Nuclear Energy Decline vs. Climate Change: A Qualitative Analysis

Introduction and Background

Global climate change is one of the most pressing issues of the 21st century, attracting considerable attention from governments, policymakers, environmentalists, industry experts, and the public. This problem is driven by increased emissions of greenhouse gases from conventional energy sources. One potential solution is nuclear energy — the energy contained in the core or nucleus of an atom. Nuclear energy has the potential to resolve global climate change in a sustainable manner, as demonstrated by existing research. However, the share of nuclear energy in the global energy mix continues to decline at precisely the time when climate change indicates an increased need for it. The phenomenon of decreased nuclear energy usage is therefore an issue that must be critically examined.

Nuclear energy was first harnessed for power in 1954 at the Obninsk scientific city, approximately 110 km outside Moscow (Josephson, 2000, p. 2). At the time, nuclear power was viewed as the energy of the future. Harnessing the power of the atom was thought to provide a stable, reliable energy source going forward. Even then, it was recognized that fossil fuels were not going to be sustainable in the long run. The use of atomic weapons at the end of the Second World War highlighted the value of harnessing the atom — nuclear energy had proven essential in war, and its potential to meet civilian energy needs was clear. The most technologically advanced societies of that era, the United States and the USSR, led development of nuclear technology, but they were soon joined by a number of other nations.

Nuclear energy is derived from nuclear reactions, which are used to produce heat that is most commonly used in steam turbines to generate electricity, particularly in nuclear power stations. According to Remo (2015), nuclear energy — utilized in both weapons and electricity generation — has the probability of both destroying life and saving lives on Earth (p. 38). The likelihood of effective use of nuclear energy to save lives, alongside the potential for catastrophic thermonuclear war, has contributed to intense debate and controversy surrounding this energy source.

Today, nuclear energy provides for roughly 10% of the world's energy needs. There are reactors in 31 countries, totaling 427 reactors as of 2013 (Schneider et al., 2013). That is seventeen fewer reactors than there were in 2002, and the installed capacity of the industry is at 364 GWe, down from 375 GWe in 2002. The nuclear power industry is thus in decline. While some of this can be attributed to the Fukushima disaster, which took much of Japan's capacity offline, the fact that nuclear energy is not growing is perplexing given what is known about climate change. Since 2002, the world's collective knowledge of climate change has increased substantially. Many nations made commitments to reduce carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol (UN FCC, 2014).

Yet despite these commitments, there has been very little new investment in nuclear power. Total capacity has declined as noted above, and given that overall energy production capacity has likely increased during this period, the market share for nuclear power has declined significantly. Three-quarters of the decline came from Japan, but the top five other nuclear power generators also decreased their output (Schneider et al., 2013). In 1993, nuclear power peaked at 17% of total global energy production; it now sits at approximately 10% (World Energy Resources, 2013, p. 7). With no major new build programs, the average age of the world's nuclear reactors is 28 years, with over 190 units having operated for more than 30 years, and 44 units having run for over 40 years (World Energy Resources, 2013, p. 7). There is some new construction in fourteen countries, with the UAE being a new entrant to the nuclear power club. Many delays have stalled progress in potential new member nations, particularly in the developing world (World Energy Resources, 2013, p. 7).

While nuclear energy has the potential to resolve global climate change, its share in the global energy mix continues to decline. It is paradoxical that the world continues to rely on conventional energy sources — which emit greenhouse gases that cause climate change — while neglecting nuclear energy, which could help resolve the problem. Therefore, the phenomenon of decreased nuclear energy usage is an important issue to examine.

Actinide — a class of elements on the periodic table; many are by-products of nuclear fission and are reprocessed back into fuel.

Climate Change — the long-term, substantial change in the Earth's climate brought about by an increase in atmospheric temperature.

Content Analysis — a technique for summarizing any kind of content using various aspects to allow for more objective evaluation, rather than making comparisons based on the researcher's perceptions.

