘2’ (opposed). This group of people with centre-weighted views forms
the plurality (i.e. the option attracting the largest vote where there are more than25

two options) in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Hungary,
Slovakia, Slovenia and United Kingdom and almost equals the number opposed
to nuclear across the EU. It is likely that people in the centre ground feel
uninformed and that they would formulate a more definitive opinion if they had
more information. In those countries wishing to continue to deploy nuclear
energy, therefore, communication strategies might usefully target this group ofpeople.
Figure 6 shows a similar set of data for those countries without nuclear
power programmes. This figure shows a very different spectrum of opinion with
only 25% of people having centre-weighted views with ‘3’, ‘4’ and ‘5’
responses. In contrast, only 12% gave ‘6’ and ‘7’ (in favour) responses and 54%
said ‘1’ and ‘2’ (opposed).
Figure 6: Degree of support for nuclear energy in countries
without nuclear programmes

It follows that governments wishing to introduce nuclear power to theselatter countries will need to address their communication strategies not only tothose in the centre ground, but also to at least some of those people that arestrongly opposed to the development.

26

2.1.6 What drives public opinion on nuclear energy?
The Eurobarometer poll on Europeans and Nuclear Safety included
questions about specific risk factors, to analyse what influences risk
perceptions.
Firstly, we should recognise that a majority (59%) believes that nuclear
plants can be operated safely against 31% who do not. This is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7: It is possible to operate a nuclear power plant in a safe manner[Answer: “Agree”]

Respondents believe the biggest risks associated with nuclear power are:•••terrorism, with 74% of respondents agreeing that this is a major threat
to nuclear power plants (The fieldwork for this report was conducted
in November 2007, some 6 years after the 11 September 2001 attacks
in the United States);
disposal of radioactive waste, with only 39% agreeing that it can bedone safely;
misuse of radioactive materials, where only 38% agreed with theproposition that nuclear materials can be sufficiently protected frommisuse.

Figures 8 to 10 show the outcomes of these questions with the results split
between countries with and without nuclear power.
In addition, only 51% think that their national nuclear safety authority iscapable of ensuring safe nuclear operation. Public opinion is almost evenly split
over whether radioactive materials can be transported safely, and the sufficiencyof national nuclear safety legislation.
27

It is important to recognise that these are responses to closed questions
and that the poll did not provide the opportunity for respondents to suggest
other risks.
The majority of people in each country where nuclear power plants operate
are confident this can be done safely. In addition, where nuclear plants operate,
the majority of people trust the companies that run them – except in Germany –and people tend to be more trusting of their national nuclear safety authorities.
Figure 8: Terrorism is a major threat to nuclear power plants[Answer: "Agree"]Figure 9: The disposal of radioactive waste can be done in a safe manner[Answer: "Agree"]28

Figure 10: The use of nuclear materials is sufficiently protected against misuse[Answer: "Agree"]However, irrespective of whether they have nuclear plants or not, themajority of people in all countries – except Spain – think terrorism is a major
threat to nuclear plants. Perhaps the potential cross-border consequences ofterrorist actions influence this outcome.
Half of European citizens think radioactive waste cannot be disposedsafely, although 39% believe that a solution does exist. Only seven countries
have a majority believing that a safe solution exists for the final management ofradioactive waste. These include a non-nuclear country, Greece. However, in
12 countries, a plurality believes that a safe solution exists for the final
management of radioactive waste: the difference between plurality and majority
is because of a significant proportion of “don’t know” responses. In France,
65% of citizens do not believe that radioactive waste can be managed safely
even though the French Government has made firm decisions on the matter and
80% of French electricity comes from nuclear plants.
Although the Eurobarometer poll did not directly address views on the costof nuclear energy, it seems likely that people would be less opposed if it wereclear that nuclear would reduce the price they paid for electricity. As noted
above, 50% agree that nuclear ensures lower and more stable energy prices andSection 2 showed that price are at the top of peoples’ concerns about energy.
Conversely, opposition is likely to grow if people start to believe that nuclear
produced electricity would increase their fuel bills.
In summary, the Eurobarometer poll shows that respondents are rather
more concerned about the “by-products” of nuclear energy (radioactive waste,terrorism and proliferation) that about the operation of the nuclear plants
themselves.
29

