Nuclear Power in the Context of Ever-Increasing Energy Demand - Dissertation Example

OF School of … Module … Misjudged, Misunderstood, Misrepresented: Nuclear Power in the Context of Ever-Increasing Energy Demand Name: ID No.: . The candidate confirms that the work submitted is their own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. Signed: Dated: _______________ Contents Introduction 2 Research Questions 8 Literature Review 12 Research Methodology 18 Implications 21 References 22 Bibliography 25 Introduction Talking of modern society, one thing appears undoubtedly clear – it’s unthinkable without secure supply of energy. The cheap, safe and reliable energy sources could predetermine both a society’s functioning as a whole and any individual’s well-being in particular. Against the background of rapidly rising energy consumption worldwide and more or less dwindling reserves of fossil fuel, along with still unfolded potential and certain limitations concerning the electricity generation from renewable sources, nuclear power appears to become an increasingly reasonable option - at least according to many governments, scientists and professionals. In the case of the public opinion, however, the overall picture is alarmingly different. According to a selection of reputable opinion polls conducted in the UK between 2004 and 2007, there is low support for nuclear energy, especially compared with energy from renewable sources (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2007, p.3). In 2010, just 38 per cent of the respondents to a Cardiff University/Ipsos MORI poll ‘believed the benefits of nuclear power outweighed the risks and only 39 per cent trusted the industry to run the plants safely’ (Ecologist, 2010). The popular support for nuclear power in the US has dropped from 57 per cent in 2008 (CBS News/New York Times Poll, 2008) to 43 per cent, following the Fukushima incident, with 38 per cent of the questioned saying that the benefits of nuclear power do not outweigh the risks (Cooper, M. and Sussman, D., 2011). The situation in Europe is even worse, according to a survey recently conducted by Benenson Strategy Group together with First International Resources, with 70 per cent of the respondents opposing the idea of further developing nuclear power in Germany, 46 per cent in France, and almost equal division of opinions in Sweden, Hungary, and Poland (Levtsun, O., 2011). Given the legacy of the Cold War thinking, reinforced by past and recent incidents in nuclear plants like those in Chernobyl and Fukushima, along with the usual mistrust towards the government, such a trend is not a complete surprise; moreover, most of the people as a whole, and perhaps a good deal of those polled in particular, either don’t fully realise the scale and consequences of the climate change, or do consider them a faraway future and therefore not an issue to worry about, as against the existing, yet greatly exaggerated, immediate risks for people’s health and lives, which appear to form the poor image of nuclear power. This issue is being repeatedly addressed by governmental and scientific reports, documents and writings, with varying, but definitely insufficient effect, as seen from the latest polls’ results. Though the set of intentions and recommendations contained in those writings, aimed at influencing the public opinion, is considered generally correct, namely well-targeted educational campaigns, nuclear waste solutions, continued focus on safety, etc., the result, or more precisely the faint result, implies two possibilities: These efforts would need much longer time to bear fruit; There is something wrong with the messages themselves – whether in terms of formulation and clarity, or in the way they are communicated to the general public; As in most of the cases, the truth might lie in somewhere between the two – whereas a daunting task, like gaining public support for something that full of misconceptions and therefore so badly understood by the average person in the street, as nuclear power, inevitably requires a good deal of time, it’s absolutely vital that the large audience do understand to a considerable degree the point of the messages directed to them. With respect to the latter, three more considerations need to be taken into account. The first is that nuclear power engineering is highly specialised both as discipline and application, and full of jargon, which is unavoidably reflected in the language used for formulating the pro-nuclear power messages, no matter how hard their authors try to design those messages as clearer and simple as possible. Second and equally important is the fact that the language used by the anti-nuclear activist groups and propaganda, being by definition a populist view on the subject and therefore not constrained by scientific scrutiny, and adherence to the rights and wrongs of the matter, is much more closer to ‘the hearts and brains’ of the mass audience; as well as by far more aggressive in its approach to that audience. The third consideration is connected with policy and politics, and more precisely with those political players – leaders or candidates – using the anti-nuclear platform to gain support and votes (Carbon, M. W., 1997, 2006, p. 100). In fact, the combination of the above-mentioned considerations outlines a curious paradox where people with little, if any, knowledge on a complex, highly specialised area of study, are sought to decide on the future of