Fukushima — a Japanese nuclear power complex. When a strong earthquake struck off the coast of Japan on March 11, 2011, it damaged three reactors at the Fukushima I facility, leading to a meltdown. As of the time of writing, Fukushima has yet to be restarted, and the Japanese government has long-run plans to phase out the facility.

Global Warming — the recent and continuing increase in average global temperature near the surface of the Earth.

GWe — Gigawatt electrical; a measure of power generation capacity.

Half-life — the time it takes a radioactive substance to lose half of its radioactivity. Nuclear waste material half-lives range from 1,000 years to 1 million years, making safe storage especially challenging.

Nuclear Energy — the energy in the core or nucleus of an atom, a small unit that contributes to all matter in the universe.

Nuclear Holocaust — a potential total annihilation of all life on Earth using nuclear weapons.

(Nuclear) Meltdown — typically refers to core damage from overheating, in which at least one nuclear element in a reactor exceeds its melting point. The result is a threat to the stability of the entire system, and radiation poisoning of nearby areas is a known risk.

Pyrochlore — a chemical used to treat plutonium prior to disposal.

Radioactive Ash — one of the hazardous by-products of nuclear energy production.

Reprocessing — a method of handling nuclear waste by taking spent nuclear fuel and applying it to other uses, sometimes weapons but not always.

Sustainability — the ability to endure while remaining diverse and productive for a long period of time.

Sustainability Aspects — environmental, social, cultural, and economic factors important for sustainability.

Sustainability Considerations — principles and practices that contribute to cost-effective operations.

To Vitrify — a technique that involves converting a liquid into a glass-like substance.

The development of nuclear power plants has stalled in many developing nations. Similarly, many would-be nuclear powers — including Bangladesh, Belarus, Jordan, Lithuania, Poland, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam — have had difficulty getting reactors built (Schneider et al., 2013, p. 7). In established nuclear power countries, there is a lack of investment in adding new capacity; where new construction does occur, it is typically to replace aging facilities.

Problem Statement and Research Framework

Given the decline in development of nuclear power reactors, the world continues to rely on conventional energy sources to meet global energy needs, exacerbating global climate change. Consequently, environmentalists, policymakers, and governments continue to search for a sustainable source of power that will meet global energy needs while addressing climate change. Research demonstrates that nuclear energy has the potential to resolve global climate change and meet current energy needs (Sailor et al., 2000). However, nuclear energy usage continues to decline while climate change indicates an increased need for it (Dunlap, Kraft & Rosa, 2013; Schwarz & Cochran, 2012).

The problem to be examined in this qualitative content analysis is therefore the decline in nuclear energy usage despite its capability to resolve global climate change and meet energy needs. The opportunity presented by the current situation is to determine the factors — through qualitative content analysis — that are constraining the growth of the nuclear power industry.

The purpose of this proposed qualitative research study is to explore the phenomenon of decreased usage of nuclear energy despite its potential to solve global warming and climate change. The researcher will explore, through qualitative analysis, the various issues that have characterized the recent decrease in nuclear energy usage, in order to gain insights on sustainability aspects and considerations that might support a reversal of this trend and contribute to the industry's resurgence. The purpose will be achieved by examining what contributes to decreased nuclear energy usage when global warming and climate change indicate an increased need for nuclear power (Remo, 2015).

The research question guiding this qualitative content analysis is: "Why is nuclear energy usage decreasing while it has the potential to solve climate change?"

The qualitative content analysis process will entail identifying themes and patterns in existing literature on the decreased usage of nuclear energy. Once secondary sources have been identified through restricted inclusion criteria, the researcher will utilize NVivo software to determine themes and patterns on decreased nuclear energy usage. These themes and patterns will be used to draw conclusions on what contributes to this trend and how it can be reversed.