2.1.7 Radioactive waste disposal
The previous Section showed that disposal of radioactive waste is seen by
many as a significant reason to oppose nuclear energy. This Section explores
this matter in more detail, drawing on a third Eurobarometer poll on radioactive
waste. The fieldwork for this poll was carried out in 2005.
Data presented in the Eurobarometer Radwaste poll allow insight intochanges in attitudes to nuclear energy if the radioactive waste problem weresolved.
The poll first asked, Are you totally in favour, fairly in favour, fairly
opposed or totally opposed to energy produced by nuclear power stations? This
showed 55% of people to be opposed to nuclear and 37% to be in favour.
Opponents of nuclear energy were then asked to what extent they would be infavour of nuclear energy if the problem of radioactive waste were resolved.
Responses to this question show that 38% of those opposed to nuclear
energy would support it, if the issue of radioactive waste disposal were to beresolved. Just over a half (57%) of people opposed to nuclear would continue tobe opposed if the issue of waste were resolved.
This outcome is shown in Figure 11, again split between countries withand without nuclear power. This shows that citizens of 16 of the (then) 25 EU
countries would support nuclear if the waste problem were solved, about double
the number that support nuclear with the issue unresolved.
More evidence of the depth of concern on waste disposal comes from
responses to further questions in the Eurobarometer Radwaste poll.
•

92% agree that a solution for highly radioactive waste should be
developed now and not left for future generations;•

81% believe that it is politically unpopular to take decisions about thehandling of any dangerous waste;•

79% think that the delay in making decisions in most countries means
there is no safe way of disposing of highly radioactive waste.

It is immediately clear that opposition to nuclear energy would reduce
considerably if the matter of waste disposal were resolved.

30

Figure 11: Change in acceptance of nuclear power if radioactive waste disposal
problem was solved

2.1.8 The need for better information on nuclear energy
In general, it seems that people become increasingly supportive of nuclear
when they feel better informed. The Eurobarometer polls show that Europeans
believe they are not familiar with nuclear safety issues. A quarter feel“completely uninformed” about them and a further half feel “not very wellinformed”. As seen above, the feeling of being informed is linked to whether or
not a country has nuclear power plants.
Section 6 showed that, when asked for opinions against a spectrum of
possible responses, a significant number of people in countries with nuclear
plants occupied a centre ground of opinion rather than forming an opinion at theextremes of the scale. The Eurobarometer Europeans and Nuclear Safety poll
allows insight into whether support for nuclear energy would increase if people
better understood its potential benefits. The poll asked whether the current levelof nuclear energy as a proportion of all energy sources should be reduced,
maintained or increased. Assertions were then provided of the value of nuclear
power to combat climate change and increase energy security. Given that theassertions were true, 21% of those who previously wanted to reduce the share of31

nuclear energy would now maintain its share, and a further 6% would increase
it. Among those who initially wanted to maintain the share, 16% would now
increase it. Providing more information about nuclear power as an energy
option appears to have a positive effect on attitudes towards it.
The mass media are peoples’ main source of information, with 87% getting
their information from television, 44% from radio and 37% from local orregional newspapers. Only a few think that the media provide sufficient
information to form an opinion on nuclear issues. With the exception of
Finland, in every country the vast majority of people feel that the information
the media offer is not sufficient.
Only a quarter of people polled are satisfied with the information on
nuclear issues received in schools.
Who then is trusted to provide information on nuclear safety? Again, theEurobarometer Europeans and Nuclear Safety and Energy Technologies polls
provide some insight as shown in Table 4.
Table 4: To what extent do you trust information about energy
related issues from the following sources?
SourcePoll

