1 | P a g e

2014

Nuclear Cinderella An extraordinary approach to the problem of

communication, education and the

understanding of nuclear energy.

By Lucjan Pypno

2 | P a g e

Contents Introduction (Nuclear Cinderella) ........................................................................................................... 3

Part I: THE PROBLEM............................................................................................................................... 3

Communication ................................................................................................................................... 3

Does the nuclear industry have a problem with its own image? (Example from the UK market) ..... 5

The age of information and communication ...................................................................................... 5

Why do people not believe that Nuclear Energy is the safest form of energy? ................................. 6

Support? Yes – but very weak. ............................................................................................................ 7

The role of policymakers ..................................................................................................................... 7

The lost chance ................................................................................................................................... 8

South Korea - example. ....................................................................................................................... 9

Chain reaction. .................................................................................................................................... 9

A rat and a hamster. ......................................................................................................................... 10

Part II: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT ............................................................................................. 10

Why I want to focus on reputation/image? ...................................................................................... 11

How does the “first image” of nuclear power look in pop culture? ................................................. 12

What I want to achieve by a change in the “first impression”? ....................................................... 13

Benefits for the nuclear industry. ..................................................................................................... 14

Who am I and what are my goals?.................................................................................................... 15

ANNEX 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 16

3 | P a g e

An extraordinary approach to the problem of communication, education and

the understanding of nuclear energy.

Introduction (Nuclear Cinderella)

Nuclear energy is like Cinderella; despite the fact that it does a great and hard job (supplying our civilisation with clean and reliable energy), the majority of the population see it as something “dirty” (radioactive) or in the best case as a “necessary evil”. But there is good news for our Cinderella; “the prince” (in this role our civilisation) is looking to marry a “princess” (an energy source) whose foot would fit a “golden slipper” - which has been lost during the development of our industrial civilisation. The “golden slipper” however, will fit just a “princess” possessing few characteristic features; low emissions, cheap, safe, sustainable, and reliable. Does our Cinderella match the “golden slipper”? I would say yes. Unfortunately there is no magic behind the “nuclear Cinderella”. The fact that she fits the features of the “golden slipper” is not enough. She still carries a “dirty gown” in the form of the burden of her own reputation – and there is no magic spell to change it.

The nuclear industry has to take the challenge and dress “Cinderella” up into a new gown – the gown which will change the imagination of people about nuclear power. The only way to do it is to communicate about its benefits and explaining its risks using a language which will be easy to understand by laypeople. It will bring benefits for both sides. But what is also important, is that it may help to deal with the biggest challenge faced by the industry – which is to help to cut costs and create a better environment for investment in a new generation of nuclear power plants.

This challenge is a concern of the whole industry; it does not matter if we talk about water cooled reactors, small modular reactors, molten salt or fast breeding technology or any other nuclear technology ( as well as of course nuclear waste issues, uranium mining or enrichment). The gown is one and covers the whole industry.

So what should be the next step? Take off the dirty clothes (reputation/image) and put on a new gown (create a new reputation/image).

Part I: THE PROBLEM

Communication Many reports and articles concerning the future of nuclear energy highlight the important role of communication and public acceptance in creating a better environment for investment in new nuclear programs:

“Education and communication are crucial to improving understanding of the benefits of all energy technologies, including nuclear” (PUBLIC ATTITUDES TO NUCLEAR POWER by NEA/OECD 2010)

4 | P a g e

“Genuine and open public discussions of the pros and cons of nuclear energy with inclusion of stakeholders from across the spectrum of opinion are vital” (THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE UK - Birmingham Policy Commission 2012)

“Thus far policy for nuclear power has been dominated by a technocratic intent to minimise safety risk in the objective statistical sense. More important, however, for the future politics of nuclear power will be public perceptions of risk and public preferences as to who should bear such risks. This paper argues that it is proper to do more to minimise public fears concerning nuclear power. Such actions must confront the reality that nuclear power, as conventionally deployed, is extremely well matched to public fright factors. While nuclear power is not especially dangerous - it is especially frightening.” (NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE REQUIRES NUCLEAR ENLIGHTENMENT by William J Nuttall – 2007)

“...public acceptance issues are at least partly responsible for the underlying cost problem (of nuclear investment) observable in the Western world” (NUCLEAR POWER – ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE by Stephen W. Kidd -2013)

Perception by and engagement with civil society regarding nuclear applications is a challenging issue.

This has been highlighted also in the interdisciplinary study and the symposium on "Benefits and

Limitations of Nuclear Fission for a Low Carbon Economy”:

“The message is that EU decision-making in the nuclear fission area is excessively technocratic.

