Abstract
Nuclear energy was once considered the energy that would solve as the best alternative for the sources of energy such as fossil fuels that emit things harmful to the environment. However, with various developments and accidents in the late 1900s and the early 2000s, people have had skepticism of the safety and the need for nuclear energy. This study examined the public perception of nuclear power and nuclear waste and found that the older population generally had a more negative view of the nuclear sector than the younger population. The study also found that those with a professional background in nuclear science tend to support the growth of the nuclear sector.
Introduction/Literature Review
Nuclear power is one of the United States’ biggest sources of power, accounting for nearly 20% of the country’s total electric generation. However, it took long for nuclear technology to become viable for use, as it is now Many steps and accidents took place for nuclear engineers and nuclear chemists to realize the applications and the safekeeping methods currently employed in the US. There is no doubt that even now, there are various places to improve in the nuclear sector Throughout history, nuclear energy has been used in various applications such as energy production, desalination, and even warfare.
The idea of using nuclear energy came into popularity when Enrico Fermi built the first experimental nuclear reactor after the discovery of fission. After this, nuclear energy was mainly used in the Manhattan Project, where the US government supported the research and development of nuclear bombs. During this time, Robert Oppenheimer and other nuclear scientists gathered to create the bombs used in WWII against Japan. Although there were some ideas to use nuclear energy for industrial purposes in this period, the nuclear sector only consisted of weapon-creation during the early periods
The first commercial nuclear reactor, Calder Hall, was created and used about a decade after WWII in Cumbria, UK. However, the first large-scale power plant in the world was created in Pennsylvania, followed by the Dresden-1 Nuclear Power plant in Illinois run by Commonwealth Edison. When nuclear energy was first introduced to the world, it was something positive and welcoming - some companies even made radioactive toys kids could play with. The world saw this new power source as an incredible breakthrough as many amazing things could be done by harnessing nuclear power.
However, in the decades that followed the initial creation of commercial creations, the growth of nuclear energy slowed dramatically. Companies were struck with economic hardships as the cost of creating and maintaining nuclear facilities was very high. Also, the public began questioning the safety of harnessing nuclear energy commercially because of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 Some other less-known nuclear accidents such as the SL-1 nuclear accident in 1961 also increased the public opposition. Many were fearful of the various negative effects of nuclear spills and strongly opposed the creation and usage of nuclear power plants. The accidents did not stop there, however.
Although there were times during the ’90s where the usage of nuclear energy was low, it quickly picked up again as people around the world became wary of global warming and its detrimental effects. Even with the strong backlash still present regarding the usage of nuclear energy, it was the solution to global warming by lessening carbon emission. Since nuclear energy is a zero-emission clean energy source, environmentalists and governments advocated to go nuclear Afterwards till now, the number of nuclear reactors around the world grew immensely.
The commercial nuclear power plants have been around for decades, but scientists are still figuring out what to do with the waste that is produced in the fission reactions. Without special treatment or storage to keep out the radiation, the waste can possibly have a ruinous impact on the environment Therefore, scientists came up with various possible methods of proper disposal some of which is more dangerous than others. The least ideal method for disposal is blasting the waste into space. Even though it may be convenient to have rockets launch packages of waste into space, building rockets are costly and the risk of further contamination in the case of a rocket explosion is immense. Another less ideal method is digging into the bedrock and storing the waste, which would do a lot of damage if the material enters the water layer. Using a fast reactor to turn waste into usable resources is another solution which is very costly and inefficient. The current popular methods of disposal are storing them in mines and caskets
Nuclear energy, like other sources of energy, is not perfect - it has its benefits and risks. As mentioned above, nuclear energy was initially advertised as the solution to the problems of carbon emission because it is a zero-emission resource. Another advantage of using nuclear energy is that it is relatively cost-effective - the initial cost of building the nuclear plant is the greatest hurdle in setting up power plants. However, problems and accidents can happen inside nuclear plants that may affect a large area surrounding the plant. This is extremely harmful for those living around the plant and the environment Also, the disposal of waste created by the nuclear reaction is both expensive and hazardous because currently, there is no best way to properly do this. Each method has its pros and cons. Everything considered, the deciding factor on whether individuals support the nuclear sector is largely dependent on whether they think the benefits outweigh risks.