Trust %

Scientists

Energy71

Environmental protection organisations or consumer
associations

Energy64

National nuclear safety authorities

Nuclear51

Energy companies that operate nuclear power plants

Nuclear46

TV, radio, newspapers

Energy31

National Government

Energy29

Although the mass media are the most used sources to gather news, in thecase of nuclear safety people tend not to trust journalists as much as more
specialised sources of information such as scientists or environmental organisations. National Governments are trusted by less than one-third of the people.
It is a matter of concern that only a half of people overall appear to trust
national nuclear safety authorities or the energy companies running nuclear
power plants. This matter is further addressed in Figure 12 that compares trust
in regulators, in operators and the degree of confidence in legislation for
countries that have nuclear power and those that do not. It is clear that levels of32

trust in operators and in regulators are strongly correlated. In addition, trust rises
as confidence in legislation improves. Again, countries without nuclear power,
and therefore little first hand experience of it, show the lowest levels of trust in
both operators and regulators.
Figure 12: Confidence in nuclear regulators, operators and legislation** AT-Austria, BE-Belgium, BG-Bulgaria, CY-Cyprus, CZ-Czech Rep., DE-Germany, DK-Denmark, EE-

Estonia, EL-Greece, ES-Spain, FI-Finland, FR-France, HU-Hungary, IE-Ireland, IT-Italy, LT-Lithuania, LULuxemburg, LV-Latvia, MT-Malta, NL-Netherlands, PL-Poland, PT-Portugal, RO-Romania, SE-Sweden,
SI-Slovenia, SK-Slovak Rep., UK-United Kingdom.

In summary, increased knowledge of nuclear energy leads to increased
levels of support, but most people feel they have inadequate levels ofknowledge. Scientists and environmental protection organisations (NGOs) are
far more trusted to provide information than the mass media – which is thesource of most peoples’ knowledge. Energy companies and safety authorities
are trusted by only half of people in total, but that degree of trust rises incountries with nuclear power programmes.

33

2.2 IAEA polls – Public opinion around the world on nuclear issues
This study has so far concentrated on nuclear opinion in Europe, primarily
to take advantage of the consistent methodologies employed by the
Eurobarometer series of polls. This Section looks at opinion in 18 countries
around the world using data taken from a poll conducted for IAEA by
Globescan in 2005.4 It is important to remember that the questions andmethodology employed by Globescan are not necessarily the same as those usedby Eurobarometer. Therefore comparison between the data sets can only bequalitative.
2.2.1 Support for nuclear power
The Globescan poll shows that, across the 18 countries surveyed:•

34% of respondents believe countries with nuclear power plants
should use the ones they already have, but not build new ones;•

28% believe nuclear power is a safe and important source ofelectricity and that interested countries should build new nuclear
power plants;•

25% believe that nuclear power is dangerous and that all operating
nuclear power plants in the world should be closed down as soon as
possible.

Across these countries, 59% of respondents do not favour new nuclear
plants being built. Support for new nuclear build is one third or more inAustralia, India, Indonesia, Jordan, South Korea, the United Kingdom and theUnited States but only in South Korea there is an absolute majority for building
new plants. In France and Japan, countries with significant fleets of nuclear
power plant, only 25% and 21% respectively support new nuclear build.
However, 50% and 61% respectively want to keep existing plants running.
Support for closing all nuclear plants in the world is highest in Morocco, Jordan
and Saudi Arabia, Cameroon and Indonesia – all countries without nuclear
power – although Jordan and Indonesia also show strong support for new build.
In the EU, when asked, Are you in favour or opposed to the use of nuclear
energy in your country, 36% of respondents had balanced views, 20% were in

4.

The countries polled were Argentina, Australia, Cameroon, Canada, France,
Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Mexico,
Morocco, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and the United States.

34

favour of nuclear and 37% were opposed. It would therefore appear that
Europeans are less well disposed to nuclear energy than are their counterparts in
the 18 countries sampled by Globescan. The difference in view between the
averages of the European and global populations is around 30%.
2.2.2 Nuclear security
The Globescan survey was based on telephone and in-person interviews
and conducted between 13 May and 25 August 2005, some four years after theterroristic attack on New York City. The survey of approximately 1 000 adultrespondents in each of 18 countries surveyed shows that:•

54% of respondents believe the risks of nuclear terrorist acts are highbecause of insufficient protection;•

28% believe the risks of terrorist attacks are low because of sufficient
protection.