European citizens must be given a louder voice... the advice points to an overarching

recommendation that it is time to end the nuclear technocracy.”

The report calls for creating dialogue with the public in order to reduce fear and improve trust

between the public, industry and policy makers: “if trust in risk-managing institutions could be

increased, it would be more beneficial for public acceptance than decreasing the probability of a

serious accident”

The report also highlights that: “Euratom is not a visible entity to most Europeans, this militates

against good public dialogue on important nuclear issues.” – if Euratom wants to be the “face” of

industry in communication with laypeople, first of all it has to become visible and audible – create an

audience which would listen to his arguments.

Among 10 recommendation of the study we can find:

- Existing research associations and technology platforms related to nuclear should do more to

interact with the general public and to develop stronger links with the European energy fora,

including the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF)

- Following Fukushima, nuclear fission for energy has become a sensitive political issue in some Member States and the public at large expects its concerns to be properly addressed. Future fission research therefore needs to respond to those concerns, including new ways of engaging the public. This is the only way for European industry in the nuclear field to maintain its worldwide leading position.

The issue of acceptance and communication has been highlighted by many experts involved in the

study - see annex 1 for more details and my comments.

5 | P a g e

Does the nuclear industry have a problem with its own image? (Example

from the UK market)

I do understand that EDF is just an investor so they will invest in and promote any kind of energy production which will bring them profit. I do not doubt that they carried out research before the start of the below mentioned campaign. The aim of this example is to show “the place” of nuclear energy in the energy market, and the fact, that hitherto efforts to communicate/promote nuclear energy as a low carbon option have failed.

How can EDF convince people towards nuclear energy if they are afraid to use words “nuclear energy” in communication with public?

In 2012 EDF become the official energy supplier for the London 2012 Olympic Games. They claimed that energy supply for the event would be in 100% from “low carbon energy sources”. The company also launched a campaign (‘Feel Better Energy’), in which they offered a new tariff for individual customers. The tariff (as for the Olympic Games), guaranteed that 100% of energy will come from so called “low carbon energy sources”. The TV commercials created in order to advertise energy from “low carbon energy sources” were broadcast on many TV channels.

Let’s check how “low carbon energy sources” are represented in the energy fuel mix of the company: nuclear energy represents 69.1% of EDF energy production in the UK, with coal at 27.6% and renewables at just 3% (as for March 2012). If we take into account just “low carbon sources” we find that nuclear power represents 95% of it.

If we dig dipper in the EDF website, we can discover that the guaranteed 100% of “low carbon energy” within the Feel Better Energy tariff, in practice means 100% of nuclear energy (something EDF should be proud of as the industry leader). In the “EDF and London” press pack we find the information that in the case of energy supply for the Olympic Games, “low carbon energy” was from both renewable and nuclear sources (of which nuclear stands for 95%).

My question is: why do none of the TV commercials and other techniques of promotion and communication with the public mention or even suggest the fact that the “low carbon energy” produced by EDF is (almost entirely) from nuclear sources?

It is all just proof of how the nuclear industry does not trust its own image/reputation and how much needs to be improved in this aspect. How can it be that the biggest company within the industry is afraid to use the “name” of the industry in communication with people? The PR and marketing specialist of EDF seems to do exactly the opposite to what they should do. Instead of creating positive images of the nuclear industry, they are doing everything to hide the fact that EDF has something to do with it. They found their way to do this by hiding nuclear energy behind the slogan “low carbon energy sources”. How is EDF planning to convince people towards nuclear power if they are afraid to talk about it? What good example for others comes from the company which operates the largest civil nuclear fleet in the world? Why does EDF treats nuclear power like Cinderella among other sources of energy production?

The age of information and communication

“They (laypeople) rather rely on their trust in stakeholders when they estimate the risks and benefits of this technology, for example by looking at the stakeholders’ past behaviour. For the same reason, people use the feelings they experience when thinking of nuclear power to estimate its risks and benefits. Trust and feelings thus have indirect effects on the acceptance of nuclear power.” (Benefits

6 | P a g e

and Limitations of Nuclear Fission for a Low Carbon Economy). Trust and feelings - translated into language of communication – would be reputation and image. The nuclear industry has to understand that the energy market (just as any other market), is based on the principle of interdependence between demand and supply. Every company/enterprise on the supply side is trying to stimulate demand for its own goods/service using different types of communication/marketing/promotion. The aim of this is to create a niche in which certain product/service will prove to be essential for potential users (demand) and a key element of this is creating of a positive reputation of an enterprise/company as well as of a product/service. One of the most important parts of communication is to adapt the language of communication to potential consumers (the target group).