Because of the difference in exposure of people to the nuclear sector, people show varying levels of approval for the usage of nuclear power. This study aims to analyze the public perception of nuclear power and waste and to compare it to the analysis of the actual cost effectiveness, cleanliness, and the safety of nuclear power was waste.
Experimental Hypothesis
The older generations will lean towards having a negative view on the usage of nuclear energy and the disposal of nuclear waste while the younger generation will have a positive view of these. Also, those who have a professional background in the nuclear sector will have a more negative view on these topics.
Material and Methods
To get the opinions of various individuals around the US, a survey was conducted to gather information about how age and expertise in the field impacted the perception of nuclear power and waste. The data was then sorted by age range and whether the individual had a professional background in the nuclear sciences. For each of the questions that ask for a range between 0 and 10, the average value of the responses was found. For multiple-choice questions, the percentage of responses that chose each choice was found.
Data
Data Analysis
All age groups reported that they felt nuclear power was safe, with the lowest reported number being 7.33. However, responses for the feelings of safety on nuclear disposal were significantly lower for all age groups. The youngest age group of 11-19 reported a number of 5.92, while those over 40 reported a number of 4.1. There is a clear trend of decreasing feelings of safety for nuclear disposal as the survey participant’s age gets older. In response to whether the United States should continue to build new nuclear plants and how the US should go about the current reliance on nuclear power, the lower age ranges 11-19 and 20-29 showed significantly higher approval rates than the higher age ranges 30-39 and 40+. The 40+ age range was most interesting because this was the only range that favored decreasing both the number of new plants and the reliance on nuclear power. Similar trends were seen when each group was asked about whether nuclear energy is essential to reducing carbon emission. More than half of the responses in each of the three lower age ranges claimed that nuclear energy was very essential to reduce carbon emission. On the other hand, those in the 40+ range expressed hesitancy, with the majority saying that it was only somewhat essential. Interestingly, when asked about whether the current methods of nuclear disposal are safe, all groups except for the 11-19 range had a greater percentage of people who responded “Yes” than “No”.
The responses were also organized by whether the survey participant had a professional background in the nuclear sciences. Those with a professional background responded with an 8.5 on the safety of nuclear power while those without gave a 7.26. Regarding the storage of nuclear waste, both responded with an average of a little over 5. When asked about questions relating to the decisions the country should make on the nuclear sector, those with a professional background were mostly for the increase in the number of nuclear reactors and the dependence of nuclear power. Majority of the group without a professional background was for the increase in the number of reactors and reliance, but to a lesser extent. This similar trend was seen when questioned whether nuclear energy was essential to reduce carbon emission; 66.67% of those with a professional background expressed that it was very essential and 55.69% of those without also thought this way. The question about the opinions on the safety of the current disposal methods for nuclear waste presented the most differences between the two groups. The professional background group had a percentage of No’s about two times higher than Yes’s while the non-professional background group had a similar percentage of Yes’s and No's.
Conclusion
Through the data collected, it was found that older age groups tend to have a generally more negative view on nuclear energy than the younger age groups. The first hypothesis was partly correct because although those in the higher two age groups responded with a 7.33 and 7.4 on their thoughts on the safety of nuclear energy, they deemed the disposal of nuclear waste to be unsafe, with an average rating of 4.1/10. The 40+ age brackets were especially against the growth of the nuclear sector, with the majority claiming that the US does not need to increase the number of nuclear power plants and the reliance on nuclear power. Contrary to the second hypothesis, however, those with a professional background in nuclear science generally thought that the current state of nuclear energy was in a good state. The overwhelming majority of professionals gave a high rating for the safety of nuclear power, giving an average rating of 8.5/10. When asked about whether the US should be dependent on this energy source and increase the usage of such energy sources, most of responded yes. Those with a professional background, like the hypothesis, were against the current methods of nuclear disposal, reporting that they were not safe.