Majorities in 14 of the 18 countries believe that the risk of terrorist acts
involving radioactive materials and nuclear facilities is high because of
insufficient protection. The Japanese (79%) are more likely than others tobelieve this, followed by Russians (63%), Indonesians (62%), Germans (60%),
French (57%), Mexicans (57%), Moroccans (57%), and Americans (56%).
These findings indicate a high level of concern among the public, particularly inJapan, about nuclear terrorism.
The position in Japan echoes the position in Europe, where 74% agreed
with the proposition that terrorism is a major threat to nuclear power plants.
However, again we see that Europeans are rather more concerned than are theircounterparts in the rest of the world.
2.2.3 Climate change
The Globescan poll shows that by outlining the climate change benefit ofnuclear power, across the 18 countries surveyed:•support for the expansion of nuclear power increases by an average of
10%, from 28% to 38%;•

19% of respondents who said that nuclear power is dangerous change
their mind;35•

35% of those who said that no more plants should be built change
their mind.

However, only in two countries (Indonesia and South Korea) do majorities
favour expanding nuclear power to help combat climate change, emphasising
the general indecision or even reluctance among the public to build more
nuclear plants. The data are presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Support for expansion of nuclear power before and after the benefits ofnuclear to combat climate change have been explained

Post-climatechange explanation

Pre-climate change
explanation

Change in support
for nuclear energy

Argentina

24

14

+10%

Australia

47

34

+13%

Cameroon

32

21

+11%

Canada

42

34

+8%

France

42

25

+17%

Germany

38

22

+16%

Hungary

36

19

+17%

India

43

33

+10%

Indonesia

52

33

+19%

Mexico

46

32

+14%

Saudi Arabia

25

16

+9%

South Korea

66

52

+14%

United kingdom

44

33

+11%

United States

45

40

+5%

Country

The United States shows the smallest increase in support for nuclear when
faced with the climate change proposition: this may be a reflection of the UnitedStates’ policy position on climate change at the time of the poll.
The Eurobarometer Europeans and Nuclear Safety poll also sought todiscover whether support for nuclear energy would increase if people better
understood its potential benefits, although that poll question included theconcept of increased energy security. The outcomes were similar to the
Globescan poll, 21% of those who previously wanted a reduction in nuclear
energy would maintain it and a further 6% would increase it. Among those who
initially wanted to maintain the share, 16% would now increase it.

36

As noted above, providing more information about nuclear power as anenergy option appears to have a positive effect on attitudes towards it.
2.3 Socio-demographic matters
Eurobarometer and Globescan report similar socio-demographic trends intheir data.
The Eurobarometer polls for the EU report that:•

Significantly more males than females think that nuclear energy has
more advantages than risks (39% vs. 27%).

•

Respondents with higher levels of education are more likely to thinkthat the advantages of nuclear outweigh the risks (38% in the highest
educational group vs. 27% in the lowest).

•Those to the right of the political spectrum think the advantages ofnuclear energy outweigh the risks it poses more often than do those to
the left (43% vs. 29%).

•

Older people are less inclined to want the share of nuclear energy
reduced (34% over 55 vs. 41% under 55).

The Globespan poll for the IAEA reports that:•

Males are more inclined than women are to say that nuclear energy issafe (33% vs. 23%).

•

People with high levels of education are more inclined than those withlow levels of education to say that nuclear energy is safe and thatinterested countries should build new nuclear power plants (36% vs.
24%).

•

People with less education are more likely than the well educated to
say that nuclear power is dangerous and that all plants should beclosed down (28% vs. 21%).

In summary, nuclear energy is supported more by males, the better
educated, those to the right of the political spectrum and those who are older.

37

2.4 International polls – general issues
This section has shown that the Eurobarometer and Globescan polls
provide broadly the same view of public opinion in three key issues: support for
nuclear energy is limited around the world, terrorism is seen as a significant
threat and opposition reduces when respondents are educated about the potential
benefits of nuclear energy.
Reference[1] European Commission (2007), Special Eurobarometer,
Technologies: Knowledge, Perception, Measures, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_262_en.pdf