Why do people not believe that Nuclear Energy is the safest form of energy? “There is no doubt that most citizens do not understand the nature of nuclear energy and, despite its outstanding safety record in Europe, the very mention of the term nuclear conjures up adverse reactions in the main. This public perception cannot be ignored.” (Benefits and Limitations of Nuclear Fission for a Low Carbon Economy) On one side, we have the nuclear industry (supply) which believes that nuclear energy is the safest

source of energy production. On the other side is the public (demand) who believes the safety of

nuclear power is one of the biggest concerns and reasons to be sceptical. In other words, they do

not believe in the safety of nuclear power.

Why is this the case? What link is missing between these two groups, the nuclear industry vs. the public (supply vs. demand), on the perception of the safety of nuclear power? The answer is: COMMUNICATION How can the nuclear industry survive in the energy market if- as a supply side of the market – it cannot communicate (to find an accurate language of communication) with the public – demand side of the market?

Would Coca Cola (one of the biggest trade marks in the world) survive in the fizzy drinks market without proactive communication in the form of continuous marketing and promotion? No – this is why they spend millions on it every year. So how can the nuclear industry compete in the energy market, if it is quiet and hides from the public? We live in the age of information and communication; to become heard out there, you have to stand out, find your niche/place and show that you can be useful for people. And you have to keep reminding others about it.

Renewable energy forms have found their niche and have been promoted as the solution for CO2 emissions and global warming.

The nuclear industry has been trying to join this trend at the beginning of 21st century (this is how and when the term nuclear renaissance was born), as a clean and low carbon energy source, but has failed - at least in developed world (how many wind farms were build and how many nuclear plants in the last decade in the developed world?). What would happen if the nuclear industry had communicated/promoted itself better from the beginning of the “renaissance”?

7 | P a g e

Support? Yes – but very weak.

The UK is seen as an example of steady and relatively high (comparing to other developed nations) support for nuclear power.

However qualitative social science research shows, that many so called “supporters” of the nuclear industry have seen it: “as the lesser of two evils, a choice of last resort in the face of the threat of climate change, reflecting a resignation verging on frustration that there was no avoiding some continued dependence on the nuclear sector” (THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE UK, Birmingham Policy Commission, July 2012) – in short, it is not the kind of support on which the industry is able to build a strong position.

The results of the IPSOS – MORI survey from December 2012 show that 36% of British citizens are in favour of nuclear energy with just 18% against, however 46% did not have an opinion about the issue. The OECD/NEA report from 2010 states: “countries will only be able to make use of nuclear energy if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risk, an opinion which is not yet widely shared in the countries pooled. In the absence of dramatic events, opinion changes slowly and, in the number of countries surveyed, it has become more supportive of nuclear energy. However, a large minority of respondents holds no firm views. The attitude of this middle ground will be critical for any future developments in the role of nuclear energy”

The role of policymakers Another common issue often mentioned in different reports, is the role of policymakers, regulatory bodies and governments in creating a better environment for nuclear investment (cutting the time and costs of investment):

“The burden placed on nuclear plants by the national regulators is clearly substantial in financial terms.” (Stephen W. Kidd - NUCLEAR POWER - ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE)

“new builds have become expensive largely because of strict building standards, environmental and safety regulations, and labour costs.” (HOW TO MAKE NUCLEAR CHEAP - The Breakthrough Institute - July 2013)

“If governments wish to expand the use of nuclear energy, an ongoing relationship between policymakers, the nuclear industry and society that develops knowledge building and public involvement will become increasingly important. This communication must be open, honest and balanced” (PUBLIC ATTITUDES TO NUCLEAR POWER by NEA/OECD 2010)

My question is; who is behind policymakers, the regulatory bodies and the national governments, who do they represent and who has the power to influence them?

The answer I expect is – the public. In democratic countries, policymakers, regulatory bodies, states/nationals governments represent the public and the public have the power to influence them.

The chart below shows how nuclear industry can use the public to influence policymakers, regulatory bodies and governments. The chart is a result of my cooperation with Mr Stephen W. Kidd of East Cliff Consulting (ex Deputy Director General of World Nuclear Association), who is an economist specialising in costs of nuclear investment.

8 | P a g e

The ideas which I would like to present are represented in the chart as “proactive communication”.

