Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power - Professor Nick Pidgeon
21 February 2012
A Cabot Institute and Bristol-Oxford Nuclear Research Centre Lecture
This was a well attended talk by Professor Nick Pidgeon of the University of Cardiff. He dealt with the subject of public trust in the nuclear sector. In particular, he covered the results of between 5 and 10 years’ of interview and survey data with people living and working close to former and existing nuclear plants at Bradwell (Essex), Oldbury (Gloucestershire) and Hinkley Point (Somerset) as well as nationally representative UK survey data.
His major findings were that:
- People in the UK had a ‘reluctant acceptance’ of nuclear power as part of the UK energy solution compared to renewable. However, the latter had more support in principle.
- Nuclear power being reframed as part of the ‘policy solution to climate change’ and ‘energy security’ was generally accepted, but with certain reservations:
- If people trust the people who manage nuclear technology they are more likely to trust the technology;
- There was a continuum of acceptance within local residents from no concerns to relatively high concern. This reflects the individual’s view on risk; and,
- It is critical to engage local people in consultation about upgrading nuclear power plants or building on former sites.
- Immediately post Fukushima Daiichi UK public acceptance had decreased. It rapidly recovered. In the UK people may have reasoned that the UK’s risk of major earthquake and tsunami were at a lower level than north east Japan.
- Political and public handling of information on Fukushima was very different in different geographies. It could be argued that some EU states, such as Germany and Italy, may have responded in the ways that they did because their national nuclear risk profiles and history of social controversy were radically different to the UK, especially Germany.
Professor Pidgeon proposed that:
- Due to Chernobyl and Fukushima, UK nuclear industry promoters will find it hard to sustain the public’s reluctant acceptance if there was another major accident, especially in the EU.
- Traditional forms of risk assessment used when the existing fleet was being designed were almost certainly insufficient, given the number of major core accidents that have now occurred worldwide to date.
- Psychological impacts in existing nuclear communities are complex and need to be considered alongside hard technical issues.
- The UK needs to maintain its international standing for transparency and openness on regulation and in the investigation of accidents.
- The ongoing aftermath of Fukushima brings home the fact that, given the proximity of proposed nuclear power plants to large towns and cities in the South West (Bridgewater, Bristol, Gloucester, Chepstow, Newport), a Fukushima level accident would have major implications for its economy and the cost and consequence of relocation and decontamination would be in many £ billions.
In conclusion, the locations of proposed new nuclear sites were likely to be on or close to existing sites. The research shows that such proposals are unlikely to be free of controversy. It is therefore critical that the risk analysis is extensive, a proper dialogue with local people is instigated, and that people can trust the potential constructors, operators and regulators of any new plant. New developments would also need to be designed, built and operated to world class standards if confidence is to be maintained.