its practical implementation; and whose views on the subject are predominantly shaped via common sense and/or aggressive rhetoric, rather than scientific evidence. Insofar as this is the customary paradox of democracy, somewhere at this point appears the necessity of sound discussion on producing an adequate communication strategy intended to improve the public perception of nuclear power, with two prime objectives as follows: 1. To better define the target audience/audiences who are sought to be developed a synergy with; 2. To deliver strong and well-defined messages that take into account the receivers’ own perspective, knowledge and logic; The current research is not aimed to perform a specific in-depth analysis of nuclear power industry’s key issues, like operational safety, waste disposal and reprocessing, radiation impact, etc., and nor to expound on strictly technological and financial ones; it is rather intended to suggest starting points for further discussion on ways of swaying public opinion in favour of nuclear power. In other words, the research aims to provide better understanding of nuclear power as lives-saving, environmentally-friendly, and extremely important with respect to the immediate and distant future, source of energy; as well as to outline methods of approach to the general public, which would contribute towards a change in its perception of nuclear power. In doing so, being broadly based on data derived from the available scientific literature, official statistics, opinion polls, governmental reports, strategies and other documents, the research will provide sufficient evidence that: nuclear power is considerably cheaper as compared to electricity generation by burning fossil fuel - whether considered in nowadays construction and operating costs, or in the long run and under certain conditions, like restricted carbon emissions, for instance; nuclear power is much safer with respect to both environmental impact (climate change) and human health, as against the those caused by oil, coal and gas operated electricity plants. All associated with nuclear power risks, including those of natural disaster impact on nuclear operated plants, with reference to the recent situation in Fokushima, Japan, will be reviewed and discussed within the research, along with the pro- and anti-nuclear arguments as presented within the relevant literature, which, to one degree or another, are responsible for the formation of public opinion on nuclear power issue. Thus, the research intends to better explain why the common universal fear of nuclear catastrophe is so overexposed, considering the Cold War legacy and the role of the mass media, governments, scientists, and anti-nuclear groups as well. And finally, the research will seek to evaluate the current approach to swaying public opinion, with its strengths and weaknesses, in order to address the inadequacies. Three more sections are further presented within the current proposal, in order to set the framework for developing the project: Research Questions – explaining the goals and objectives of the research, as well as its rationale. This section provides a more detailed account of the points summarised in the introduction above, scrutinising the gaps in the present approach to the public in regard to its perception of nuclear power, along with the reasons why they exist. The section also specifies the way those gaps will be addressed by the current study. Literature review – providing a critical outlook on the existing literature that is significant for the project. The section situates the current study within a wider conversation on the nuclear power issue and provides the data and reference material needed; as well as justifies the choice of methodology adopted. Research Methodology – the section introduces and describes the overall methodological approach to the research aims and objectives; Implications – states the practical importance of the research aims and objectives and benefits of the project. Research Questions Rationale Numerous polls on public attitudes towards nuclear power, taken between 1976 and present time, have indicated a disturbing trend of gradual decline in public support for this kind of energy source, with some exceptions (CBS News/New York Times Poll, 2008) and certain downward accelerations following every nuclear power plant accident, no matter how rarely they occur. Just as numerous are the attempts of both national governments and the nuclear power industry, with a varying degree of support amongst the scientific society, either to turn or at least to hold up that trend, but to no avail, as seen from the latest polls in the UK, the United States and Europe respectively (CBS News Poll, 2011; GFK NOP Poll, 2011; Benenson Strategy Group and First International Resources Survey, 2011). It is noteworthy that the vast majority of these efforts – whether in the form of technical solutions regarding the reactor safety, waste transportation, disposal and reprocessing, etc., or as legislative/governmental-led regulations - are exclusively designed from expert’s and/or bureaucrat’s perspective, with normally limited understanding of the very essence of public perceptions, i.e. why and how they have become what they are. Whereas the importance of making nuclear power more acceptable to the public is long ago recognised by both governments and industry, and sound, in-depth analyses of the reasons behind that public attitude towards