38

Energy3. TIME TRENDS IN NATIONAL PUBLIC
OPINION POLLSThis Section presents trends in opinion polls to understand whether support
for nuclear is broadly rising or falling around the world. The outcomes of polls
from different organisations can be compared provided a consistent methodology has been used each time public opinion has been sampled. However, it
should be noted that most of these polls required yes or no answers rather thansampling a spectrum of opinion.
Time trending polls are presented in Figures 13 to 19 for Finland [1],France [2], Hungary [3], Japan [4], Sweden [5], the United Kingdom [6] and theUnited States [7]. These polls each asked slightly differently worded questions,
therefore quantitative comparisons between polls is not appropriate. The
Hungarian poll referred specifically to operation of the Paks nuclear power
plant, the only one in Hungary.
The outcomes of these trending polls are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Summary of time trends in support for nuclear energy
Poll timescale(years)Increase in support(%) over period of poll

Level of support (%)
in most recent poll

Finland21

21

45 (2003)

France13~047 (2007)

Hungary147

75 (2005)

Japan

30

-15

40 (2008)

Sweden1938

50 (2005)

United Kingdom

6

16

36 (2007)

United States

920

62 (2007)

From this table it can be seen that support for nuclear energy has risen
strongly in Western Europe over the past one or two decades, except in France.
Inspection of the poll trends there show broadly the same fraction of the
population remains in favour of nuclear, but an increasing number are moving

39

from a “don’t know” position to a negative one. Opinion has moved more
slowly in Hungary, but is still rising despite being at a consistently high level.
In the United States, supportive opinion has increased by around 20% over the
past decade. Time trended data were not readily available from the Asian
countries other than Japan. In Japan public support is steadily increasing since
the Chernobyl accident, and has increased 10% in the last two decade.
Figure 13: Finland

Figure 14: France40

Figure 15: Hungary

Figure 16: Japan
80
推進賛成
推進反対

70

回答割合（％）

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1975

ＴＭＩ
↓
1980

チェルノブイリ
↓

もんじゅ
↓

ＪＣＯ
↓

1985

1995

2000

1990

東電問題
↓

図１．朝日新聞社による原子力発電に関するアンケート調査結果の時系列変化

41

新潟県中越沖地震

↓
2005

2010

Figure 17: Sweden

Figure 18: The United Kingdom

42

Figure 19: The United States

In summary, time trended polls indicate that opinion is turning in favour of
nuclear power in Europe – at least for the countries considered here – and inJapan and the United States.
References[1] NEA (2007), Attitudes in Finland towards the use of Nuclear Power,
OECD, Paris, France. See NEA website:www.nea.fr/html/general/profiles/finland.html[2] CREDOC (2006), Le baromètre d’opinion sur les Français et l´énergie,
available at :www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/statisti/ins-barometre9.htm[3] ETV-ERŐTERV Rt. (2006), Paksi Atomerőmű 1 – 4. Blokk a Paksi
Atomerőmű
Üzemidő-Hosszabbítása
Környezeti
Hatástanulmány
Közérthető Összefoglaló, available at:www.atomeromu.hu/jovo/uhp_kozertheto.pdf[4] Asahi Sinbun poll on Nuclear Energy, 2008.

43

[5] Holmberg, S. (2006), Swedish Public opinion on Nuclear Power,
Department Political Science, Göteborg University, SOM Institute,
Sweden, available at:www.som.gu.se/rapporter/opinion_nucelar_power/Public_opinion_on_nucl
ear_power.pdf[6] Ipsos MORI (2007), Public Attitudes to the Nuclear Industry. See Ipsos
Mori website:www.ipsos-mori.com/content/polls-07/attitudes-to-nuclear-energy.ashx[7] Nuclear Energy Institute (2007), Perspective on Public Opinion, December
2007, Washington DC, United States. See NEI website:www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/publicationsandmedia/newslettersandreports/perspectivesonpublicopinion/44

4. IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR EVENTS
ON PUBLIC OPINION

The Three Mile Island accident in March 1979 and the much more severe
Chernobyl accident in April 1986 had a significant impact on public attitudes tonuclear power. This can be seen in the abrupt change in public opinion in
Finland in 1986.
Figure 20 shows how opinions changed [1] in the Tokai Mura region ofJapan after a criticality accident in 1999 in the uranium processing facility. An
operational error led to a radiation leak, killing two workers and exposing
around 400 people to small doses of radiation. In a survey conducted at the endof 1999 by the local authority, the number of respondents supporting nuclear
power after the Tokai accident fell from 52% to 32%, whilst those wanting
nuclear power to be discontinued rose from 12% to 40%. In addition, after theTokai accident, the number of respondents who said that nuclear power
facilities are unsafe rose from 32% to 78%.
One factor heavily influencing trust in nuclear plant operators is any
significant time delay between an event and the release of information to the
public. For the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl events, this period was long.
Today, response times have been drastically shortened and even small events innuclear power plants can be followed through the media with a high degree oftransparency.

