New Strategies for Public Engagement
Author: Megan Guy
Until recently, nuclear energy appeared to be in the early stages of a renaissance. The U.S. government committed billions of dollars in loan guarantees to support the expansion of domestic nuclear power, and prominent investors and entrepreneurs touted coming advances in nuclear technology, from small modular to fast breeder reactors to nuclear fusion technologies. In light of increasingly dire worries about climate change, many viewed nuclear energy as a potential savior for its ability to deliver carbon-free baseload power.
But since the Fukushima disaster, much has changed. Countries from the United States to Germany to China have reassessed and, in many cases, scaled back or terminated their nuclear energy ambitions. Fukushima has both heightened and highlighted long-standing public concerns over reactor safety (waste management, cost, and proliferation remain important secondary worries) that, for many, outweigh nuclear energy’s benefits. For example, despite the fact that Gallup polling over the last decade has shown consistent support for nuclear energy by a majority of Americans, numerous surveys indicate that only a minority of the public supports the construction of new reactors in the United States. This apparent contradiction illustrates a dilemma: the public appears to recognize and appreciate the benefits of nuclear energy, but is unwilling to shoulder the risk of its expansion. If, as Lincoln famously said, “public sentiment is everything,” then the nuclear industry is in an uncertain and precarious position.
To shift public sentiment in its favor, proponents of nuclear energy must work against two critical factors: the psychology of risk and public distrust of institutions. On a purely quantitative basis, the risk of death or substantial harm from radiation exposure rates far below that of numerous other hazards (e.g., driving a car, being struck by lightning). Yet these figures are largely irrelevant when it comes to risk perception. Paul Slovic’s work has identified numerous qualitative factors that shape how a person understands and experiences risk: hazards that a person is involuntarily exposed to, is unfamiliar with, or which have potentially catastrophic consequences dramatically elevate perceived risk above actual risk. A nuclear accident–unexpected, technical, and “black box” in nature, conjuring images of radiation sickness and desolation–satisfies each of these criteria, activating the darkest recesses of the imagination and yielding, for many, an unacceptable level of perceived risk.
Institutional distrust also undermines public confidence in nuclear energy, which has long been perceived as the domain of academics, experts, and bureaucrats. The history of nuclear crises provides plenty of evidence to illustrate that this may be well-founded. For example, the Soviet government did not publicly acknowledge the Chernobyl accident until elevated radiation levels were detected in Sweden two days after the accident occurred. During the Three Mile Island crisis, poor communication from Metropolitan Edison and state and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) officials led to conflicting public statements that heightened public confusion and alarm. And most recently, in the initial days of the Fukushima disaster the NRC perceived the accident to be much more severe than the Japanese government acknowledged. Governmental distrust and public turmoil grew rapidly among the Japanese citizenry when the Americans advocated for more drastic containment and evacuation measures than the Japanese were recommending. As such, few were surprised when an overly close relationship between Japanese regulators and TEPCO came to light in the following weeks. Similar concerns are present in the U.S., where they are compounded by a large segment of the public that is already disillusioned and suspicious of government, corporations, and expertise in the wake of the financial crisis and other recent events.
If nuclear power is to play a meaningful role in addressing the world’s future energy needs, it must do a better job of engaging public support by rebuilding institutional trust and mitigating risk perception through education. Neither is easy (nor by any means guaranteed), but actions that improve controls, engagement, and transparency are all steps in the right direction. Regulatory regimes must be structured to incentivize regulators, operators, and citizens to identify and elevate safety concerns. Industry should work with regulators to develop a collaborative culture of openness and continuous improvement. For example, current technology enables real-time monitoring and analytics at a plant level. Real-time information sharing across fleets and among operators and regulators could accelerate learning and reduce costs across the industry, particularly as existing plants age and require increased maintenance. Most importantly, voicing a concern or identifying a problem must not be stigmatized. Rather, it should be rewarded to encourage candid assessment and communication.
Although the fear associated with a potential nuclear accident can never be eliminated, it can be lessened through increasing the public’s understanding of, and familiarity with, nuclear science and safety processes. All stakeholders would be well served by collaboratively formulating, refining, and disseminating a proactive crisis management plan. Clearly this has limitations – every incident is different and inherently unpredictable – but by setting some expectations in advance and establishing clear channels of communication, citizens, operators, and regulators can build trust and lessen panic.
Finally, the industry needs new methods of public engagement to expand the discussion to a broader audience: rather than branding individuals and regions as pro- or anti-nuclear, the industry would be better served by engaging in conversation, using expert knowledge to creatively facilitate a dialogue rather than to advocate a particular point at all costs. For example, Bill Gates’ TED Talk on energy (which features TerraPower’s Traveling Wave Reactor) has been viewed and debated by over one million people. This figure is certainly orders of magnitude greater than the number of individuals who have read any industry white paper or NRC report. People are far more likely to trust sources that both acknowledge weaknesses in their own positions, and also encourage their audiences to think critically, than those who view the world in black and white.
From a technology perspective, the future of nuclear energy looks very bright – but without better strategies for public engagement, this renaissance may end before it truly begins.
Megan Guy is an investment professional at Angeleno Group, a growth equity investment firm focused on next generation energy and natural resources companies. She holds an MBA from the Stanford Graduate School of Business and a Masters of Science from Stanford’s Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources.
Photo source: dark.pozadia.org