nuclear power are rather scarce, yet available, what is really missing is a reasonable, well-focused and, more importantly, aggressive enough strategy for the current trend to be dealt with. Therefore, a research is needed on the options open to nuclear power industry and national leadership for improving the way public opinion is swayed, considering all concomitant constraints and opportunities, like the political system and policy-making, anti-nuclear groups, lobbies, and rhetoric, the mass media, the recent situation in Japan, environmental awareness and educational level, climate change, etc. Research aims and objectives The overall aim of the research is to suggest starting points for further discussion about how the public perceptions of nuclear power could be improved, which would eventually result in adequate communication strategy being produced. The two specific aims are: 1. To provide better understanding of nuclear power as lives-saving, environmentally-friendly, and extremely important with respect to the immediate and distant future, source of energy; 2. To outline methods of approach to the general public, which to contribute towards a change in its perception of nuclear power. The following objectives cater for achieving the stated aims: To provide sufficient evidence, derived from the available scientific literature, official statistics, governmental reports, strategies and other documents, that nuclear power is considerably cheaper as compared to electricity generation by burning fossil fuel; whether being considered in nowadays construction and operating costs, or in the long run and under certain conditions, like restricted carbon emissions, the supposed cost of facing the effects of climate change, etc.; To provide compelling scientific evidence that nuclear power is much safer with respect to both environmental impact (climate change) and human health, as against the those caused by oil, coal and gas-operated electricity plants; To review and discuss all associated with nuclear power risks, including those of natural disaster impact on nuclear-operated plants, with reference to the recent situation in Fokushima, Japan, as against the risks that attend the natural disasters themselves, and those considered ‘normal’, accompanying the habitual lifestyle in modern society; To review and discuss the pro- and anti-nuclear arguments as presented within the relevant literature, which, to one degree or another, are responsible for the formation of public opinion on nuclear power issue; To better explain why the common universal fear of nuclear catastrophe is so overexposed, considering the Cold War legacy and the role of the mass media, governments, scientists, and anti-nuclear groups; as well as to suggest ideas for how this issue could be addressed, with reference to communication theory; To evaluate the current approach to swaying public opinion, with all its strengths and weaknesses, to determine its constraints and to suggest alternatives; Research limitations Given the abundant data in the specialised literature and the author’s level of competence, the research will not perform a specific in-depth analysis of nuclear reactors’ operational safety, the reliability of the methods of nuclear waste disposal, transport and reprocessing, as well as will not expound on strictly medical (radiation impact, sickness, etc.), technological (concerning routine and emergency procedures for nuclear plant operation) and financial (in regard to financial viability, investment profitability, formation of capital costs, etc.) issues; but will use the data collected by various researchers, including the opinion polls. The subject scope of the research will be limited to public perceptions on nuclear power in both historical and nowadays contexts, the reasons behind them, and their implications for the future; as well as to the necessity of changing those perceptions and the way it could be achieved. The geographic scope of the research will be limited to the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States, with the exception of certain examples, like Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents, as counterpoint. Literature Review As mentioned above, the importance of making nuclear power more acceptable to the public has long ago been recognised by both politics and nuclear power industry. Alongside the decades-long scientific and public debate on nuclear power, it has produced a fair amount of literature which expounds on various issues within the subject – from strictly technical/technology matters to clearly populist points of view mainly expressed in anti-nuclear propagandist writings. In considering the subject matter of the project, the author has been advised on specific matters, like nuclear plant operation and economics, safety precautions and procedures, nuclear waste transportation, storage and treatment, etc., through the relevant literature – articles, books and book chapters, study reports and case studies, governmental reports and regulatory organisations’ reviews – which form one of the thematic lines posited within the literature review. The following texts are attached to this category: Carbon, M. W. (1997, 2006, Nuclear Power: Villain or Victim? Our Most Misunderstood Source of Electricity) presents information about both benefits and risks associated with nuclear power; being intended for the general public, the book discusses important aspects of nuclear power