The proposition for this qualitative study is that nuclear energy is a sustainable source of energy that meets existing energy needs across the globe while ensuring environmental stability. This proposition emerges from the fact that current energy sources contribute to numerous environmental impacts that lead to global warming, being characterized by increased emissions of greenhouse gases. Despite the decreased usage of nuclear energy, existing studies indicate that it is a sustainable energy source with the capability of addressing global climate change, since it has minimal environmental impacts. Therefore, the qualitative study is guided by the proposition that nuclear energy is a sustainable source of energy capable of meeting existing energy needs throughout the world while enhancing environmental stability.

The proposed qualitative analysis will address the research question through a pragmatic lens while aiming to provide valuable information to the industry and to decision makers with respect to nuclear energy policy. The first basic premise is that nuclear energy is generally a viable form of energy, having been demonstrated as such for the past sixty years (Sailor et al., 2000; Schwarz & Cochran, 2012; Dunlap, Kraft & Rosa, 2013). While there have been a handful of major disasters, other energy fields have also experienced major disasters. The occurrence of disasters in the nuclear power industry does not necessarily imply that nuclear power is not a viable energy source. Something like the Deepwater Horizon disaster does not appear to have significantly affected public perception of fossil fuel consumption, yet Fukushima appears to have affected public perception of nuclear power (Wittneben, 2012). This is part of the lens through which this issue will be examined.

It should be noted that the author has no commercial stake in nuclear power or any other form of energy. Nuclear power entered public consciousness most dramatically at Hiroshima, and fears about nuclear power have had a significant influence on popular culture ever since. Yet nuclear power is actually relatively benign in terms of how many people it has actually harmed in its use as a civilian energy source (Wittneben, 2012). The apparent linking of civilian nuclear energy with the concept of nuclear holocaust has an interesting effect on energy policy, and that connection is one of the underlying motivators behind this paper.

Public policy choices are assumed to be driven by the needs of the public (Wolsink, 2010). While this is not always the case in practice — the general public often has minimal influence on policy decisions, especially in areas with intensive corporate lobbying — the basic view of democratic political systems is that their outcomes may or may not reflect the wishes of the people who live and vote within them. There will be points in this proposal where democratic and nondemocratic nations are separated in discussing nuclear policy, based on the belief that democratic nations set policy in greater alignment with public consideration.

A final theoretical perspective is that marketing is, to some extent, part of the issue for nuclear power (Nivola, 2004). Issues of public perception in a knowledge vacuum have a marketing dimension. The same concepts of branding and influencing public opinion in order to increase market share or receive a more favorable political environment are found in marketing. The author has a business and management background, and one underlying theoretical perspective is that the desire to increase the share of the energy market for nuclear power can be examined as a management problem.

The researcher has chosen a qualitative content analysis because the phenomenon under investigation is explanatory in nature and requires comprehensive evaluation of existing literature. The researcher needs to identify themes and patterns relating to the phenomenon and draw conclusions from them. A qualitative content analysis is the most suitable research methodology because it will enable identification of themes and patterns in the numerous studies on the decline of nuclear energy.

The researcher holds a general assumption that nuclear energy is safe and effective. This report is intended to be neutral and non-judgmental, but where nuclear power is concerned there is seldom a lack of opinion. Most people seem to have formed a view about the safety and desirability of nuclear power; in this case, the author is generally in favor of nuclear power. This bias is considered minor and is not believed to have influenced the outcome of the research, but it is worth acknowledging. It is a logical fallacy to assume that because someone has admitted a preconception, everything they write on the subject is therefore invalidated.

The assumption about the nature of democratic societies was stated above. This assumption is rooted in a basic belief that democracy, in its purest form, should reflect the wishes of the people. The reality is that this ideal is never perfectly achieved. Voters choose their candidates on a wide range of criteria, and in most instances a candidate's stance on nuclear power is not going to be a major deciding factor. This is why public perception is considered relevant to policy-making, given the link between public attitudes and energy policy.

