Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Available at www.ijsred.com
RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS
---------------------------------------- ************************------------------------------
Abstract:
Nuclear power is among the best means of realising electrical generation in adequate
capacity that improves both socio-economic and technological growth of any nation. This
energy source is not without occurrences of severe and deadly accidents like that of
Fukushima in 2011. However, the use of nuclear energy still attracts numerous positive and
negative perceptions. The positive perceptions include: means of reducing emissions,
achieving energy security and climate change mitigation while some of the major problems
or negative public perceptions are: management of waste, radioactive waste disposal, distrust
in the industry, inadequate security against terrorist attacks, safety concerns and costs of
construction and decommissioning. This paper aimed to study public perception of nuclear
power in Nigeria. Data for the study were collected from both secondary and primary
sources. Secondary data were collected from related literatures and past studies across the
World. Primary data was collected from questionnaire with the use of two-stage simple
random sampling technique. Been a quantitatively study, the questionnaire were analysed
using percentages, Kruskal Wallis and independent sample T-test. The study found that
majority of the respondents has positive perception of nuclear power. A Kruskal Wallis test
conducted revealed statistically different among the different age groups’ perceptions on the
statements about nuclear power. Similarly, the study revealed large support for nuclear built
in the country while an independent sample T-test revealed that both gender responded
similar on support or oppose to nuclear built in the country. The study concluded that since
Nigeria has large land mass, nuclear plants can be located in remote areas far away from
settlements and operate in safely manner, in order to boast energy security of the country.
only three major accidents have occurred to substitute fossil fuels (European
(Oludare et al., 2014), which are: Commission, 2007; WNA, 2011). This is so
because nuclear power has been termed a low-
• Three Mile Island Reactor Unit 2 (TM1-2), carbon form of energy. Therefore, to meet up
USA, in March 28, 1979; the reactor was with emission targets and reduces the negative
damaged severely but radiation was impacts of climate change and global
contained and there were no adverse warming, efficient energy and low-carbon
environmental or health concerns. economy needs to be formed. One way of
• Chernobyl RBMK Reactor 4 in Russia in doing this is creation of renewable energy and
April 26, 1986, the damage of the reactor new nuclear power stations (DECC, 2011b).
by steam blast and fire killed about 31 For instance, the British government in
people and had substantial environmental debating for the creation of “new build” in the
and health concerns. UK has used the justification of tackling
• Fukushima Daiichi 1-3 Nuclear power climate change as one of the reasons. The
plant accidents in Japan in March 11, 2011, government claimed that: “Established against
the three old reactors, dating from 1971-75 the challenges of climate change and security
(together with a fourth) were written off. of supply, the proof in support of new nuclear
power stations is convincing” (WNN, 2008j).
However, like in other industries, the design Norris (2000) also argued that climate change
and operation of nuclear power plants aims to is so hypothetically disastrous that any way to
reduce the possibility of accidents, and avoid lessen greenhouse gases emissions must be
major consequences on human when they exploited. Therefore, Pro-nuclear energy non-
happen (Oludare et al., 2014). Nevertheless, governmental organizations like
despite the three major accidents outlined Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy and the
above, they have been reasons or needs to US-based Clean and Safe Energy Coalition;
build new nuclear power plants. These reasons have come out to advocate for better use of
include among others: increasing demand for nuclear energy.
energy, climate change, the need to reduce Energy security which is taken to mean
emissions objectives, an increasing complete national self-reliance in energy or
dependency on fossil fuels and energy security “energy independence” is always a fantasy
(Goodfellow et al., 2011, Greenhalgh and (Trevor, 2010). It is hard to say any country in
Azapagic, 2009; Parkhill et al., 2010; today’s globalized world, with the likely
Venables et al., 2012; World Nuclear exclusion of Russia, is able to be energy self-
Association, 2011). governing (ibid). Many governments and other
Additionally, nuclear power has also turn out viewers often use the search for “energy
to be a more favourable choice for producing security” to make a case for nuclear power and
electricity because it is argued to be the least creating energy diversity. They believe
costly way for electricity generation when diversity may be the most essential assurance
compared with other means of electricity for energy security (Schneider, 2009).
