Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant in Enerhodar, Ukraine (the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe) – Photo taken by author.
The Importance of Nuclear Energy in The Future Energy Mix
Nuclear power is an essential source of energy in the future, because it is a carbon-free energy source and also can generate a significant amount of electricity with a small input of materials comparing to fossil-fuel power station.[1] This statement was supported by a research, which stated that a nuclear reactor needs relatively a less amount of resources (uranium) comparing to fossil-fuel power station to generating the same amount of electricity.[2] Analyzing the average energy consumption in the UK, the research illustrated that the consumption per capita for fossil fuel was about 16 kg per day (a combination of 8 kg of gas, 4 kg of coal and 4 kg of oil), and it creates 30 kg of carbon dioxide waste. Whereas for the same amount of energy output per capita, nuclear reactor needs only 2 grams of uranium per day, and the waste weighs about one quarter of a gram.[3]
However, the benefits of using nuclear energy come with some trade-offs, such as cost trade-off and risk trade-off. The trade-off in cost is mainly caused by the high cost for generating electricity from a nuclear reactor, which is driven by a large construction cost, an extensive time frame to build a nuclear power plant and high up-front capital cost. Nevertheless, if the government will impose a social cost in terms of carbon taxes, the cost for building a nuclear power plant will be more competitive comparing with the fossil-fuel power station.[4]
As for risk trade-off, there have been a lot debates concerning the safety of a nuclear reactor, especially for the risk of radioactivity accident. Radioactivity accident can be occurred majorly because of human error, technical error and force majeure (such as earthquake). However there has been a global safety standard that had been developed to overcome this issue, which reduces a significant amount of risk of serious accident for nuclear reactor.[5]
Declining Public Trust in Nuclear Power
The earthquake that struck Japan on March 11, 2011 created a devastating tsunami that hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and triggered one of the worst nuclear energy disasters.[6] There were not any casualties reported due to the radioactive exposure, however the risk perception towards nuclear-based power station has been plummeting in Japan and also in many countries around the world.
Risk perception is the value reflected by the people towards a risk for being exposed by a specified hazard. The source of risk perception can be identified as distrust of government, dread of the unfamiliar and the availability of heuristic.[7] Soon after the occurrence of the disaster, the Japanese government faced a lack of support from the public to re-operate the nuclear reactors, which was the sign of public distrust to the government as a regulator that responsible for outlining the nuclear reactor’s minimum safety requirement. Consequently, Japanese people are now unwilling to accept the risk to re-operate the nuclear power plants and have also started to criticizing whether nuclear power is the best option for Japan’s future energy.
The incident in Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has also affected other countries for re-considering their nuclear energy development program.[8] From a survey that had been done in 24 countries, which included France, UK, Japan, US and Spain, showed that 62% of the respondents opposed the nuclear-based electricity generation.[9] It happened because the global publics are less acceptable (unfamiliar) with the nuclear energy’s risks after the Fukushima’s disaster.
The availability of media coverage about the Fukushima incident also played a big role for the declining of public risk perception about nuclear energy. This nuclear incident even got more attention than the earthquake and tsunami from the media, which amplified the news to the global public. However, sometimes media could deliver negative rumors and made the public misunderstand the real situation of an event.
Suggested Actions for Restoring Trust in Nuclear Power
The public trust towards nuclear power has been declining significantly after the Fukushima incident, hence the role of good risk communication and risk management will be very important to overcome this issue. To create an immediate positive impact in a condition where the public trust is low, a risk management will be essential to be implemented. There are four types of risk management strategy, such as political regulatory, public deliberation, technocracy and economic balancing.[10] Each of the strategies has its own uniqueness, and selecting the best strategy will depend on the rationale of the distrust itself.
As has been analyzed at the previous section, the public’s rationale for distrusting the government is mainly because the government was lack of capabilities to create policies for minimizing the nuclear energy’s risks. Hence the most appropriate strategy will be technocracy, since this strategy suggests an involvement of the experts / technocrats for advising the government and communicating all of the benefits and risk for using nuclear energy in a more appropriate approach.[11] The experts should work together with the government to create an adequate communication strategy to advise the public to compare between the benefits for using nuclear energy, which is considered as a clean and efficient energy, and the risk of the nuclear energy that can be reduced significantly by implementing a strict safety requirement.
In the long term, the lesson learned from Fukushima incident can be incorporated for improving the regulatory framework to oversee the licensee safety performance.[12] Furthermore the technocrats can advise government to conduct further researches to develop emergency power supply, enhancement of protection and emergency responses, hydrogen management and improvement of the mitigation measurement, so that the risk for operating nuclear power plants can be reduced even further.[13]
Citations
[1] Ansolabehere, S., Deutch, J., Driscoll, M., & Gray, P. E. (2003). The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdiscplinary MIT Study. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[2] MacKay, D. J. (2009). Sustainable Energy – Without The Hot Air (Vol. 1). Cambridge, United Kingdom: UIT Cambridge Ltd.
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid. 1
[5] International Atomic Energy Agency. (2014, October). International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 11 05, 2014, from http://www.ns.iaea.org: http://www-ns.iaea.org/committees/files/CSS/205/status.pdf
[6] INPO. (2011). Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. Atlanta: Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.
[7] Wiener, J. B., & Rogers, M. D. (2002). Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. Journal of Risk Research , 5 (4), 317-349.
[8] Goodfellow, M. J., Williams, H. R., & Azapagic, A. (2011). Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review. Energy Policy , 6199-6210.
[9] Kessides, I. N. (2012). The future of the nuclear industry reconsidered: Risks, uncertainties, and continued promise. Energy Policy , 185-208.
[10] Lofstedt, R. E. (2005). Risk Management in Post-Trust Societies (Vol. 1). London, United Kingdom: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN .
[11] Ibid
[12] Buongiorno, J., et al., (2011). Technical Lessons Learned from the Fukushima-Daichii Accident and Possible Corrective Actions for the Nuclear Industry : An Initial Evaluation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advance Nuclear Energy System. Cambridge: Canes Publications.
[13] Ibid
Indonesian Insight 