A further assumption underlies this study: the researcher assumes, based on admittedly imperfect science, that there are no major long-term issues with nuclear power. Some waste created by nuclear power has a half-life of 1,000 years, while some other waste has a half-life of a million years (Alic, 2012). Nuclear power is risky, and some of the risks are entirely unknown at present. Should some of these risks bring about a catastrophe, the balance of the decision with respect to nuclear power could shift substantially. This is of particular importance when discussing nuclear power as a means of mitigating climate change. It should be kept in mind that there is an underlying bias towards the view that there are no major unknown risks associated with nuclear power, or that if there are, they are less catastrophic than the known risks associated with global climate change.

The final assumption is that the researcher approaches this paper from a managerial perspective. Other perspectives could frame this paper equally well — a political science perspective, a scientific one, or an international relations perspective (Wolsink, 2007). As a doctoral candidate in management, the author's focal point is management. This means a focus on the strategic elements of the issue, identifying problems with an eye toward developing solutions. This perspective will inform some of the approaches taken, and the methodology will be limited to approaches that do not overstretch the author's capabilities with respect to the science of nuclear power, energy, or nuclear waste.

Most current literature on nuclear waste tends toward one of two types. One type is technical, building knowledge about materials, natural mineral composition, and how those variables affect the storage of nuclear waste. The other type is more political, particularly examining responses to the Fukushima disaster.

This study aims to bridge these two areas while filling in additional gaps regarding public perceptions of nuclear energy. Technical studies inform political decision-making, but so too do public perceptions, which is why that area needs to be incorporated. Ultimately, a comprehensive study identifying the myriad issues contributing to the decline of nuclear power has not yet been conducted. While the decline has been known for some time and is the result of many individual policy decisions, the nuclear power industry as a whole has yet to be examined in this manner.

Since nuclear power was envisioned in the 1950s as a universal technology capable of solving global energy problems, this research will adopt a similarly broad perspective. The use of a big-picture approach is a major theme in this research process because it will help generate a better understanding of the issues associated with adopting nuclear power. The researcher examines the issue not on an individual basis but on an aggregate level, encompassing both the benefits and the problems associated with nuclear power from a human perspective.

The study is bound by the propositions discussed above and will incorporate an open-ended research query in terms of the literature search, while narrowing down what is ultimately a highly complex topic to focus specifically on the phenomenon of decreased usage of nuclear energy. There are so many directions available — most of which have received limited academic study — that an entire book could be written without covering much old ground. The study will focus primarily on the identified propositions in order to examine this phenomenon effectively.

The author must also impose a delimitation with respect to scientific information. Nuclear technology is incredibly complex and highly specialized, requiring many years of study to master. The author is not a nuclear scientist, and it is possible that the author's scientific capabilities will at times be insufficient to fully grasp the concepts discussed, especially in scientific journals. It is worth noting, however, that the people who set energy policy in most countries are also not nuclear scientists and must similarly rely on non-scientific interpretation of scientific data in order to make their decisions (Nivola, 2004). This remains a delimiting factor nonetheless.

Literature Review: Nuclear Energy in Decline

It is not always possible to determine the reasons behind nuclear power policies. Each country has its own reasons, and these are not always disclosed. Even within democracies, this information is not always obtainable. While this reality may constrain the study, it does not mean the study should not be attempted. Understanding the different underlying factors of public policy with respect to nuclear power and its decreased usage is the central objective of the research.

The final delimitation is that the study will focus on research published in English. While most academic journals publish in English, this study will also make use of government publications, white papers, and other industry-specific materials. Data published exclusively in Russian, Chinese, or Arabic will, for this reason, have to be omitted.

In addition to the researcher-controlled delimitations, external limits will affect the study. The biggest limitation will likely concern the availability of data. Democratic societies were chosen as a focal point partly because they tend to be more transparent. There are undemocratic nations with nuclear power — Russia being the most prominent — but the lack of transparency in those countries will hamper the availability of reliable data. The development and enactment of energy policy in undemocratic nations does not depend on a democratic process and has largely insulated their nuclear industries from political turbulence, unlike many industrial democracies (Nivola, 2004). This places specific limits on the study, as the author must work with information available in the public sphere.