In order to cut costs of nuclear investment, governments together with regulatory bodies are essential to creating a better environment for nuclear investment. And the best what they can do, is to simplify the legislative process and bureaucracy in order to shorten the time of investment (time is money). Politics and regulatory bodies represent the public. The public has the potential to persuade politics/governments to create a better environment for nuclear industry. So the question is how to push the public to be in favour of the nuclear industry. Who has to do it is obvious: it has to be an industry initiative. This is where comes into play proactive communication and my project as the tool which can be use by the industry to influence public and start this process of changes. Steve also suggested adding to the chart the financial sector, which he explained in correspondence with me as “better public acceptance could mean a lower rate of interest on funds and generally easier financing” – but again it has to be accomplished via the political process.

The lost chance “Since about 2001 there has been much talk about an imminent nuclear revival or "renaissance" which implies that the nuclear industry has been dormant or in decline for some time” (World Nuclear Association) at least in the western world. Now we have 2014. How could we assess these 13 years of “renaissance” of nuclear power in the western world? Instead of going ahead, the industry is stuck in bureaucracy and extremely long legislation processes; “Most reactors today are built in under five years (first concrete to first power), with four years being state of the art and three years being the aim with modular prefabrication. Several years are required for e preliminary approvals before construction.”(WNA) – unfortunately this statement has only sense if we add: excluding developed nations. The best example is to compare three EPR projects: Finland, France

Nuclear new build

Regulatory bodies Governments/politics

Nuclear industry Public acceptance

Financial sector

Proactive

communication

9 | P a g e

and China. Olkiluoto-3 will take at least 11 years, Flamanville-3 at least 9 years, Taishan 1 only about 5 years (if connected to the grid in 2014).

And we are not talking about building something that has never been built before – we are talking about a technology which has 60 years of history. “It is noteworthy that in the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days. These included 47 in USA, 42 in France and 18 in Japan.” (WNA) Can anyone image something like that in the Western world today?

The industry has lost the chance to “sell” itself as the solution for challenges related with global warming and other environmental issue, by not being proactive enough in the field of communication with people (it has not managed to translate communication into “a language” easy to understand by the public) . My project is more focused on highlighting the role of the industry as solution for energy security challenges and the energy mix but also takes into account issues related with the natural environment and sustainable development.

I often compare energy system to the circulatory system of the human body. Just as the circulatory system is responsible for the supply of all kinds of different vitamins, minerals, elements to our body in order to keep it working, strong and, healthy, the national energy system supplies power to our homes, factories, hospitals and the whole economy. Energy is the fundamental of existence to our civilisation – I think people forget about it, they get used to the fact that energy is in the form of electricity and is everywhere and at any time they may need it.

South Korea - example. The only democratic country (on western standards) which has seemed to be able to fully take advantage of the “renaissance” time of the nuclear industry is South Korea. Just between 2004 and 2012, 5 new reactors started operation and recently there are 5 new ones under construction plus the 4 Korean reactors to be built in UAE. In 1992, the Korean Nuclear Energy Promotion Agency (KONEPA) “was established to promote a proper understanding of the peaceful use of nuclear energy among the public”. Unfortunately there is just basic information about the organization on their website in English. However even without details you can clearly see that the organization is proactive in communication with the public, recognising the importance of public acceptance for the nuclear industry. In 2010 71% of Koreans considered nuclear power safe - it is now down now to 34.8%, due no doubt to the Fukushima influence and corruption scandals within industry (Reuters 07/01/13). In 2005 the site chosen for construction of low and intermediate-level wastes (LILW) had 90% of support among local communities (WNA).

Chain reaction. Just as a nuclear power plant needs a chain reaction to produce energy, the industry needs a chain reaction in the field of communication with public, which will result in better understanding, higher support and creating better environment for the investment in the nuclear industry.

Nowadays the nuclear industry is struggling in the race to be the “energy of the future”, which is informed by the results of the study: Transforming the UK Energy System: Public Values, Attitudes and Acceptability; Parkhill, K.A., Demski, C., Butler, C., Spence, A. and Pidgeon,N. (2013).

The report “brings together the findings from two in-depth phases of research carried out over thirty months; a series of six in-depth deliberative workshops with members of the public held across England, Scotland and Wales; and a nationally representative survey of 2,441 members of the public“. The summary of the research shows that “the public favours changes that are: energy efficient rather than wasteful; protect the environment and nature; are reliable, accessible and safe; allow consumers a certain amount of autonomy and power; are socially just and fair; improve on what has gone before; score well in terms of quality and performance; and, fit with a long-term,

10 | P a g e

sustainable trajectory, rather than being just a short-term fix.” – Despite the fact that the nuclear industry would find the above statement as the reflection of this what nuclear power has to offer to public, public has different image of nuclear power (“nuclear is seen as a temporary ‘stop-gap’ whilst renewable energy technologies are developed and deployed”) and not many laypeople see nuclear power as the source of above mentioned benefits (more respondents were against -39% than pro-nuclear 33%). The report clearly shows a “place” of nuclear energy among other sources of energy but it is far from where the industry would like to be. Nuclear is losing not just with renewable sources but even with carbon capture and storage - as the future source of energy. In the “2050 energy pathway” created by the respondents, nuclear power is one of the least important options.