in detail; World Nuclear Association, August 2010, The Nuclear Fuel Cycle – the publication explains the various activities associated with electricity production from nuclear reactions, which start with mining of uranium and end with the disposal of nuclear waste (WNA, 2010); International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2006, Fundamental Safety Principles - the publication establishes the fundamental safety objective, principles and concepts providing the bases for IAEA’s safety standards and related programme (IAEA, 2006); World Nuclear Association, March 2011, The Economics of Nuclear power – explaining the cost of electricity generation from nuclear power, as formation, projection and competitiveness, compared to those from fossil fuel (WNA, 2011); World Nuclear Association, March 2011, Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors – the publication focuses on the ways of achieving optimum nuclear safety against the background of the three significant accidents in the history of civil nuclear power generation – Three Mile Island (USA 1979), Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) and Fukushima (Japan 2011) (WNA, 2011); OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2010, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity – the study presents the latest data available for a wide variety of fuels, including coal and gas (with and without carbon capture), nuclear, hydro, onshore and offshore wind, biomass, solar, wave and tidal as well as combined heat and power (NEA, 2010); Another thematic line within the literature review, mainly consisted of public opinion poll results along with different governments’ reports, informs the research about the general public attitudes towards nuclear power, starting from the 1970s, after the accident in Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, and continuing up to present days. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, February 1984, Nuclear Power in an Age of Uncertainty – in order to assess the future of nuclear power in the United States and the ways of institutional and technology’s change, the report presents abundant data regarding demand growth, costs, regulation, and public acceptance and evaluates how these factors affect nuclear power’s future ( U.S. Congress, 1984); Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, October 2007, Public Opinion on Electricity Options – the POST note considers the public acceptability of different forms of electricity generation, mainly through various opinion polls conducted between 2004 and 2007 (POST, 2007); Kotler, M. L. and Hillman, I. T., May 2000, Japanese Nuclear Energy Policy and Public Opinion – a project paper that examines the political and social trends regarding the debate over Japan’s nuclear energy policy (Kotler, M. L. and Hillman, I. T, 2000); Spence, A., Venables, D., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W. and Demski, C., 2010, Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Energy Futures in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted in January-March 2010. Technical Report – the report deals with public favourability towards different forms of electricity generation, risks and benefits of nuclear power, and public attitudes towards nuclear power in regard to climate change CBS News/New York Times Poll, 2008 – in its part regarding nuclear power, the poll results demonstrate 57 per cent approval of building more nuclear power plants in the US, which is considered closer to the highest number of 69 per cent before the accident at the Three Mile Island plant, and a movement upwards as against the 2007 results. CBS News Poll, March 18-21, released March 22, 2011, Reacting to Events in Libya and Japan; Nuclear Power; Cooper, M. and Sussman, D., March 22, 2011, Nuclear Power Loses Support in New Poll, The New York Times – the article indicates a dramatic drop of 14 per cent in public approval of nuclear power compared to the 2008 poll; Other publications dealing with public attitudes towards nuclear power in the UK and different European countries, including Germany, France, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, are: Ecologist, 2010, Nuclear Power Debate still divides UK Public Opinion; Levtsun, O., 2011, Opinion Poll of European Citizens on Prospect of Nuclear Energy, April 5, 2011, Worldwide News Ukraine (WNU); The following category of texts, specifically dealing with the risks associated with nuclear energy, provides information on the frequency of accidents occurred, the severity of the consequences that set in, as well as of the probability of future accidents to occur. The texts additionally inform the current study on nuclear power safety related issues. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), 2010, Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources – the report compares data concerning accidents with five or more fatalities (both immediate and delayed, or latent fatalities) from a wide range of energy sources; considers public confidence in nuclear power industry and operations, as well as the trust in legislation and regulatory system (NEA, 2010); Perrow, C., (1984, 1999, Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies) provides interesting point of view analysing accidents in different high-risk industries, including nuclear one, considering the risks resulting from the organisational complexity itself (Perrow, 1999) There are also texts intended to specifically address the public perceptions of nuclear power and the ways of swaying public opinion into supporting this source of energy. Energy Authority (Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power) suggests a path to public acceptance of nuclear power, laying particular stress on well-targeted educational programmes, solutions to address nuclear waste, cost containment, etc., as well as on arguments concerning the benefits of carbon-free nuclear power, though the latter is rejected for the cornerstone of any pro-nuclear argument; Another point of view is presented by Steve Kidd on the website of Nuclear Engineering International (Public Opinion: How do we get it on our side?), January 21, 2008 – the publication advocates the idea that beliefs and values are probably even more important than information, therefore the message and language are vital considerations in swaying public opinion; Walls, J., 2011, (What Future for the Nuclear Industry?) considers the public perceptions issue in reference to the events at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant; The research takes into account the anti-nuclear groups and organisations’ point of view not just as necessary counterpoint, but also as an approach to the public opinion and rhetoric which are to be dealt with. Texts expressing that point of view are listed below: Greenpeace USA, May 2003, The Probability of a Nuclear Accident; Friends of the Earth, March 22, 2011, Opposition to New UK Nuclear Grows – New Survey; Two observations become obvious from the literature review. On the one hand, while nuclear industry operations, related concerns and associated risks are extensively documented, along with abundant statistical data regarding public opinion on these issues, the real reasons behind the current state of public attitudes towards nuclear power remain relatively unexplored and therefore insufficiently addressed. On the other hand, though some attempts to fill the gap (Kidd, 2008), the pro-nuclear advertisement somehow failed to produce an efficient communication strategy that could win the general public’s ‘hearts and brains’. The current research suggests a view of this side of the issue, as clear as possible, considering all the existing limitations and possible ambivalence of the result. Research Methodology Research focus The project is focused on public perceptions of nuclear power both within the UK and abroad, considering ways of approach to the general public, which would allow of better acceptance of this energy source, free of bias and cliche. Research design The method adopted for this project is an extensive study of relevant literature, including newspaper articles, books and book chapters, online publications, study reports and case studies, governmental reports and regulatory organisations’ reviews, which contain various statistical data, including such as respondents’ views on nuclear power electricity generation and development of new nuclear plants, nuclear accidents occurrence and impact, alternative energy sources (fossil fuel and renewables) in regard to climate change and their economic accessibility and competitiveness; information on specific issues like nuclear reactor/plant safety, transportation, disposal and treatment of nuclear waste; as well as views on public perceptions’ role, essence, and motivation. The anti-nuclear lobby’s point of view will be also reviewed and analysed. The research also embarks on a survey that will be conducted within a 100-strong random sample of respondents in the UK, aimed to be representative in terms of proportions of men, women and older respondents, according to the national statistic. For the choice of respondents will be used a list of randomly-drawn telephone numbers or email addresses. Than the people on those telephone numbers will be contacted in order to be asked to participate in the survey. The survey is intended to establish, first, what is their level of knowledge of nuclear power related issues, including reactor/plant safety, transportation, disposal and treatment of nuclear waste, and associated risks; second, how they perceive these risks, in terms of probability of occurring and casualties’ number, as against the ‘normal’ risks of living in modern times, like car use and related accidents, crime, etc., as well as those of natural disasters (volcanoes, earthquakes, tidal surge); and third, to what degree one is willing to renounce basic amenities, like undisturbed supply of cheap electricity for instance, in return for the elimination of a low-probability risk. Thus, the survey will seek to understand the real motivation behind people’s opinion on nuclear power, which would be the issue to get addressed. For the purpose of the survey, a questionnaire will be drawn up and tested. There are some practical limitations that could affect the data objectivity of the survey, namely the willingness of the respondents to answer all the questions, inconsistent opinions, etc. These limitations will be addressed via shorter, intelligible questions, and sample questions which to determine the degree of sincerity. Plan of work The research will proceed in three phases, as follows: during the first phase the data collection will be performed in order to lay the groundwork for the second and the third ones, and the information will be analysed with relevance to the research aims and objectives. The second phase will encompass the survey sample