Given the nature of the research problem, the most appropriate research design is qualitative research. The researcher will utilize content analysis, making this a qualitative content analysis study. Content analysis research methodologies involve the use of systematic analysis of gathered data and inductive strategies geared toward the creation of patterns and themes (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). Through this method, themes and patterns relating to the phenomenon will be derived from comparing, contrasting, and categorizing the content of qualitative data obtained regarding the research problem.

This research design is appropriate because existing knowledge and literature about nuclear energy use is obtained from various studies and surveys documented in peer-reviewed journal articles. The author chose this methodology because the research question is exploratory in nature — it focuses on the "why" question — examining why nuclear energy has declined in the global energy mix despite being a suitable alternative for addressing global climate change.

The content analysis process will be based on the methodology of Klaus Krippendorff, which involves making specific inferences from studies through a replicable and valid method. By the end of the study, the researcher will synthesize independent studies and provide insights on what contributes to decreased nuclear energy usage.

Nuclear power is the splitting of atoms (fission) in order to create power. The fissile material is typically an enriched form of uranium (Josephson, 2000, p. 2). Nuclear energy was first harnessed for power in 1954, at the Obninsk scientific city some 110 km outside of Moscow. At the time, nuclear power was viewed as the energy of the future. Industry experts believed that harnessing the power of the atom would provide a stable, reliable source of energy. Even then, it was recognized that fossil fuels were not going to be sustainable (Sovacool, 2011). The most technologically advanced societies of that age, the U.S. and USSR, led the development of nuclear technology, soon joined by a number of other nations (Josephson, 2000, p. 3).

Throughout the years, the development of nuclear power plants has stalled, particularly in many would-be nuclear power countries (Schneider et al., 2013, p. 7). In established nuclear power countries, there is a lack of investment in adding new capacity; where new construction occurs, it is to replace aging facilities. This continues to happen even as research has shown that nuclear energy is capable of addressing global climate change (Remo, 2015).

The studies selected for this literature review were chosen based on their relevance to the research topic. The researcher has examined published articles and conducted a robust search to identify contextual articles relating to this issue. The following summaries describe the qualification of each selected study.

Becker et al. (2008) provided a perspective on the future energy supply of the United States, arguing that the country requires immediate development of a large-scale sustainable energy source that does not emit greenhouse gases. They conclude that nuclear power is the most suitable energy source for future U.S. needs since it is carbon-free, scalable, technologically feasible, and economical.

Bickerstaff et al. (2011) postulate that nuclear power is an effective means of mitigating climate change because it is not associated with increased fossil fuel use. However, there is increased reluctance to accept nuclear power as a viable option, necessitating a reframing of the nuclear energy debate. There is the possibility that information campaigns can reframe nuclear power. In particular, the fear of climate change is growing at a rate faster than the fear of nuclear energy. While public perception of nuclear power is not especially favorable at the moment, it may be that in the near future the fear of climate change will exceed the fear of nuclear energy, at which point there may be a shift in public sentiment (Bickerstaff et al., 2011).

Bird et al. (2014) conducted a comparative assessment of public opinion about climate change and the Fukushima disaster with respect to nuclear power in Australia. The analysis found that Australians believe nuclear power provides a cleaner, more efficient alternative to coal but are opposed to it because of safety concerns and distrust. Public opinion in Australia changed after Fukushima, from 42% of Australians in favor of nuclear power as a means of reducing carbon emissions, to 40% opposed a year later, ranking it behind three other options for addressing climate change (Bird et al., 2014). Bird's study illustrated that under normal circumstances — absent a major disaster — nuclear power is viewed as a method of reducing carbon emissions while retaining energy capacity. When people are reminded of the risks, however, they turn to other ways of addressing climate change.

