What predicts support for nuclear power? (Hint: it isn't concern about environment)

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception
Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3;

Abstract
Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy.

Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.


1. Colvin J. Dawn of a new era. Nuclear Plant Journal, 2005;
23:42-44.

2. Moore T. License renewal revitalizes the nuclear industry.
EPRI Journal, 2000; 25:8-17.

3. International Atomic Energy Agency. Operational and Under
Construction Reactors by Country. Vienna, Austria: Interna-
tional Atomic Energy Agency, 2005.

4. Uranium Information Center. Nuclear Issue Briefing Pa-
per #16. Melbourne, Australia: Uranium Information Center,
2002.

5. Bisconti AS. Why public opinion about nuclear en-
ergy is changing. Nuclear Energy Review December:
70-72, 2006. Available at: http://www.business-briefings.
com/cdps/cditem.cfm?NID=2402#Public%20Understanding.

6. Rosa EA, Dunlap RE. The polls-poll trends: Nuclear energy:
Three decades of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly,
1994; 58:295-325.

7. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Nuclear energy industry
poised for growth based on excellent performance of today’s
plants. NEI News Release, 2006.

8. Ansolabehere S, Deutch J, Driscoll M, Gray PE, Holdren JP,
Joskow PL, Lester RK, Moniz EJ, Todreas NE. The future
of nuclear power. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 2003.

9. Sailor WC, Bodansky D, Braun C, Fetter S, Van Der Zwaan B.
Nuclear power: A nuclear solution to climate change? Science,
2005; 288:1177.

10. Bennhold K. Nuclear energy is making a global comeback.
New York Times, October 17, 2004.

11. Wald M. Hopes of building nation’s first new nuclear plant in
decades. New York Times, January 27, 2005.

12. The Economist. A new dawn for nuclear power? Economist,
May, 2001; 19-25.

13. Marshall E. Is the friendly atom poised for a comeback? Sci-
ence, 2005; 309:1168-1169.

14. Rhodes R. Nuclear power’s new day. New York Times, May
7, 2001.

15. Starr C. Societal benefit versus technological risk. Science,
1969; 236:280-285.

16. Freudenburg WF, Rosa EA. Public Reactions to Nuclear
Power: Are There Critical Masses? Boulder, CO: Westview
Press/ American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1984.

17. Wald M. Mississippi extends hospitality to nuclear power. New
York Times, January 27, 2005.
The Future of Nuclear Power 437

18. Morgan D. Restarting reactor could boost nuclear power in-
dustry. Washington Post, May 16, 2002.

19. Rosa EA. The future acceptability of nuclear power in the
United States. Paris: Institute Francais des Relations Interna-
tionales, 2004.

20. Rosa EA. The public climate for nuclear power: The changing
of seasons. In The Role of Nuclear Power in Global and Do-
mestic Energy Policy: Recent Developments and Future Ex-
pectations. Washington, DC: H.H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public
Policy Conference, 2007.

21. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A So-
cial Psychological theory of support for social movements:
The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 1999;
6:81-97.

22. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. Value orientations, gender and
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 1993;
25:322-348.

23. Schwartz SH. Are there universal aspects in the structure
and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 1994;
50:19-45.

24. Schwartz, SH, Bilsky W. Toward a universal psychological
structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1987; 53:550-562.

25. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W. Toward a theory of the universal
content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural
replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1990; 58:878-891.

26. Dietz T. “What should we do?” Human ecology and collective
decision making. Human Ecology Review, 1994; 1:301-309.

27. Dietz T, Stern PC. Toward realistic models of individual
choice. Journal of Socio-Economics, 1995; 24:261-279.

28. Jaeger C, Renn O, Rosa EA, Webler T. Risk, Uncertainty and
Rational Action. London: Earthscan, 2001.

29. Rokeach M. Understanding Human Values: Individual and
Societal. New York: Free Press, 1979.

30. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R. Environmental values. An-
nual Review of Environment and Resources, 2005; 30:335-372.

31. Slimak MW, Dietz T. Personal values, beliefs and ecological
risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2006; 26:1689-1705.

32. Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, Bredahl H. Communicating about
the risks and benefits of genetically modified food: The me-
diating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:1117-1133.

33. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M,
Mayer H. Nuclear waste and public worries: Public percep-
tions of the United States’ major nuclear weapons legacy sites.
Human Ecology Review, 2007; 14:1-12.

34. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M,
Mayer H. Preferences for alternative risk management poli-
cies at the United States major nuclear weapons legacy sites.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2007;
50:187-209.

35. Kasperson RE, Golding D, Kasperson JX. Risk, trust and
democratic theory. In Cvetkovich G, L ̈ofstedt RE (eds). Social
Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan,1999.

36. L ̈ofstedt RE, Rosa EA. The strength of trust in Sweden, UK
and the U.S.: Some hypotheses. Report of the 4th Seminar of
TRUSTNET, Paris, France, 2000.

37. Metlay D. Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into
a conceptual quagmire. In Cvetkovich G, L ̈ofstedt RE (eds).
Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan,
1999.

38. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the dimensionality of
trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:961-972.

39. Renn O, Levine D. Credibility and trust in risk communica-
tion. In Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM (eds). Communicating
Risks to the Public. The Hague: Kluwer, 1991.

40. Rosa EA, Clark DL, Jr. Historical routes to technologi-
cal gridlock: Nuclear technology as prototypical vehicle. Re-
search in Social Problems and Public Policy, 1999; 7:21-
57.

41. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perceptions of hazards: The role of
social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20:713-719.

42. Seigrist M, Cvetkovich G, Gutscher H. Shared values, social
trust, and the perception of geographic cancer clusters. Risk
Analysis, 2001; 21:1047-1053.

43. Seigrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C. Salient value similarity,
social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 2000;
20:353-362.

44. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Survey-
ing the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19:689-
701.

45. Slovic P, Layman M, Clary BB. Perceived risk, trust and nu-
clear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain. In Dunlap RE,
Kraft ME, Rosa EA (eds). Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste:
Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC: Duke Uni-
versity Press, 1993.

46. Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H. Trust, risk perception,
and the TCC model of cooperation. In Siegrist M, Earle
TC, Gutscher H (eds). Trust in Cooperative Risk Manage-
ment: Uncertainty and Skepticism in the Public Mind. London:
Earthscan, 2007.

47. Dillman D. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design
Method. New York: Wiley, 1978.

48. U.S. Census Bureau. Table DP-2 (Profile of Selected So-
cial Characteristics: 2000), Geographical Area: United States,
2000. Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov/.

49. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of val-
ues: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1992; 25:1-65.

50. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA. A brief inventory of values.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1998; 58:884-
1001.

51. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AD, Jones RE. Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP
scale. Social Science Quarterly, 2002; 56:425-442.

52. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD. The “new environmental
paradigm:” A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary
results. Journal of Environmental Education, 1978; 9:10-19.

53. Peters E, Slovic P. The role of affect and worldviews as orient-
ing dispositions in the perception of nuclear power. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 1996; 26:1427-1453.

54. Arbuckle JL. Amos 5. Chicago, IL: Smallwater Corporation,
2003.

55. Gallup Poll. Expanding the Use of Nuclear Energy. Princeton,
NJ: Gallup Organization, 2007.

56. Dunlap RE, Kraft ME, Rosa EA. The Public and Nuclear
Waste: Citizen’s Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 1993.

57. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race and perception of
environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14:1101-1108.

58. Kalof L, Dietz T, Guagnano GA, Stern PC. Race, gender
and environmentalism: the atypical values and beliefs of white
men. Race, Gender & Class, 2002; 9:1-19.

59. Mander J. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.
New York: William Morrow, 1978.

60. ABC/Time/Stanford University. Concern soars about global
warming as world’s top environmental threat. Department of
Political Science. Stanford, CA: Department of Political Sci-
ence, Stanford University, 2007.

61. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M. Perceived risk, trust and the
politics of nuclear waste. Science, 1993; 254:1603-1607.

62. York R, Rosa E, Dietz T. Bridging environmental science with
environmental policy: Plasticity of population, affluence and
technology. Social Science Quarterly, 2002; 83:18-34.

63. Grewal D, Salovey P. Feeling smart: The science of emotional
intelligence. American Scientist, 2005; 93:330-339.

...how do we use the results of public opinion to develop a sensible energy policy

• Leadership and unity of message need to be the top priority.

• Acceptable messages need to cover the diversity of group thinking.

• Developing confidence on having a solution to nuclear waste issues and non-proliferation requires leadership messages and social support more than scientific support.

Energy Messages
• Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a combined offering.
• Concerns regarding energy security and energy independence can only
be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable
standards, and nuclear energy.

EnergySolutions is one of the world’s largest processors of low level waste (LLW), and is the largest nuclear waste company in the United States...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergySolutions

Vestas calls itself in its company reports, the Vestas OIL, GAS and WIND company.

Posted by NNadir on Sat Oct-16-10 09:29 PM

Vestas, OIL, GAS and wind company.

They know what they are, even if mathematically illiterate purveyors of self delusion and indifference don't.

It's notable that this piece of shit dangerous fossil fuel company suffered huge losses in the middle of the decade for being required to meet five year warranties on their worthless hunks of metal.

Their "solution" to this problem with their reliability did not lead them to improve the crappy gearboxes on their subsidized garbage, but rather to reduce the warranty period from five years to two years.

It is interesting to note that the most transparently dishonest people are the first to accuse others of dishonesty.

Have a nice day.

They were never in fossil fuel, they started in engineering
Posted by muriel_volestrangler on Sun Oct-17-10 06:17 AM

NNadir was talking a load of complete bollocks about 'oil and gas'.

# 1898 - Vestas founded by H.S. Hansen, a blacksmith, in the small town of Lem in Denmark. He and his son, Peder Hansen, manufactured steel windows for industrial buildings.
# 1945 - Peder Hansen established the company VEstjyskSTålteknik A/S, whose name was shortened to Vestas. The new company, which initially made household appliances, started to produce agricultural equipment.
# 1970s - During the second oil crisis, Vestas began to examine the potential of the wind turbine as an alternative source of clean energy.
# 1979 - Vestas delivered the first wind turbines. The industry experienced a genuine boom at the start of the 1980s, but in 1986 Vestas was forced to suspend payments because the market in the United States was destroyed due to the expiration of a special tax legislation that provided advantageous conditions for the establishment of wind turbines.

http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/profile/vestas-brief-history.aspx

No, you are very, very wrong; they have NEVER been a fossil fuel company
Posted by muriel_volestrangler on Sun Oct-17-10 06:14 AM

Vestas is a wind turbine company. It does not sell oil or gas. It never has. What it says, in one part of its website, is "Wind, Oil and Gas is Vestas’ vision, which expresses the ambition of making wind an energy source on a par with fossil fuels." So, they want to be as big as the huge oil and gas companies that supply so much of the world's energy. That's where the 'oil and gas' phrase comes from.

I realise that you're hoping no-one will check to see what your link says, because you're counting on them thinking "yet another boring piece of crap from NNadir, why bother looking?", but you are being highly misleading.

It is not a fossil fuel company. Your claim is incorrect, wrong and misleading. You have the gall to accuse others of dishonesty in the same post. You have no shame.

Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation...