INTRODUCTION
No issue continues to hinder nuclear energy expansion in the United States as
pervasively as public opinion. Indeed, the bleak reality of the U.S. nuclear industry's
waning street credibility is that nuclear energy's slipping favorability figures have
proven woefully difficult to rectify via traditional means. Underdeveloped—
albeit well-intentioned—non-governmental activism to soften public perception of
nuclear energy has proven all but futile, while seemingly unapologetic governmental
apathy has proved somewhat dangerous given nuclear energy's uniquely stubborn
relationship with partisan obscurity.
Therefore, in order to usher in a vibrant new era of nuclear regeneration, it
will become crucial for the industry to reform the way it communicates to the public
regarding nuclear energy. Further, nuclear energy advocates must seek to develop a
new bouquet of partnerships with progressive, cutting-edge collaborators who are
equipped to inject fresh ideas into the industry. But in order to brighten acceptance
for nuclear energy and prime the pump for innovative nuclear energy technology
development, we must first build public trust by understanding who objects to
nuclear energy and to what extent the needle can be shifted.
Over the past several decades, research and public opinion polling have
unearthed myriad patterns pertaining to the public's views toward nuclear energy
when used as a source of electricity in the United States. Dating back to the 1970s,
research has sought to discern why some support nuclear energy more earnestly
than others and has attempted to differentiate that support based on five key
variables: gender, age, race, education, and political ideology. In this paper, we seek
to provide insights into that research as it pertains to gender in order to shed light
on patterns that may have manifested throughout time.
While external issues and anomalies—such as plant accidents—have
undoubtedly played key roles in assisting dwindling public favorability figures,
research also shows clear divergences from accepted norms. In order to then better
craft solutions to pave the way for a nuclear renaissance, a concise longitudinal
assessment of the research must be administered in order for nuclear advocates to
craft messaging which, in turn, may serve to soften the tone of harsh public critique
that has unjustly diminished the chances of nuclear expansion in the United States,
and beyond.
Comments