Most people in the UK are ready to accept the building of new nuclear power plants . Janet Wood examines the data

New research carried out on behalf of Utility Week and consultancy Accenture has revealed that more than half the population of the UK supports the building of new nuclear power plants.

Jim Yeats, UK head of utilities at Accenture, explains that the research was commissioned to assess public attitudes in the light of concerns about the cost of energy. "There is increasing fuel poverty," he says. "In the short and medium term there is only one way energy costs will go in people minds.

At the same time, there is increasing concern about the energy gap in the UK at the moment. We wanted to explore people's feelings about this. How do people feel about how the gap should be closed, and about how the UK can be more secure in respect of the energy it uses?"

Utility Week and Accenture wanted to find out whether messages on climate change and the UK's looming energy gap had been understood. It was clear that they had. An overwhelming 88 per cent of those interviewed considered that it was important or very important that the UK reduce its reliance on fossil-fuelled power generation. Just one in one hundred thought the issue was not important.

"People believe it is important that we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, whether for environmental reasons, economic reasons or geopolitical reasons," says Yeats. "All of those factors matter, and different people put different elements at the top. Different people place different weights on different parts of this."

Perhaps surprisingly, the option of reducing energy consumption garnered little support - less than 4 per cent. Instead, people clearly wanted major investment in new power generation. At the top of the list of generation technologies was renewable energy.

Fossil fuel dependence
Given a range of actions that could be taken to reduce fossil fuel dependence, 85 per cent of respondents wanted increased renewable energy generation and 33 per cent sought an increase in nuclear power. In areas around existing nuclear stations the numbers shifted slightly - 38 per cent for nuclear and 81 per cent for renewables.

While renewables rated highest, in many cases respondents thought both would be required. Despite the support for renewables throughout the population, just 25 per cent of the sample had confidence that renewables alone would be able to fill the energy gap as fossil fuelled stations are replaced.

Nearly half - 46 per cent - of respondents were convinced that renewables could not fill the gap, while 29 per cent were unsure whether they would be enough.
What could fill the gap? For a majority of respondents, the answer is not just to replace but to increase the UK's nuclear generating capacity. An increased level of nuclear power found favour with 53 per cent of respondents.

Yeats says he is surprised at the pragmatic attitude revealed by the survey. "We expected a greater wish that renewable energy could fill the gap," he says. "But people at large now are far more aware that energy is an expensive commodity and aware of where it comes from. Their level of understanding of where energy is sourced and how it is supplied has gone up. So they are more realistic about the potential solutions."

What is more, he says: "In general people are far more reconciled to the technology [nuclear power]. Things have moved on. The 'bogeyman' of leaks and issues has gone."
It seems that the "more nuclear" message clearly articulated by both business secretary John Hutton and prime minister Gordon Brown in recent months has found some willing listeners. Unpicking the overall majority support, however, reveals that more work needs to be done to ensure that the new build programme's support is consistent.

Gender split
The issue splits men and women: 68 per cent of male respondents supported nuclear growth, but just 38 per cent of women agreed. It is also split along age lines, so that while those aged below 34 and above 55 tended to support nuclear expansion, in the 35-54 group opponents were in the majority.

There were clear messages to both industry and government on the key issues that could convince some doubters to support increased nuclear - but equally, could mean that the faith of supporters was shaken. The key issues, as ever, were efficient arrangements for managing nuclear waste and for decommissioning nuclear stations at the end of their lives, along with guarantees on nuclear safety. The cost of nuclear was seen as far less of a deal breaker.

Yeats says it is clear that independent evidence on these issues is needed both to broaden support for a new-build programme and to give more confidence to those already supporting it. "I am not sure it is for participants in the nuclear space to conduct a charm offensive or information campaign," he says. "The message needs to come from entities they trust and recognise. That means energy ministers, government science officers, and the Health & Safety Executive (HSE)."

Safety concerns
Key to that is the HSE, Yeats insists, because it is the organisation that will certify and inspect nuclear plants and operation. It must convince people that it will not allow standards to be compromised as new nuclear plants are built. Building trust in the inspectorate and in emerging nuclear organisations is vital to any new programme.

At the moment, it seems that both the population as a whole and those living close to nuclear power plants are wary about who they trust to build new nuclear plants. Asked who they trusted most to deliver safe new nuclear power stations, 58 per cent of the general population wanted a UK-led nuclear consortium. Only 7 per cent agreed that a European or overseas-led consortium would have their trust. Thirty-four per cent trusted no-one. Near nuclear stations the preference for a British-owned company was clearer still - 61 per cent against 7 per cent for a foreign-owned company, although that may be linked with concerns over maintaining local employment.

Yeats says pragmatism will help solve that problem. "We need to separate the potential feelings of Britishness," he says. "We do not have those skills in the country at the moment. Even if we had a British-owed entity, it would have to go overseas to France, Germany or the US to get the skills needed to construct and operate the plants."
Nevertheless, it is clear that energy companies already working in the UK that want to be part of a new-build programme will have to convince people that their projects are intended to benefit the UK.

Once again, Yeats thinks pragmatism will play its part, as it has in the energy market as a whole. "The cost of energy will drive an increasingly pragmatic line from the population at large," he says. "People are aware now that we have energy giants from Europe in the UK. If you talk to people in the UK they didn't switch on the basis of nationality, they switched on price. The days of being loyal to a national brand are diminishing."
When people were asked what concerned them most over the next two decades, more than half - 51 per cent - were most concerned about rising levels of carbon dioxide emissions, with far fewer (37 per cent) naming nuclear waste as their major concern.

A majority of people are willing to accept a programme of building new nuclear power stations to help limit rises in carbon dioxide emissions without drastically reducing
energy supplies. That proportion will increase if the government and safety authorities can demonstrate that they have a safe and secure way of dealing with waste, and that standards on safety will not be compromised. But it is energy companies who must convince their customers that a new programme is required and that they are the right organisations to deliver it.

Comment on this story

Screen name

Email (For verification only. Your details will not be retained or passed on. Not for publication)

Comment

Report Abuse

Sign up to our free email newsletters