Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

8 The Social Acceptance Challenge
Pages 137-156

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 137...
... This is not to diminish the role of the industry's experts in addressing the challenge: social acceptance can increase or decrease based on the technical and risk communication decisions made by experts within the industry. The purpose of this chapter is to outline the underlying roots of nuclear power's social acceptance challenge and provide guidance on how to address it if the technology is to play an expanded role in the future energy system.
From page 138...
... Far less appreciated, but likely as critical, is the need to integrate public participation and consent into design, siting, and long-term operations. BOX 8-1 Public Opposition to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is a proposed geological repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
From page 139...
... nuclear community had become cognizant of the degree to which broad public opposition was constraining further nuclear development. In 1976, Alvin Weinberg stated, As I compare the issues we perceived during the infancy of nuclear energy with those that have emerged during its maturity, the public perception and acceptance of nuclear energy appears to be the question that we missed rather badly.
From page 140...
... Similarly, Japan is restarting some of its dormant nuclear reactors. The salience of energy security as a factor in nuclear power deployment is especially clear in both France and Japan.
From page 141...
... The implications of addressing the societal acceptance challenge thus extend beyond nuclear energy, making their resolution critical to the deep decarbonization of the global energy system. Dread and Public Opposition Social scientists have been exploring the public's perception of nuclear power and the underlying roots of those societal attitudes since the 1970s.
From page 142...
... Lichtenstein, et al., 1978, "How Safe Is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits," Policy Sciences 9(2)
From page 143...
... More broadly, the public has serious misconceptions regarding different types of pollution: a recent study found evidence that the public does not distinguish long-lived greenhouse gases from short-lived criteria air pollutants (Dryden et al.
From page 144...
... has pointed out that the fact that the United States has failed to resolve the problem of nuclear waste forty years after the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act has further compounded the issue of lack of trust in institutions. Finding 8-2: There exists significant tension between the secrecy and security required by the institutions that develop, deploy, and regulate nuclear power -- and the transparency and openness that are hallmarks of best siting practices and community support.
From page 145...
... technologies. At the level of the individual, the notion of "proximity" or "place" figures prominently in social scientific research on public acceptance of energy technologies, including nuclear power
From page 146...
... Should a nuclear accident occur during fuel transportation or operation, the local community incurs the greatest cost, making the risk "intensely geographical." Procedural justice is also necessary to site the next generation of nuclear reactors and is the topic of the next section of this chapter: multiple meaningful avenues need to exist for public participa tion in the decision-making process -- be it during design and siting or decommissioning. Last, recognition justice must be sought: past and present concerns among Indigenous and other communities should be acknowledged while decisions are being made.
From page 147...
... Nonetheless, the characteristics and aspirational goals of new and advanced nuclear reactors -- like reduced capital cost, smaller plant sites and emergency planning zones, and smaller radionuclide inventories -- might alter people's assessment of the benefits, costs, and risks, and make some willing to host reactors in their communities. For example, solving the economic challenge -- which figures prominently in community engagement sessions, although behind safety and waste -- can increase societal acceptance.
From page 148...
... Finding 8-3: Risk communication strategies that rely exclusively or greatly on the engineer's myth and the deficit model of science communication have been tried in the nuclear industry and have failed comprehensively. Recommendation 8-2: To improve the prospects for nuclear deployment in coming decades, nuclear ven dors need to employ new risk communication strategies, including those grounded in rigorous social science (rather than polling)
From page 149...
... The third is energy security: several countries turned to nuclear power historically because of these concerns, with France and Japan being the two most prominent examples. The argument that nuclear can enhance energy security often reemerges when fossil energy prices rise, or geopolitical tensions threaten energy supplies: one example is Belgium's decision to continue operating some of its nuclear reactors past their planned phaseout date as a result of the 2022 economic crisis and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.44 The fourth and final factor comprises unpredictable disruptions in the policy space.
From page 150...
... While the 2012 Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future noted the value of using consent-base processes in siting a used fuel repository, the United States has not actively pursued a consent-based siting process. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and subsequent amendments do not allow for any site other than Yucca Mountain in Nevada to be actively pursued without explicit congressional approval (EPA 2013)
From page 151...
... suggests that public engagement during design and designing for values remains far removed from how nuclear reactor designers approach their tasks; this is especially true for engineers who are trained to focus on technical issues. Recommendation 8-4: The advanced nuclear industry, guided by experts who understand the effect of social interactions on design choices, should devote resources to public engagement during the front-end design phase to ensure that products are best aligned with values.
From page 152...
... In Sweden, for instance, to keep both potential host communities under consideration while technical studies were being completed, the selected community would receive 25 percent of the monetary compensation whereas the "rejected" community would receive 75 percent. The idea was that the selected community would benefit in perpetuity from jobs and additional business from the waste facility compared with the "rejected" community (Blue Ribbon Commission 2012)
From page 153...
... Experts in public engagement exist: they should staff the community engagement process if engineers or executives do not have the requisite experience. Experienced staff include properly trained facilitators, mediators, or negotiators, as well as experts who know how to develop an understanding of the relevant actors and concerns in a given community.
From page 154...
... partial funding for affected communities to conduct independent technical analyses; (5) efforts to develop a partnership to pursue the project between the implementer and local community; and (6)
From page 155...
... 2015. Advanced Nuclear Technology: Site Selection and Evaluation Criteria for New Nuclear Power Generation Facilities (Siting Guide)
From page 156...
... 2022. "Will Nuclear Waste Ever Be as Welcome in Switzerland as It Is in Sweden?


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.