A rat and a hamster. Anecdote: A rat met a hamster and asked him “how it is that although we are very similar as animals, people when see me do everything to kill me, but when they see you, they want to caress you and play with you?” “Dear friend” – said the hamster – “your problem is fatal public relations”.

I see the nuclear industry as the rat and the chemical industry as the hamster. Both can be associated with weapon of mass destruction (atomic bomb vs chemical weapon) both had a record of deadly accidents (Chernobyl disaster vs Bhopal disaster) – but it is the nuclear industry which is associated with so many negative emotions, while the chemical industry is treated just as any other industry. Is the answer “fatal public relations”? Why is it? Does it mean that knowledge about chemistry as a field of science, among the general public, is better than about nuclear physic? I doubt it. But definitely chemistry is seen as something useful, something what we need, something essential - something people are emotionally related to. Chemistry is part of our everyday life (can we image our life without all the chemicals we keep in our houses?). This is what the nuclear industry should do – to find a niche in which will manage to prove that is essential for our civilisation.

Part II: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT

I would like to introduce myself as Mr Lucjan Pypno, an enthusiast of Nuclear Energy and Sustainable

Development; I have a degree based on sustainable development from the United Kingdom and a

degree in Public Relations gained in my home country of Poland.

My idea for a new approach is different and unique because it does not concentrate on any technical

or technological aspects or scientific knowledge related to nuclear power. Instead of facts and

figures, my project is focused on the emotional side of public perception of nuclear energy and their

connection with environmental or economic issues. I assume that a successful campaign regarding

communication and education about nuclear power/energy should not begin from an effort to teach

people nuclear physics, but from an effort to improve the reputation of nuclear energy and its “first

image”, bringing attention to the role NP has in the future of our civilisation. So give a new “face” to

nuclear power – which will be intriguing, colourful and joyful. The image of mushroom clouds and

deadly radioactivity, as synonyms of nuclear power, is as much the result of lack of knowledge as it is

result of negative emotions and fear. And there are strong correlations between both; from one

point of view, the calming down of negative emotions will let people look at the issue in a rational

way (adapt more knowledge), from the other point of view increasing knowledge is one of the ways

11 | P a g e

to calm down negative emotions. So cooperation between the diffusion of knowledge and calming

down of negative emotions is essential.

My approach is focused strictly on the reputation and the “first image” (impression, emotion) when

only the word “nuclear” is mentioned. The mission is to make the “first image” more friendly,

interesting and adoptable when it comes up against a fear-based, anti-nuclear strategy implemented

by nuclear opponents. I have a plan on how to change the “face” of nuclear energy from the

traditional death-bearing mushroom cloud and radioactive mutating substances, to something

much more user friendly - thereby increasing the will and acceptance of the average person.

From the point of view of psychology I want to focus on the affect heuristic. This “is a heuristic (a

mental shortcut that allows people to make decisions and solve problems quickly and efficiently) in

which current emotion—fear, pleasure, surprise, etc.—influences decisions. In other words, it is a

type of heuristic in which emotional response, or "affect" in psychological terms, plays a lead role. It

is a subconscious process that shortens the decision-making process and allows people to function

without having to complete an extensive search for information. It is shorter in duration than a

mood, occurring rapidly and involuntarily in response to a stimulus. Reading the words "lung cancer"

usually generates an affect of dread, while reading the words "mother's love" usually generates a

feeling of affection and comfort. The affect heuristic is typically used while judging the risks and

benefits of something, depending on the positive or negative feelings that people associate with a

stimulus. It is the equivalent of "going with your gut". If their feelings towards an activity are positive,

then people are more likely to judge the risks as low and the benefits high. On the other hand, if their

feelings towards an activity are negative, they are more likely to perceive the risks as high and

benefits low”. (Finucane, M.L.; Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S.M. (January 2000). "The Affect

Heuristic in Judgment of Risks and Benefits". Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13 (1): 1–17)

Why I want to focus on reputation/image?

According to the Chartered Institute of Public Relations:

“Every organisation, no matter how large or small, ultimately depends on its reputation for survival and success. Customers, suppliers, employees, investors, journalists and regulators can have a powerful impact. They all have an opinion about the organisations they come into contact with - whether good or bad, right or wrong. These perceptions will drive their decisions about whether they want to work with, shop with and support these organisations.”