45

Figure 20: Perceptions of Tokai Mura residents on safety of nuclear
power facilities before and after the 1999 accident

60

Perceptions of Tokai Mura residents on safety of
nuclear power facilities before and after the 1999
accident50% opinion

40

30

20

10

A

lit

Before

kn
ow
D
on
't

S
af
e

sa
fe
P
re
tt
y

tle

D
an
ge
ro
us

da
ng
er
ou
s

0

After

References[1] Kotler, M.L. and Hillman, I.T. (2000), Japanese Energy Security andChanging Global Energy Markets: An Analysis of Northeast Asian Energy
Cooperation and Japan’s Evolving Leadership Role in the Region, The
Baker Institute Energy Forum, Rice University, Houston, US, available atwww.rice.edu/energy/publications/japaneseenergysecurity.html

46

5. TRUST BUILDING THROUGHSTAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENTOver the past two decades, the importance of the social dimension in
making decisions affecting public and environmental protection has become
increasingly clear. This is particularly true in situations involving complex,
technical aspects of the type typically encountered in nuclear energy.
The mid-1990s saw a growing expectation on the part of the public that it
would be more directly involved in decision making about technology in
general. This, of course, represented a clear challenge to the way in which suchdecisions had traditionally been taken. In liberal democracies, duly elected
governments had been understood to have a mandate to take those decisions andto delegate authority to a whole range of expert bodies to oversee theimplementation and operation of technologies. Consultation with interested
parties was always a part of this overall process, but the complex nature ofmany of the issues at stake made it seem natural that much would remain thepreserve of the experts in the various fields. The notion, therefore, that a broad
range of “stakeholders”, many perhaps without any expertise in the field inquestion, should be involved in decision-making raised apparently difficult
questions. The NEA explored these questions, in the context of radiologicalprotection, with a series of three workshops in 1998 [1], 2001 [2] and 2003 [3].
In 2000, the NEA formed the Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) [4]that facilitates sharing experience in addressing the societal dimension ofradioactive waste management. The FSC explores means of ensuring aneffective dialogue with the public with a view to strengthening confidence in thedecision-making processes. The FSC convenes a series of alternating meetingsand national workshops focusing on stakeholder involvement in waste
management issues in the host country. Such workshops have been held in
Finland 2001, Canada in 2002, Belgium 2003, Germany in 2004, Spain in 2005
and Hungary in 2006.
One of the trends that clearly emerges from the NEA discussions is that thetime when exchanges between radioactive waste management institutions andsociety were confined to rigid mechanisms is over. A more complex interaction47

is now taking place among players at national, regional and especially at local
levels, as large industrial projects are highly dependent on siting and other local
considerations, and a broader, more realistic view of decision making is taking
shape. It is clear that several useful goals are achieved through stakeholder
involvement, including:•incorporating public values into decisions;•increasing the substantive quality of decisions;•resolving conflict among competing interests;•

building trust in institutions;•educating and informing the public.

These findings are in broad agreement with other recent work in this area,
notably at the OECD (the Public Management programme) [5], and theEuropean Commission [6].
A significant example of stakeholder engagement comes from the United
Kingdom [7]. For three decades, the United Kingdom had sought but failed tofind a long-term solution to the problem of managing its higher activity
radioactive wastes. During this period, every initiative to find a way forward
foundered in the wake of opposition and protest. After an extensive borehole
drilling programme and a lengthy Public Inquiry, the proposal for anunderground laboratory at Sellafield was rejected in 1997. In part, the problem
had been a technical one, but radioactive waste is also a social problem. A
solution to the problem must not only be technically achievable but also
publicly acceptable. It was recognised by the UK Government that openness
and transparency in decision making are necessary in order to gain public trust
and that mechanisms to include the public in decision making would benecessary. These included early involvement of the public, adequate time totake decisions, openness and transparency, and a deliberative approach todecision making.
Against this background, the Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management (CoRWM) was appointed by the UK Government to undertake
this task and began its work in November 2003. Its’ task was to “inspire publicconfidence” by engaging with the public, and applying ethical principles todecision making as well as the best science and technology.