Extended Analysis
Various anomalies and unexpected responses in the data can be explained and interpreted. The 40+ group in the survey was most opposed to the usage of nuclear power and deemed the disposal of nuclear waste as unsafe. This can be most attributed to the fact that those who are older are generally more aware of the dangers of nuclear energy because they are more likely to personally have lived through a period of significant nuclear accidents and incidents such as the Chernobyl disaster. Their knowledge is demonstrated by their awareness of the Three Mile Island Incident specifically, an accident that was covered heavily by the US media in the end of the 1970s. Peculiarly, this age group reported that nuclear power is safe with a rating of 7.4, which is in the similar range with those of other age ranges. The general pattern of the analysis by age range was that the younger age groups tended to favor the usage of nuclear energy, pushing to increase the number of plants and increase US’ reliance on nuclear power.
The data analysis for the second take on the survey results showed that those with nuclear background educations felt unsafe about the current disposal methods of nuclear waste. A possible explanation for why they think this way is most likely because of their knowledge on the dangers associated with nuclear energy. Although this group overall thought that the current methods of nuclear disposal were not safe, they also showed a high desire for the increase in the nuclear sector, where the support for building more nuclear reactors and increasing the reliance was 75% of the survey. This may be because they suspect that with the advancement of technology in the future with better methods of disposal, the nuclear sector will inevitably become the ultimate source of energy to power the world. This may also be because they think that the benefits of this zero-emission source of energy outweigh the risks of improper and harmful disposal. The questions about increasing the nuclear reactors and the reliance of nuclear power is a bit biased when given to those with a professional background because it is logical that they would hope for their field of study and area of work will become a growing industry.
As the world becomes more concerned with the problem of pollution, it will be more important for scientists to come up with ways to better the current methods of disposal and lower the risks of nuclear power plant accidents. By addressing these problems, the nuclear sector should be able to effectively provide energy to the grid without public pushback. The most ideal path that the nuclear sector is currently pursuing is research to create a viable method of harvesting energy by nuclear fission. Fission reactions will be able to generate much larger amounts of power with less waste. Although the nuclear field currently has its problems, the public perception of nuclear power seems positive. It is now up to scientists, researchers, and engineers to better the world with improvements to the current methods.
Works Cited
1. “Backgrounder on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident.” U.S.NRC, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Aug. 2018, www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html.
2. “Backgrounder on Emergency Preparedness at Nuclear Power Plants.” U.S.NRC, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 2018, www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/what-other-things-can-nuclear-technology-be-used-f.aspx.
3. “Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident.” U.S.NRC, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 2018, www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html.
4. “Fukushima Accident.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 27 May 2020, www.britannica.com/event/Fukushima-accident.
5. “The History of Nuclear Energy.” U.S.DOE, United States Department of Energy, www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/The History of Nuclear Energy_0.pdf.
6. “Nuclear Waste.” Nuclear Energy Institute, Nuclear Energy Institute, 22 Nov. 2019, www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste.
7. “Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power.” Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2010, www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2010/6859-public-attitudes.pdf.
8. “U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Nuclear Power Plants - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Energy Information Administration, 16 Apr. 2020, www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-plants.php.
9. Roy, William. “NPRE 442. Radioactive Waste Management”, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
10. Roy, William. “Radioactive Waste, Regulators, Toxicity, and Health”, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
11. Roy, William. “Environmental Impact of Radioactive Waste-Derived RadioNuclides”, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
12. Murray, Raymond LeRoy, and Kristin L. Manke. Understanding Radioactive Waste. Battelle Press, 2003.