According to Corner et al. (2011), public perceptions and attitudes towards nuclear energy in the United Kingdom have been sharply divided, and the researchers conclude that concerns about climate change and energy security will only enhance acceptance of nuclear energy under restricted circumstances.

Destek (2015) examined the relationship between nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in G-6 countries, concluding that while no causal link exists for all sample periods, the relationship may be present in certain sub-periods.

Duffy (2012) examined nuclear power in the United States in the aftermath of Fukushima. While other regions reevaluated their nuclear energy policies, the United States was "surprisingly resistant" to concerns expressed elsewhere. Duffy (2012) found that 25% of people who opposed nuclear power in 24 surveyed countries did so because of the devastating impacts of the Fukushima incident, and that the accident primarily served to reinforce existing negative perceptions and provoke decisive action in countries already skeptical about nuclear power.

Greenberg & Truelove (2011) surveyed 3,200 U.S. residents on issues linked to coal and nuclear fuels for generating electricity. They found that concerns regarding nuclear power plant accidents contributed to reduced support for nuclear energy, while concerns about global warming resulted in less coal use. They also found that risk-tolerant individuals favor increased dependence on nuclear energy despite the likelihood of a severe accident.

Hultman & Koomey (2013) examined the role of Three Mile Island in America's nuclear power decline, arguing that the industry faced significant economic and competitiveness obstacles exacerbated by safety concerns. They support claims that the nuclear power industry experienced cancellation of 40% of all U.S. reactors between 1960 and 2010 (p. 63).

Kleiner (2008) examines the feasibility of nuclear energy based on greenhouse gas emissions. While nuclear power has traditionally been regarded as environmentally harmful, Kleiner argues that it is increasingly being considered a green power provider capable of generating large amounts of energy with minimal to no carbon emissions. These factors have contributed to renewed support for the nuclear power industry, though usage continues to decline.

Pidgeon, Lorenzoni & Poortinga (2008) reported that most respondents in the British public did not have a sophisticated understanding of the risk-based analysis on which to base their opinions. There are very few Britons who unconditionally accept nuclear power as a means of mitigating climate change, and attitudes do not appear to be shifting quickly.

Ramana (2011) argued that opinion polls indicate public support for nuclear energy has decreased following the Fukushima accident, not only in Japan but across other nations. The most predominant concern contributing to decreased nuclear energy usage is the belief that it is a risky technology, which hinders efforts to site and develop new nuclear power reactors.

Sailor et al. (2000) concluded that nuclear power is a viable option to address climate change and can bring about target greenhouse gas emission reductions faster than any other form of energy generation, placing nuclear power at the center of the debate on reducing carbon output.

Schneider & Froggatt (2014) reported that the global nuclear renaissance that was flourishing before Fukushima has stalled since the accident. The decline is reflected in the reduction of global electricity generation from nuclear power plants by 7% in 2012 — a record reduction (p. 70).

Schwarz & Cochran (2012) examined the cost-effectiveness of nuclear energy following Fukushima, concluding that decisions to decrease or halt future use of nuclear power were not based on rational economic analysis in its aftermath (p. 691).

Skea, Lechtenbohmer & Asuka (2013) studied the response to nuclear power as a climate change solution in the UK, Germany, and Japan after Fukushima. In all three countries, citizens and policymakers had seen nuclear power as a viable strategy for mitigating carbon emissions and managing climate change, though their post-Fukushima responses diverged substantially.

Slovic, Flynn & Layman (1991) evaluated perceived risk, trust, and politics in relation to nuclear waste, examining deeply rooted fear linked to the discovery of radioactivity and the creation and use of nuclear weapons, and studying the link between perceptions and policy-making.

Sovacool & Cooper (2008) concluded that nuclear power is a poor answer to the world's post-Kyoto energy challenges, primarily because nuclear power generators are increasingly vulnerable to unresolved economic, environmental, social, and infrastructural problems, especially compared to renewable energy technologies.