48

CoRWM placed a very high value on the need to engage with stakeholders
and citizens. There was four main phases of public and stakeholder engagement(PSE) designed to involve participants in a continuing contribution to key
decisions. Various techniques were used including stakeholder round-tablediscussions, Citizens’ Panels, a National Stakeholder Forum and open meetings.
Wider audiences were reached, including young people through an in-depth
Schools Project involving 15 schools and 1 305 students, through a widely
circulated Discussion Guide and through some 700 website and written
responses. All contributions were recorded and made a significant input to
CoRWM’s decisions. Members of the public were also able to participate
through attendance at CoRWM’s plenary meetings, which included publicquestion and answer sessions, and through written and web-based
correspondence.
CoRWM’s PSE programme is probably the most wide-ranging,
informative and influential effort so far undertaken in the United Kingdom inpublic decision-making. It has proved an integral element in the CoRWM
process and provided the basis on which the Committee can claim it has laid thefoundation for inspiring public confidence in its recommendations, especially as
the response to the Committee’s draft recommendations was supportive fromnearly all respondents.
The UK Government has accepted all of CoRWM’s recommendations.
Similar examples exist in a number of other countries.
References[1] NEA (1998), The Societal Aspects of Decision Making in Complex
Radiological Situations, Proceedings of an International Workshop,
Villigen, Switzerland, 13-15 January 1998, OECD, Paris, France.
[2] NEA (2001a), Policy Issues in Radiological Protection Decision Making –Summary Report of the 2nd Villigen Workshop, Villigen, Switzerland,
23-25 January 2001, OECD, Paris, France.
NEA (2001b), Better Integration of Radiation Protection in Modern
Society – Proceedings, 2nd Villigen Workshop, Villigen, Switzerland,
23-25 January 2001, OECD, Paris, France.
[3] NEA (2004a), Stakeholder Participation in Radiological Decision Making:Processes and Implications – Case Studies, Third Villigen Workshop,
Villigen, Switzerland, 21-23 October 2003, OECD, Paris, France.

49

NEA (2004b), Stakeholder Participation in Radiological Decision Making:Processes and Implications, Third Villigen Workshop, Villigen,
Switzerland, 21-23 October 2003, OECD, Paris, France.
NEA (2004c), Stakeholder Participation in Radiological Decision Making:Processes and Implications, Summary Report of the Third Villigen
Workshop, Villigen, Switzerland, 21-23 October 2003, OECD, Paris,
France.
[4] See NEA website: www.nea.fr/html/rwm/fsc.html[5] NEA (2003), “Evaluating public participation exercises; PUMA findings”,
by Vergez, C. in Proceedings of the Topical Session on Stakeholder
Involvement Tools: Criteria for Choice and Evaluation. Available to the
public on: www.nea.fr/html/rwm/fsc.html[6] RISKGOV (2004), www.riskgov.com/
TRUSTNET (2004), www.trustnetinaction.com/
Atherton, E. (2003), “Evaluation criteria for dialogue processes: Keyfindings from RISCOM II”, in Proceedings of the Topical Session on
Stakeholder Involvement Tools [ibid.].
[7] Available at www.corwm.org.uk/Pages/Lnk_pages/key_issues.aspx