“In today's competitive market, reputation can be a company's biggest asset – the thing that makes you stand out from the crowd and gives you a competitive edge. Effective PR can help manage reputation by communicating and building good relationships with all organisation stakeholders.”

The nuclear industry does not exist for its own sake and production of energy is not art for art’s sake: in a free market economy consumers decide from what source they want to buy products (energy in this case) and the reputation of an industry place a key role in creating demand for its products.

12 | P a g e

How does the “first image” of nuclear power look in pop culture? Most of people relay upon knowledge depicted in popular movies, TV series, computer games and

books. However the aim of them is to create sensation and they do not care about scientific facts –

which basically are not as exciting as authors’ imaginations and fiction.

For many people nuclear power is associated with the Chernobyl disaster or more recently the Fukushima tragedy; it is a nuclear weapon, a mushroom cloud created by an atomic explosion, toxic waste which turns everything into monsters or just brings death. These are the images which often come to a mind when only the word “nuclear” is mentioned.

All of these images are unfortunately well nursed in popular culture: Can anyone give me a title of a film in which “nuclear power” plays a positive role (ok maybe ”Armageddon”)? How many times have you seen in a movie a mad nuclear scientist trying to sell uranium or cooperating with terrorists? How many times has the famous James Bond chased a nuclear scientist who was on the “bad side”? How often has an explosion in a cartoon movie for children had an image of a mushroom cloud? In popular culture atomic energy and nuclear physics becomes a symbol of a scientific madness. In how many horror movies, has toxic nuclear waste turned people into monsters?- For everyone interested in the image of nuclear power in popular culture I would like to recommend the publications of Alain Michel (Independent consultant). Alain Michel specialised in communication on socio-political issues which have technical backgrounds, mainly nuclear and renewable energies that were his main activities during his engineering career. And for French speakers his book “Dompter le dragon nucléaire ?: Réalités, fantasmes et motions dans la culture populaire”

This is how the bad reputation of nuclear physic is nursed and its “first image” perverted. What makes this job easier is the good background for fear-based propaganda of opponents.

Unfortunately the nuclear industry has left its own reputation in the hands of fiction and sensation

driven popular culture. It has caused that the image/reputation of the industry is full of irrationality

and fear based stereotypes - what leads to “confirmation bias” during an effort to communicate

about nuclear energy. Peoples’ behaviours are driven by emotions rather than rationality, resulting

in confirmation bias – selection of the facts which confirm existing point of view, ignoring facts which

might be against our view. Fast emotional reactions navigate us across the sea of information we are

drowning in.

“Our critical mind is always looking for evidence to support our beliefs. The stronger the emotion, the

stronger the belief, and the greater the tendency is to seek out supporting evidence. We are not

rational. We are rationalizers”. - Douglas Van Praet (the author of: “Unconscious Branding: How

Neuroscience Can Empower (and Inspire) Marketing”)

In other words if you want to sell “facts” you have to first take control over emotions – especially in

the case were emotions are very strong – like the issues in the field of nuclear power.

I propose to use tools and measures well known in pop culture in order to regain control over the

industry reputation/image – fight fire with fire. The nuclear industry has a few strong points (low

emissions, cheap, safe, sustainable, reliable) but so far has not found the way to successfully

communicate about them with the public.

13 | P a g e

What I want to achieve by a change in the “first impression”?

By changing the” first impression” of nuclear energy, I want to deafen bad emotion and negative connotation, with which nuclear energy is easy associated, and let people look at the topic in a rational way, provoke them to gain a basic knowledge about the peaceful use of nuclear energy and encourage them to hear out scientific facts. To show an important role NE has to play in securing energy safety as well as in a sustainable community. Why do I think this is the most important issue? Calming the controversy which is around nuclear energy will open more people towards what we have to say, towards listing arguments about the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Separate nuclear power from nuclear weapon – to build a clear boundary between both. The technology itself cannot be bad. Good or bad can be the way technology is used by people. In this case nuclear technology has an important role to play in such a vital thing for our civilisation as energy security and climate change.

Encourage people to gain basic knowledge about the peaceful use of nuclear energy – by showing a different more friendly, more achievable “face” of NP. Quote the Nobel Prize winner in physics and chemistry Marie Curie-Sklodowska “Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood.”

I want to create a new symbol which will represent the industry in peoples mind replacing all the negative connotation – a guide whose the role will be to introduce and translate the world of nuclear power to an average person.