generation (DECC, 2011b). WNA (2011) Similarly, according to NEA, (2008a: 154):
maintained that the benefits (economical) of ‘’the central advantages of nuclear power for
nuclear power increases as CO2 emissions energy security are the high energy
reductions are encouraged via emissions concentration of uranium fuel combined with
trading schemes and incentives by the steady and varied geopolitical distribution
government. Therefore, nuclear power may of uranium resources and fuel fabrication
perhaps come to be a sustainable choice for the facilities, in addition to the easiness that
UK or other countries because is an strategic stashes of fuel can be
established technology which can constantly sustained’’Moreover, Uranium which is one of
generate electricity (DECC, 2011b). the main material needed for nuclear power is
Another debate that favoured the creation of available in many countries, hence make
nuclear power is increase in understanding of nuclear power a feasible choice (WNA, 2011).
global warming and climate change which In addition, unlike fossil fuels, prices for
have brought about the need for using more uranium are less likely to change when other
proficient low-emission energy sources so as
stated as oppositions to nuclear power The media also play a part in influencing
(Greenhalgh and Azapagic, 2009). negative public perception of nuclear power
Furthermore, Bickerstaff et al. (2008) study creation. This is so because the mass media
revealed that when nuclear power is outlined seems to be the only source of information
together with issues which are important like with regards to nuclear power for many
climate change, people tend to be more people. This information reported most times
considerate to its establishment. is untrustworthy or biased. Although a survey
The use of nuclear energy still attracts carried out by the European Commission
numerous negative opinions eventhough it is (2010, 119) revealed that eventhough majority
understood to be a reliable energy source, a of people relied on the use of mass media to
means of reducing emissions and energy attain information relating to nuclear energy;
security. The reasons have been that there are many of them filtered the information reported
many concerns and problems regarding about nuclear energy.
nuclear power that affect public opinion. This
public opinion is what makes Goodfellow et Materials and Methods
al. (2011) to posit that it is the major challenge This study employs the use of both secondary
to new nuclear power plants construction. For and primary sources of data. The secondary
instance, negative public opinion had led to sources of data used are journals, government
substantial delays to projects e.g. Sizewell B and non-government organisations published
and Druridge Bay and sometimes cancellation reports, online publications among others.
Goodfellow et al, 2011). Studies carried out in Been a quantitative study, primary data was
the past revealed that some of the major gathered with the use of only structured
problems the public have with nuclear power questionnaire. Survey by questionnaire was
comprise; management of waste, radioactive adopted for this study because of the need to
waste disposal, distrust in the industry, cover a practically representative and big
inadequate security against terrorist attacks sample over a reasonably little time period. By
and safety concerns (European Commission, this, large public opinions of respondents
2010, 11; Venables et al., 2012, 371) and which are as representative of Nigeria
environmental fears like climate change, population as possible were gathered.
mining for uranium and contamination Moreover, due to the intricacy of this topic, it
(Parkhill et al., 2010, 40; Sovacool, 2011, was considered unreasonable to have open-
246). ended questions on the questionnaire.
Similarly, another reason public opposition to Therefore, questions were shaped to emphasis
new nuclear power is the costs accompanying on particular aspects and had multiple choice
it. Nuclear power facilities tend to have high possibilities by which respondents could
building and decommissioning costs with cost express the strength of their view on a 5 points
overruns associated with numerous projects ‘Likert’ scale (Bryman, 1995). The
(Sovacool, 2011, 39). De Esteban (2002, 3) questionnaire was designed to comprise three
stated further that ensuring safety of reactors sections:
and managing nuclear waste are also
associated with high costs. Management of • Section A: contained variety of questions
radioactive waste posed serious problem to the to state the demographics characteristics
development of nuclear power plants because of the sample
according to Parkhill et al., (2010, 41) and • Section B: contained questions on
Greenhalgh and Azapagic, (2009), there is respondents familiarity and general
difficulty of safeguarding waste over an understanding of nuclear power and
extended time periods and the lack of nuclear industry, and;
explanations for disposal of nuclear waste as • Section C: deals with questions on the
well as concerns for environment. Though, respondents’ perceptions on nuclear
WNA (2011) argued that countries with power and the nuclear industry;
nuclear power handled and managed correctly
its radioactive waste. There are many issues that could possibly
influence the public’s perception of nuclear
power creation and it would be difficult to
investigate all parts (i.e. issues) within one Results and Discussions
research work. Consequently, to allow cross- Before delving into the analysis proper,
comparisons and ensure uniformity with construct reliability and validity were
earlier studies on the public’s perceptions on conducted because according to Kumar
nuclear power; several of the questions were (2011), it is necessary quantitative studies.