Winslow (2011) concluded that many governments and environmentalists are turning to nuclear energy as a clean and reliable sustainable energy source, driven by the fact that renewable sources are limited by intermittency, cost, environmental obstacles, and concerns regarding scalability.

Wittneben (2012) concluded that Europe's response to Fukushima differed substantially among member states, influenced by the extent of media reporting, trust in renewable energy technologies, cultural proximity to Japan, and history of nuclear resistance.

Wolsink (2010) concluded that social acceptance of nuclear power facilities is a multi-dimensional phenomenon demonstrated across geographical scales and governance levels.

Today, nuclear energy provides for roughly 10% of the world's energy needs. There are reactors in 31 countries, totaling 427 reactors as of 2013 (Schneider et al., 2013). That is seventeen fewer reactors than there were in 2002, and installed capacity has fallen from 375 GWe to 364 GWe in the same period. The nuclear power industry is therefore in decline. Since 2002, the world's collective knowledge of climate change has increased substantially, and many nations committed to reducing carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol (UN FCC, 2014).

Destek (2015) suggests that nuclear energy usage is largely influenced by economic growth across countries, particularly developed countries. However, limited energy sources and fluctuating prices have forced countries to explore new energy sources, including nuclear power. Despite recognition of nuclear energy's importance — given that it does not emit carbon dioxide or generate environmental harms when used to produce heat and electricity — its use has declined across the globe.

Schneider & Froggatt (2014) concur with the existing literature on this decline, noting the record 7% reduction in global electricity generation from nuclear power plants in 2012 (p. 70). Hultman & Koomey (2013) support these claims, noting cancellation of 40% of all U.S. reactors between 1960 and 2010 (p. 63), which has forced the nuclear power industry to face significant financial and competitiveness obstacles globally.

Yet despite this, there has been very little new investment in nuclear power. Three-quarters of capacity decline came from Japan, but the top five other nuclear power generators also decreased their output (Schneider et al., 2013). In 1993, nuclear power peaked at 17% of global energy production but now sits at 10% (World Energy Resources, 2013, p. 7). With no major new build programs, the average age of the world's reactors is 28 years, with over 190 units having run for more than 30 years and 44 units for over 40 years (World Energy Resources, 2013, p. 7). There is some new construction in fourteen countries, though many delays have stalled progress, especially in developing nations.

Kleiner (2008) differs from the dominant narrative by arguing that climate change concerns have contributed to increased attention on nuclear energy, boosting its reputation as a green power provider. Some developed countries, including the United States, have increased support for nuclear energy; Japan recently announced plans to increase investments in green technology by $4 billion, including nuclear energy. However, other studies do not concur. Countries with the greatest nuclear power usage are the U.S., France, Russia, South Korea, Germany, China, Canada, Ukraine, the UK, and Sweden (Schneider et al., 2013), with the top five accounting for two-thirds of global nuclear power generation. Three nations have phased out nuclear power entirely, and in many others capacity peaked years ago. Nuclear power constitutes 50% or more of power generation capacity in only three countries — France, Slovakia, and Belgium (Schneider et al., p. 13).

The decline in nuclear power's development is attributed to social, political, and economic factors that influence public perceptions and policy. Nivola (2004) states that political and economic factors have been crucial in the stuttered development of the nuclear power industry. Social dimensions have largely been centered on public opinions shaped by accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima (Sovacool, 2011), which have affected both the construction of nuclear power plants and the overall growth of nuclear energy.

Conclusion and Study Organization

A multi-disciplinary study involving conditions that are not easily replicable requires a different sort of approach. There is not just one variable involved in this research, but multiple variables working together simultaneously under real-world conditions. The phenomenon of decreased usage of nuclear energy is broad and exploratory in nature, which implies the need for an appropriate research methodology. Some of the issues that characterize decreased usage of nuclear power include the public's perceptions of it, how those perceptions are applied in policy, and the widespread notion that nuclear energy is not a sustainable energy source that would mitigate climate change.