IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i22p6074-d448185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Nuclear Power Dilemma—Between Perception and Reality

Author

Listed:
  • Florentina Paraschiv

    (Faculty of Economics and Management, NTNU Business School, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
    Institute for Operations Research and Computational Finance, University of St. Gallen, 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland)

  • Dima Mohamad

    (Faculty of Education and Lifelong Learning, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
    Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, University of Bergamo, 24129 Bergamo, Italy)

Abstract

Motivated by the environmental challenges and the increase in energy demand, this review assesses the suitability of nuclear power production as an alternative option to using fossil fuels. First, we assess the competitiveness of nuclear power compared to other power sources considering its economic efficiency, environmental impact and implications for health, and conclude that this is a viable option to serve in addition to and as a backup to renewable sources. Second, we review previous findings in various fields on advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power technology and conclude that there is a gap between reality and perception. Third, we discuss challenges related to nuclear weapons proliferation and misperceived public opinion on nuclear power. We conclude that the gap between perception and reality stems from a lack of consolidated interdisciplinary view, media communications focusing mainly on unilateral assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • Florentina Paraschiv & Dima Mohamad, 2020. "The Nuclear Power Dilemma—Between Perception and Reality," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:22:p:6074-:d:448185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/22/6074/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/22/6074/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Fuhrmann, 2012. "Splitting Atoms: Why Do Countries Build Nuclear Power Plants?," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 29-57, January.
    2. Burgherr, Peter & Hirschberg, Stefan, 2014. "Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(S1), pages 45-56.
    3. Lars Ivar Hagfors & Hilde Hørthe Kamperud & Florentina Paraschiv & Marcel Prokopczuk & Alma Sator & Sjur Westgaard, 2016. "Prediction of extreme price occurrences in the German day-ahead electricity market," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(12), pages 1929-1948, December.
    4. Khatib, Hisham & Difiglio, Carmine, 2016. "Economics of nuclear and renewables," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 740-750.
    5. Paraschiv, Florentina & Bunn, Derek & Westgaard, Sjur, 2016. "Estimation and Application of Fully Parametric Multifactor Quantile Regression with Dynamic Coefficients," Working Papers on Finance 1607, University of St. Gallen, School of Finance.
    6. Soni, Anmol, 2018. "Out of sight, out of mind? Investigating the longitudinal impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on public opinion in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 169-175.
    7. Burgherr, Peter & Eckle, Petrissa & Hirschberg, Stefan, 2012. "Comparative assessment of severe accident risks in the coal, oil and natural gas chains," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 97-103.
    8. Gupta, Kuhika & Nowlin, Matthew C. & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2019. "Tracking the nuclear ‘mood’ in the United States: Introducing a long term measure of public opinion about nuclear energy using aggregate survey data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    9. Kim, Younghwan & Kim, Wonjoon & Kim, Minki, 2014. "An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 475-483.
    10. Portugal-Pereira, J. & Ferreira, P. & Cunha, J. & Szklo, A. & Schaeffer, R. & Araújo, M., 2018. "Better late than never, but never late is better: Risk assessment of nuclear power construction projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 158-166.
    11. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    12. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Comparative Analysis of Public Attitudes toward Nuclear Power Energy across 27 European Countries by Applying the Multilevel Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    13. Marcel Kremer & Rüdiger Kiesel & Florentina Paraschiv, 2020. "Intraday Electricity Pricing of Night Contracts," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-14, September.
    14. Acker, Thomas L. & Williams, Susan K. & Duque, Earl P.N. & Brummels, Grant & Buechler, Jason, 2007. "Wind resource assessment in the state of Arizona: Inventory, capacity factor, and cost," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1453-1466.
    15. Huang, Xiaoxia, 2008. "Portfolio selection with a new definition of risk," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 351-357, April.
    16. Spada, Matteo & Paraschiv, Florentina & Burgherr, Peter, 2018. "A comparison of risk measures for accidents in the energy sector and their implications on decision-making strategies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 277-288.
    17. Mah, Daphne Ngar-yin & Hills, Peter & Tao, Julia, 2014. "Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 368-390.