drawn from past studies of Eurobarometer, Similarly, for the fact that data for this study
2010; Greenhalgh and Azapagic, 2009; Ipsos were mainly derived from scaled responses
MORI, 2010, 2011; Bickerstaff et al., 2008; (i.e. the 5-point likert scale); it is necessary to
Poortinga et al., 2005; Pidgeon et al., 2008 and evaluate the reliability of the scales (Curkovic
Spence et al., 2010. Though, little et al., 2000; Tracey et al., 2005). As a result,
modifications were carried out on the reliability tests were conducted to measure
questions to ensure that there are as clear as constructs of the questionnaire. Cronbach's
possible and that terminology/technical coefficient alpha which is the most extensively
language was substituted with simple English. used test of internal consistency (Flynn et al.,
Been an all-inclusive study intended to cover 1990; Ngai and Cheng, 1997) was employed
the all of the country; the six geo political by this study. The Cronbach's coefficient alpha
zones were put into consideration. This made test revealed a score of 0.849 which is above
the study to draw respondents by using a two- the minimum of 0.70 as argued by Swafford et
stage simple random sampling. States were al., (2006a). This result shows that there are
then randomly selected from each zone with internal consistencies among the constructs of
Kano state from North West zone, Adamawa the questionnaire. The validity of the research
state from north east, Plateau state from north instrument was established by ensuring that
central, Oyo state from south west, Anambra the constructs of the questionnaire were
state from south east and Edo state from south- derived from reviewed literatures and past
south region of the country. The capitals of the studies. Furthermore, closed ended questions
states randomly selected are where were asked while completed questionnaires
respondents for the study were drawn. The were inspected for completeness and
reason was because the state capitals have the uniformity before embarking on data analysis
largest concentration of people as well as (O'Leary-Kelly and Vokurka, 1998).
people with higher education background that Of the 1200 questionnaires administered, 1194
can understand the various energy sources and were completed to the fullest and were
intricacy of this study. To cover the length and considered valid and usable for further
breadth of each state capital, 20 respondents analysis. The remaining 6 questionnaires were
were randomly selected from each of the ten left out from further analysis. Though
wards that make up the state capitals. This questionnaires poorly completed still provide
gives a total of 200 respondents from each some data; scholars habitually exclude such
state capital and an overall sample size of 1200 questionnaires so as to decrease the occurrence
respondents. According to Ipsos-MORI, of missing data in statistical analysis in
(2000), representative sample size for addition to improve the reliability of results
nationwide opinion sampling is about 1000. (Gill and Johnson, 2002; Hair et al., 2006;
However, due to internet challenges in the Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007).
country an online survey could not be adopted Table 1 present the demographic
and the authors had to make use of physical characteristics of respondents. As the table
questionnaire distribution to the respondents revealed, there is representation of all sectors
across the study areas. This prompts the of life from gender, age, qualifications and
authors to recruit the services of three employment status. This put the study into
volunteers who were trained and equip to help better perspective to divulge the main aim of
in questionnaire distribution in three of the the research.
study areas while the authors handled the rest.
In this study, adults aged 18+ were targeted
and surveyed over the period 03–18 December
2018.
of
from
of
other
Improve energy
by
climate
Operated safely
terrorist attacks
Brings benefits
energy sources
management
Poses a risk
regulations
Inadequate
negatively
Exploring
High cost
Reported
security
change
media
waste
Limit
Trust
Risk
3
Chi- 36. 1 34. 39.
55.9 131.23 79.3 74.3 62.0 100.4 41.4
Square 3 . 5 9
6
df 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
.
Asymp. .00 0 .00 .00
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Sig. 0 0 0 0
0
kick-start the nuclear energy programme. This challenges such as technology development,
will help to supply energy (electricity) over a radioactive waste management among others.
long period, boast GDP, create jobs, reduce It is therefore, recommended that Nigeria been
atmospheric pollution associated with gas a country with large land mass, nuclear plants
stations as well as climate change mitigation. can be located in remote areas far away from
This study revealed that the general perception settlements and operate in safely manner, in
of the participants on nuclear power is positive order to boast energy security of the country.
as they support the building of nuclear power Similarly, agencies responsible for running the
in the country. However, respondents of this plants should be up and doing to ensure all the
study are of the opinion that nuclear power risk and hazards are prevented from
should be sought after several options for happening.
renewable energy production have been
harnessed. Their argument been that nuclear
energy comes with loads of risks and other