50

6. COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC UNDERSTANDINGAs shown by the United Kingdom experience with CoRWM, members of
the public can play a strong role in shaping nuclear energy policy making.
However, the quality of this interaction is dependent on a number of factors thatare influenced by risk communication, including levels of knowledge andunderstanding, trust and public (rather than expert) perceptions of risk. It isclear that if decisions about whether or not to use nuclear energy are to involve
stakeholders, including members of the public, then they must be able to makeinformed decisions. Public involvement, and consequently knowledge-building,is likely to become increasingly important in many countries in determining thefuture of nuclear energy.
While public trust in decision makers has clearly been eroded in the area of
nuclear energy, public acceptance of nuclear power is increasing around theworld, although perceived levels of knowledge seem low. The Eurobarometer
polls show that, currently, the public do not believe that they are in control ofdecisions about acceptable risks, or the implementation of those decisions, atleast partly because of lack of information. Governments, industry groups andNGOs can fill these information gaps, by addressing issues such as nuclear
waste, differences between expert and public perceptions of risk and theconfusion existing over the role that nuclear energy could play in mitigatingclimate change.
Eurobarometer polls show that, at a country level, public understanding
about security of energy supply is low; security of supply seems to act as a key
policy driver on a political level, but not on a public level. Climate change does
play a significantly positive role in influencing public perceptions of nuclear
energy, but again there is a lack of knowledge and understanding. This suggests
a failing on the part of political leaders in energy policy education.
Policy makers must endeavour to increase public knowledge about allenergy options, including options that are not chosen for implementation. Until
the role of all energy options is fully decided, industry experts, policy makers
and NGOs must continue discussion within the public arena of the risks and51

benefits of each. Education and communication are crucial to improving
understanding of the benefits of all energy technologies, including nuclear.
The public primarily trusts scientists and NGOs on nuclear matters. Trustin national governments on these issues is low, presenting a clear problem forhow governments can successfully communicate with their publics.
Nearly all scenarios for future energy demand and supply indicate asignificant rise in the use of nuclear power until at least the middle of the
century. Therefore, an ongoing relationship between policy makers, society andthe nuclear industry to develop knowledge-building and public involvement will
become increasingly important in determining the future of nuclear energy
policy. This communication must be open, honest and balanced.

52

7. CONCLUSIONS•

We cannot hope to understand public attitudes to nuclear energy, andthe issues that influence these attitudes, without asking people for
their views. Opinion polls may be imprecise, but they are the only
readily available tool to allow an understanding of the public’s
attitudes.

•

Polls show that nuclear energy does not feature to a great extent inpeople’s everyday concerns. Issues of more importance are economic
stability, crime and healthcare – matters that affect people on a day-today basis.

•

Most people understand that, where this is the case, their country isdependent on imported energy sources. Two-thirds of people agree
that nuclear power helps to make their country less dependent onenergy imports and half agree that it ensures lower and more stableenergy prices. These are matters that top their concerns about energy.
There is, however, a general lack of understanding that nuclear energy
can help combat climate change.

•

Across Europe, people expect the share of nuclear energy to stay thesame in the future as today. However, polls show that people may
have an unrealistic perception of the contribution solar and windenergy could make to energy supplies in the future.

•

Over half of people think the risks of nuclear power outweigh its
advantages, particularly if they live in countries with no nuclear
power, and so have little personal experience of it, or if they do not
feel well informed. Only one-third of those polled thought theadvantages of nuclear outweighed the risks.

•

In countries with nuclear programmes, some 40% of citizens holdviews in the centre of the opinion spectrum when asked, Are you in
favour or opposed to the use of nuclear energy in your country. Of therest, 28% are clearly in favour and 31% are clearly opposed. In

53countries without nuclear programmes, 25% hold centre views, with
54% opposed and only 12% in favour.
•

People are rather more concerned about the “by-products” of nuclear
energy (radioactive waste, terrorism and proliferation) than about theactual operation of nuclear power plants. Almost 60% believe that
nuclear plants can be operated safely. Opposition to nuclear energy
would reduce considerably if the waste disposal issue could be
resolved.

•

Support for nuclear energy has increased over the past decade inEurope, Japan and in the United States.

•

Increased knowledge of nuclear energy leads to increased levels of
support – but most people feel they have inadequate levels ofknowledge. Scientists and environmental protection organisations(NGOs) are most trusted to provide information. Energy companies
and nuclear safety authorities are trusted by only half of people intotal, but that degree of trust rises in countries with nuclear power
programmes. Trust in governments as a source of reliable information
about nuclear power is low.

•

If governments wish to expand the use of nuclear energy, an ongoing
relationship between policy makers, the nuclear industry and societythat develops knowledge-building and public involvement will
become increasingly important. This communication must be open,
honest and balanced. The low level of trust in governments on theseissues presents a particular difficulty in achieving an effective
interaction.

OECD PUBLICATIONS, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16
Printed in France.

54