The old symbols....

http://www.123rf.com/photo_9462795_set--nuclear-energy.html

14 | P a g e

...replace by a new symbol (sample – my own concept)

Many reports has shown that support for nuclear energy is increased if given the chance to explain the benefits of nuclear power - especially from the point of view of energy security and climate change: “Depending on how nuclear power is framed, public acceptability can increase (e.g. if framed as tackling climate change and energy security) but it can also decrease (e.g. when placed in contrast with renewables)”- (Transforming the UK Energy System: Public Values, Attitudes and Acceptability- 2013). A model showing dependence between benefits and risk perception and their impact on public acceptance of nuclear energy has been created by team of social scientist of ETH Zurich, Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), and published in the work titled: “Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model” - Vivianne H.M. Visschers, Carmen Keller, Michael Siegrist.

But before you will be able to talk about the advantages of nuclear energy, you have to bring down the barrier in the form of negative image and reputation – it is the only way to have listeners. If you do not have an audience, any communication effort is pointless. One of the basic problems of the industry is not the lack of information (there are many websites explaining the details of energy production from a nuclear power plant) but lack of good ideas on how to bring people’s attention to this information (lack of audience) – communication, communication, communication.

Benefits for the nuclear industry. (See also the chart in the “part I” of the publication)

The gathering of more supporters among the public may increase economic security and reduce the cost and risk of the project (important for stakeholders and potential investors), bring more investors to the project, improve the position of the nuclear project as a strategic project and improve the position in negotiations with governments.

Economic security, costs, investors, stakeholders, government, politic, public support – all those factors influence each other, driving the project and the whole industry.

Sustainable

Reliable

Cheap Safe

Clean

Affordable

15 | P a g e

From the other point of view, increasing interest and acceptance in nuclear power among public, will increase competition on the nuclear job market and will bring more talented people to this sector. The nuclear sector won’t be treated any more as a life threatening sector, but as a very important sector which will play an important role in coping with many challenges which our civilisation has to face in the future: energy security, Co2 emission, SD, energy prices.

Who am I and what are my goals?

I possess a degree in both Public Relations (gained in Poland) and Sustainable Development (gained in the UK) – and this is how I became interested in the issues related with the energy security and especially the role of nuclear energy in the sustainable world.

Since March 2012 I have been monitoring information-education campaign concerned nuclear energy in my home country – Poland. The result of my work has been published in the report [http://atomowa-niekompetencja.blog.pl/raport/ (polish language)], which simultaneously, is the reply to my correspondence with the Ministry of Economy of Poland. The report criticizes the hitherto campaign on many levels but my major allegation concerns the lack of an idea - “how to bring people’s attention to the campaign.”

And this is how, where and when my concept of focusing on the “first impression” of nuclear energy was born.

The aim of the above publication is to introduce myself and present background information about my project as well as to presents arguments and answer the question; why the industry should finish with technocracy and shake hands with laypeople?

I did not say much HOW I WANT TO DO IT – but I can guarantee that I am a volcano of ideas regarding improvement of image and reputation of the nuclear industry. The whole project is my private initiative and I do not work and I have never been working for the nuclear industry - but this is my aim. I am looking for people/institution/companies interested in the idea of improving public perception and acceptance of nuclear power (as research or commercial project) – give our Nuclear Cinderella a chance to presents her full values at the ball where the “prince” (our civilisation) will choose partners in sustainable low carbon energy future.

If you have found the above statement interesting and would like to be acquainted with further details of it, then please let me know. I look forward to hearing from you.

l.pypno@gmail.com

uk.linkedin.com/pub/lucjan-pypno/39/b85/aa/

Yours faithfully

Lucjan Pypno BA (Hons)

16 | P a g e

ANNEX 1 The issue of acceptance and communication mentioned by experts involved in the study: “Benefits

and Limitations of Nuclear Fission for a Low Carbon Economy”:

Vivianne Visschers

Institute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

“Research has shown that laypeople’s acceptance of nuclear power mainly depends upon the amount

of economic benefit (e.g. a secure energy supply) they perceive in this energy source. Perceived risks

(e.g. of an accident) have a much smaller influence on acceptance than perceived benefits.” The

solution seems to be very easy; to tell people about benefits of nuclear power (safe, reliable, low

emission, sustainable) as source of energy and the industry will be able to flourish. Reality in the EU

for nuclear industry looks however different. The reason for it is that the industry has not found yet

a successful way of communication of its benefits to people. “In theory, the benefits and risks people

see in nuclear power should be determined by their knowledge about this technology. However, most

lay people do not know much about nuclear power”. However if you want to teach someone about

something, you need to become “visible and audible” – create an audience which will be interested

in your opinion and then spread the knowledge on others. “They rather rely on their trust in

stakeholders when they estimate the risks and benefits of this technology, for example by looking at

the stakeholders’ past behaviour. For the same reason, people use the feelings they experience when

thinking of nuclear power to estimate its risks and benefits. Trust and feelings thus have indirect

effects on the acceptance of nuclear power”. Trust and feelings - translated into language of

communication – would be: reputation and image (key elements of my project). “Thus, in order to

increase people’s acceptance of nuclear power, it is advisable to focus more on the technology’s

benefits for the economy when communicating with the public than to try to change people’s fear or

their risk perception.” My project fulfils both aspect of this advise; I am “focusing on benefits” when I

am saying “This is what nuclear industry should do – to find a niche in which will manage to prove

that is essential for our civilisation”, pointing out at energy security as possible “niche”.

Simultaneously I am trying to calm down bad emotions and negative connotations (fear) with whom

nuclear energy is easy associated with, by creating new image, improving reputation and trust.

From my point of view the both aspects (knowledge and fear) are equally important “The image of

mushroom clouds and deadly radioactivity, as synonyms of nuclear power, is as much result of lack

of knowledge as it is result of negative emotions and fear. And there are strong correlations

between both; from one point of view calming down of negative emotions will let people to look at

the issue in rational way (adapt more knowledge), from the other point of view increasing

knowledge is one of the ways to calm down negative emotions. So cooperation between diffusing of

knowledge and calming down of negative emotions is essential.”

17 | P a g e

William Nuttall

Professor of energy at The Open University

“The European publics are not simply anti-nuclear or pro-nuclear. Individual opinions are contingent

perceptions of risks and benefits and heavily influenced by considerations of trust. Trust-building

would benefit from a broadening of the Euratom research portfolio” (including issue of image and

reputation of the industry) “and efforts to increase public participation” (via communication) “in

both nuclear fission research and energy policy decision making. It is time to end the EU nuclear

technocracy“(let people feel that they are part of decision making – translate issues into language

easy to understand)

Francis Chateauraynaud

Group for Pragmatic and Reflexive Sociology, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, France

Soraya Boudia

Laboratoire Techniques, Territoires et Sociétés, Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, France

Markku Lehtonen

Sussex Energy Group, University of Sussex, UK and Institute for Research and Innovation in Society,

Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, France

“Even though the notion of public perception is, as such, contestable (notably in view of the

heterogeneity and multiplicity of the public), it is rather safe to say that Euratom is not well known to

ordinary people. It has little visibility outside the circles of experts and is poorly known even among

the protagonists on either side of the disputes over nuclear power and its future”. It could actually be

an advantage - new unknown representative of the industry has no reputation is neutral. IAEA for

example is – in my opinion - very strongly associated with the topic of nuclear weapon proliferation.

Euratom – if correctly guided – my become a mediator between the industry and public. “Technical

experts seldom seem to participate in discussion and debate and the nuclear world, including nuclear

research, still seems to be characterised by opacity”. Sources of knowledge about nuclear power is

many (every organization and every company within the industry has a section which aiming to

explain peaceful use of nuclear power) but the real challenge for the industry is not to create

another source of information but to bring people’s attention to these information and deliver them

(information) in a language easy to understand.

“The main challenge therefore is not communication about uncertainties” (language of uncertainties

is very complicated), “but rather the need to develop a better understanding of what is at stake”

(using language of emotion ) “in the debates concerning uncertainties and to take seriously the

arguments that go against the dominant views”.

Ortwin Renn and Piet Sellke

Institute of Social Sciences, University of Stuttgart, Germany and Dialogic Institute for

Communication and Cooperation Research, Germany

“From normative as well as a practical viewpoint, implementing a less-accepted technology produces

more costs in terms of public confidence and political acceptability than relying on highly-supported

technologies”.(see the chart showing relations between public acceptance and cost of nuclear new

18 | P a g e

build. Costs are the biggest headache from the point of view of investors). “The main component of

public acceptance is, however, trust in the management and control, not trust in the technology

itself”. I do agree - people do not have known the technology very well, they have to trust the

people who managing it. “If trust in risk-managing institutions could be increased, it would be more

beneficial for public acceptance than decreasing the probability of a serious accident.” Despite the

fact that the industry has made impressive step forward to reduce “probability of a serious accident”

the trust is still rather low. The key element of building trust is right communication. Recently, even

among these who accept nuclear technology, the industry is not seen as a solution for problems of

energy security, or decarbonisation, but rather as temporary step in development better solution in

the form of renewable energy sources. Nuclear energy exists but is overshadowed and its role is

undermined by other sources of energy.