selection, preparation of the questionnaire and carrying out the survey itself; the survey results will be analysed and summarised in order to be incorporated into the research body in the form of a case study. The third phase will consist in preparing and producing the research manuscript. The research design, as proposed, has several strengths. First, the data collection provides the necessary level of awareness of both nuclear power issues and the way they are situated within the context of public sensitiveness, and perceptions. Second, the survey is considered essential for better understanding of what is at the bottom of the public attitudes towards nuclear power – whether in negative or positive aspects. The analysis of the survey data in a case study will provide for identification of those neuralgic issues most responsible for the public negativism and therefore of paramount importance to be addressed; as well as the capture of positive perception drivers that would be helpful in building up the pros of nuclear power industry. And finally, the combination of sufficient data, including scientific evidence and statistics, and a better knowledge of the cause of pro- and anti-nuclear attitudes would outline the elements of a successful communication strategy sought to project a much acceptable image of nuclear power. Research schedule Phase one Timing Data collection and analysis August 15th – September 30th, 2011 Phase two Timing Survey sample selection, preparation of the questionnaire and implementation of the survey October 1st – November 15th, 2011 Phase three Timing Preparation of the manuscript November 15th – December 30th, 2011 Implications As stated in the previous sections, there are numerous opinion polls regarding public perceptions of nuclear power, which have been undertaken between 1976 and present time, including such conducted in the UK between 2004 and 2007(POST, 2007). All these polls have indicated a trend of more or less gradual decline in public support for nuclear power industry, with some periods of partial recovery, and steep downward accelerations following every major accident, regardless of the reasons for the occurrence and the occurrences’ rarity itself. Against the background of modern society’s rapidly and ever-increasing demand for energy, climate change looming on the horizon, and the staggering figures of fatalities in the coal mines, natural gas and oil accidents (not to mention the fatalities of road accidents and the enormous cost of pollution-borne respiratory diseases), the low level of public tolerance towards nuclear power is disturbing, and of primary concern, to put it mildly. In order to address this issue, a successful communication strategy is needed which to deliver well-formulated and correctly targeted messages to the mass audience. With regard to the stated above, the practical importance of the research aims and objectives is to outline the key elements of an adequate and aggressive enough communication strategy which, if adopted, would project a much better, and in fact thoroughly deserved, image of nuclear power as an extremely valuable, life-saving and environmental-friendly source of energy. References 1. Carbon, M. W., 1997, 2006, Nuclear Power: Villain or Victim? Our Most Misunderstood Source of Electricity, Madison, WI: Pebble Beach Publishers, p. 100 2. CBS News/New York Times Poll, 2008, [online] Available at [Accessed 24 April 2011] 3. CBS News Poll, March 18-21, released March 22, 2011, Reacting to Events in Libya and Japan; Nuclear Power, [online] Available at [Accessed 24 April 2011] 4. Cooper, M. and Sussman, D., 2011, Nuclear Power Loses Support in New Poll, The New York Times, March 22, 2011 [online] Available at < http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/us/23poll.html> [Accessed 24 April 2011] 5. Greenpeace USA, May 2003, The Probability of a Nuclear Accident [online] Available at < http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/the-probability-of-a-nuclear-a/> [Accessed 25 April 2011] 6. Ecologist, 2010, Nuclear Power Debate still divides UK Public Opinion, [online] 11th June, Available at [Accessed 23 April 2011] 7. Energy Authority, n.d., Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power [online] Available at < http://www.energyauthority.net/public-perceptions-of-nuclear-power/> [Accessed 27 April 2011] 8. Friends of the Earth, March 22, 2011, Opposition to New UK Nuclear Grows – New Survey [online] Available at < http://www .foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/nuclear_opposition_poll_22032011.html> [Accessed 23 April 2011] 9. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006, Fundamental Safety Principles, Vienna: Sales and Promotion Publishing Section [online] Available at [Accessed 27 April 2011] 10. Kidd, S., January 21, 2008, Public Opinion: How do we get it on our side? Nuclear Engineering International [online] Available at < http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2048443> [Accessed 26 April 2011] 11. Kotler, M. L. and Hillman, I. T., May 2000, Japanese Nuclear Energy Policy and Public Opinion, Houston: The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University [online] Available at < http://www. bakerinstitute.org/programs/energy-forum/publications/docs/JES_ Nuclear_EnergyPolicyPublicOpinion.pdf/view?searchterm=> [Accessed 24 April 2011] 12. Levtsun, O., 2011, Opinion Poll of European Citizens on Prospect of Nuclear Energy, April 5, 2011, Worldwide News Ukraine (WNU) [online] Available at < http://wnu-ukraine.com/news/?id=231> [Accessed 24 April 2011] 13. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2010, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, [online] Available at < http://www.oecd-nea.org /pub/egc/docs/exec-summary-ENG.pdf> [Accessed 28 April 2011] 14. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), 2010, Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources [online] Available at < http://www.nea.fr/ndd/reports/2010/nea6861-comparing-risks.pdf> [Accessed 30 April 2011] 15. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2007, Postnote October 2007, Number 294, Public Opinion on Electricity Options, London: POST [online] Available at < www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_ offices/post/pubs2007.cfm> [Accessed 23 April 2011] 16. Perrow, C., 1984a, 1999b, Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 17. Spence, A., Venables, D., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W. and Demski, C., 2010, Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Energy Futures in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted in January-March 2010. Technical Report : Cardiff: School of Psychology [online] Available at < http://www.understanding-risk.org/> [Accessed 30 April 2011] 18. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, February 1984, Nuclear Power in an Age of Uncertainty, Washington D.C., [online] Available at < http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_4/DATA/1984/8421. PDF> [Accessed 23 April 2011] 19. Walls, J., 18 March 2011, What Future for the Nuclear Industry? University of Birmingham [online] Available at < http://www.birmingham .ac.uk/news/thebirminghambrief/items/18mar-nuclear-industry.aspx> [Accessed 29 April 2011] 20. World Nuclear Association, August 2010, The Nuclear Fuel Cycle, [online] Available at < http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf03.html> [Accessed 27 April 2011] 21. World Nuclear Association, March 2011, The Economics of Nuclear power, [online] Available at 5. Greenpeace USA, May 2003, The Probability of a Nuclear Accident [online] Available at < http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/the-probability-of-a-nuclear-a/> 6. Ecologist, 2010, Nuclear Power Debate still divides UK Public Opinion, [online] 11th June, Available at 7. Energy Authority, n.d., Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power [online] Available at < http://www.energyauthority.net/public-perceptions-of-nuclear-power/> 8. Friends of the Earth, March 22, 2011, Opposition to New UK Nuclear Grows – New Survey [online] Available at < http://www .foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/nuclear_opposition_poll_22032011.html> 9. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006, Fundamental Safety Principles, Vienna: Sales and Promotion Publishing Section [online] Available at 10. Kidd, S., January 21, 2008, Public Opinion: How do we get it on our side? Nuclear Engineering International [online] Available at < http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2048443> 11. Kotler, M. L. and Hillman, I. T., May 2000, Japanese Nuclear Energy Policy and Public Opinion, Houston: The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University [online] Available at < http://www. bakerinstitute.org/programs/energy-forum/publications/docs/JES_ Nuclear_EnergyPolicyPublicOpinion.pdf/view?searchterm=> 12. Levtsun, O., 2011, Opinion Poll of European Citizens on Prospect of Nuclear Energy, April 5, 2011, Worldwide News Ukraine (WNU) [online] Available at < http://wnu-ukraine.com/news/?id=231> 13. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2010, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, [online] Available at < http://www.oecd-nea.org /pub/egc/docs/exec-summary-ENG.pdf> 14. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), 2010, Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources [online] Available at < http://www.nea.fr/ndd/reports/2010/nea6861-comparing-risks.pdf> 15. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2007, POST note October 2007, Number 294, Public Opinion on Electricity Options, London: POST [online] Available at < www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_ offices/post/pubs2007.cfm> 16. Perrow, C., 1984a, 1999b, Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 17. Spence, A., Venables, D., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W. and Demski, C., 2010, Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Energy Futures in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted in January-March 2010. Technical Report : Cardiff: School of Psychology [online] Available at < http://www.understanding-risk.org/> 18. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, February 1984, Nuclear Power in an Age of Uncertainty, Washington D.C., [online] Available at < http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_4/DATA/1984/8421. PDF> 19. Walls, J., 18 March 2011, What Future for the Nuclear Industry? University of Birmingham [online] Available at < http://www.birmingham .ac.uk/news/thebirminghambrief/items/18mar-nuclear-industry.aspx> 20. World Nuclear Association, August 2010, The Nuclear Fuel Cycle, [online] Available at < http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf03.html> 21. World Nuclear Association, March 2011, The Economics of Nuclear power, [online] Available at Read More