    18. Cordoves-Sánchez, Minerva & Vallejos-Romero, Arturo, 2019. "Social construction of risk in non-conventional renewable energy: Risk perception as a function of ecosystem services in La Araucanía, Chile," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 261-270.
    19. Hirschberg, Stefan & Bauer, Christian & Burgherr, Peter & Cazzoli, Eric & Heck, Thomas & Spada, Matteo & Treyer, Karin, 2016. "Health effects of technologies for power generation: Contributions from normal operation, severe accidents and terrorist threat," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 373-387.
    20. Paraschiv, Florentina & Erni, David & Pietsch, Ralf, 2014. "The impact of renewable energies on EEX day-ahead electricity prices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 196-210.
    21. Pehnt, Martin, 2006. "Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 55-71.
    22. Oene Wiegman & Jan M. Gutteling & Bernard Cadet, 1995. "Perception of Nuclear Energy and Coal in France and the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 513-521, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Theodosios Anastasios Perifanis, 2022. "The Macroeconomic Results of Diligent Resource Revenues Management: The Norwegian Case," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Aleksandra Badora & Krzysztof Kud & Marian Woźniak, 2021. "Nuclear Energy Perception and Ecological Attitudes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Li, Wei & Paraschiv, Florentina, 2022. "Modelling the evolution of wind and solar power infeed forecasts," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    2. Wang, Fan & Wang, Jing & Gu, Jibao, 2024. "Perceived information quality, trust in government, and local acceptance of nuclear power in China," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. Bonev, Petyo & Emmenegger, Rony & Forero, Laura & Ganev, Kaloyan & Simeonova-Ganeva, Ralitsa & Söderberg, Magnus, 2024. "Nuclear waste in my backyard: Social acceptance and economic incentives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    4. Stéphane Goutte & David Guerreiro & Bilel Sanhaji & Sophie Saglio & Julien Chevallier, 2019. "International Financial Markets," Post-Print halshs-02183053, HAL.
    5. Ho, Shirley S. & Xiong, Rui & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2021. "Heuristic cues as perceptual filters: Factors influencing public support for nuclear research reactor in Singapore," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    6. Wang, Shanyong & Wang, Jing & Lin, Shoufu & Li, Jun, 2019. "Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 352-360.
    7. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Adem Öcal & Yuliya Lyamzina & Eric K. Noji & Neda Nikolić & Goran Milošević, 2021. "Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    8. Marco Cinelli & Matteo Spada & Miłosz Kadziński & Grzegorz Miebs & Peter Burgherr, 2019. "Advancing Hazard Assessment of Energy Accidents in the Natural Gas Sector with Rough Set Theory and Decision Rules," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, November.
    9. Spada, Matteo & Paraschiv, Florentina & Burgherr, Peter, 2018. "A comparison of risk measures for accidents in the energy sector and their implications on decision-making strategies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 277-288.
    10. Matteo Spada & Peter Burgherr, 2020. "Comparative Risk Assessment for Fossil Energy Chains Using Bayesian Model Averaging," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    11. Qi, Wen-Hui & Qi, Ming-Liang & Ji, Ya-Min, 2020. "The effect path of public communication on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    12. Peña, Juan Ignacio & Rodríguez, Rosa & Mayoral, Silvia, 2020. "Tail risk of electricity futures," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    13. Moahamed Younes El Bouti & Mohamed Allouch, 2018. "Analysis of 801 Work-Related Incidents in the Oil and Gas Industry That Occurred Between 2014 and 2016 in 6 Regions," Energy and Environment Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, June.
    14. Westgaard, Sjur & Fleten, Stein-Erik & Negash, Ahlmahz & Botterud, Audun & Bogaard, Katinka & Verling, Trude Haugsvaer, 2021. "Performing price scenario analysis and stress testing using quantile regression: A case study of the Californian electricity market," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    15. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    16. Xia, Dongqin & Li, Yazhou & He, Yanling & Zhang, Tingting & Wang, Yongliang & Gu, Jibao, 2019. "Exploring the role of cultural individualism and collectivism on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 208-215.
    17. Nomsa Phindile Nkosi & Johane Dikgang, 2021. "South African Attitudes About Nuclear Power: The Case of the Nuclear Energy Expansion," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 11(5), pages 138-146.
    18. Gupta, Kuhika & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Fox, Andrew S. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2021. "The future of nuclear energy in India: Evidence from a nationwide survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    19. Maciejowska, Katarzyna, 2020. "Assessing the impact of renewable energy sources on the electricity price level and variability – A quantile regression approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    20. Huisman, Ronald & Stet, Cristian, 2022. "The dependence of quantile power prices on supply from renewables," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:22:p:6074-:d:448185. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.