Lessons Learned From the European Union Referendum to Better Promote Nuclear Energy

In recent years in Britain several highly public debates have broken out in the political sphere. With no easy answers, a large divide in the populace has opened, pushing political parties away from the center and causing large amounts of unrest as to how the country should move forward. A historical view of the British public over the last ten years [1] shows two major points of contention. Firstly, the financial crisis of 2008 and the 10-year austerity period that followed bought about great anxiety for the British people as their salaries stagnated, money did not go as far and vital public services were cut. In 2016, the European Union referendum became a major focus of United Kingdom and European Union politics. This reflects how quickly things can change in political discourse. One area that has seen an increase in awareness is climate change, with roughly 80% of people concerned for the environment [1]. This is something that the Government is attuned to—with a declaration to become the first major country to hit net zero carbon emissions by the year 2050 [2]. This will require major changes to how we generate and store our energy, with a diverse mix of options required for security and a regular supply to the grid. An area of division here is in the role of nuclear energy. The UK has a high population density and per capita use of energy [3] which makes the requirement for a constant supply of energy a necessity. This presents challenges. The UK's rapidly ageing AGR fleet will all be in shutdown, decommissioning, or care and maintenance by 2035 [4] and projects to replace this capacity have struggled to gain traction. Whilst the UK government supports nuclear power in principal it has shown an adverse attitude to funding it, hoping to share the burden with international vendors like EDF Energy and China General Nuclear. Projects have collapsed due to reluctance from the Government to support struggling projects (such as Moorside and Wylfa) and currently the UK has only one power station in development—Hinkley Point C[4]. The Government has so far stuck to a “leave it to the market approach” [3] which has proven unsuccessful in generating the right conditions for “New Build” projects to flourish. The general consensus of the scientific community is that Nuclear could play a big role in a net zero future [3]. Research into high efficiency, low waste Generation IV reactors; the ability to supplement large scale power with low cost, more efficient small modular reactor technology in key or hard to reach geographies (remote areas where land space is not available for a large power station for instance) and advances in the use of heat waste for district heating [3] are all capable of making nuclear a valuable part of the green energy mix. However due to the large construction costs and lead times [3], new build requires “a high degree of central co-ordination” [3] from the state government if it is to become a successfully utilized technology. Again, there is scope here to offset some of these costs with small nuclear technology, which offers great cost reductions in Nth of a kind build; passive safety systems and a reduction in carbon footprint with greatly reduced construction needs. However this technology still needs upfront investment which is something that will have to be provided by the British Government.

An extended work has looked at how Britain could move to a carbon neutral future [5]. It proposed two likely scenarios, known as clockwork and patchwork [5]. In the clockwork scenario the government leads from the front. Providing big initial investment and capital for a diverse mix of nuclear and renewable energy projects (the mix including both nuclear new build, small reactor development), rapidly decarbonizing UK power generation whilst also bringing in soft incentives to help the transport industry lower its emissions (tax breaks, electric/hybrid subsidies, upgrades to existing public transport). In the midterm, work is done on heat and battery storage and upgrades to the current electricity grid boost efficiency and make use of the waste heat provided by steam generator systems [5]. The result of this is a large and rapid decarbonization of the UK power network followed by a more gradual decrease in vehicle emissions that pays dividends for the government when a series of state-owned power stations provide profit for the next 40-60 years.

The alternative is the patchwork scenario. In this scenario a lack of action from the Government leads to local authorities leading from the front and investing in combined heat and power, onshore wind and solar [5]. They combine this with Government investment in offshore wind, retrofit homes to be more energy efficient and urbanize transport networks. Both scenarios lead to net zero, however in this scenario uncertainty as to the role of nuclear power reduces investor confidence and there is an unwillingness to gamble billions of pounds on a technology that takes 20+ years to show a return on investment [5]. Again, lack of confidence from the Government would result in no investment for small nuclear, leading to a reliance on new build and the old arguments surrounding cost and build time continuing to dominate the conversation. A factor that must be considered is efficiency—in the United States nuclear was able to provide a capacity factor of over 90% in 2019 [6]—roughly 3 times more efficient than solar or wind plants. This is the great equalizer for nuclear in the clean energy transition Because it can provide constant uninterrupted power to a grid and account for surges and drops in a way that wind and solar cannot. However, there is another concern to the patchwork scenario—a perfect example of which can be seen in Germany.

Germany has been a champion of renewable energy, which has led to significant investment [7] whilst simultaneously providing an antinuclear policy [8]. These investments have slowly seen themselves become unsustainable as increases to the numbers of renewable technologies have put increased strain on a grid that is designed for the smooth regular power provision of coal [9]. This has been exaggerated by the drop off the grid of the former nuclear capacity. To work around these issues Germany today has become one of the world's biggest importers of coal, oil and natural gas [8] and is Europe's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide [8]. Similar results have been seen in Japan following the 2011 Fukushima accident [10]. Compare this to France, who get 75% of their electricity from nuclear stations [11] and have a much higher percentage of clean energy [7]. Additionally, French citizens pay on average half the price that the Germans do for their household electricity [8]. Although renewables are cheaper to generate due to the lack of fuel/waste management costs, the retail price goes up as more units are put in place [9]. Generation only accounts for about 44% of the cost [12] and big investments are needed to maintain the variable capacity required to transmit wind and solar energy (often from very sparse environments like deserts or at sea) to where it is needed. The cost of maintaining and managing this variability is all passed on to the consumer [12]. Since the large scale take up of wind and solar power the average German pays 51% more for their energy, a trend which is mirrored in California (21% and 5 times the rate of the rest of the U.S.) and Denmark (100% cost increase since 1995) [12].

The above shows how valuable a role nuclear power could play in a diverse energy mix and on policy both major parties in the UK support its use. However, the nuclear industry presents a large political risk to the party that sanctions it, for several key reasons tied to the structure of the British governing system:

In the U.S. elected officials sit in the house and the Senate, however the Government itself is made up of appointments by the President from the outside world. This means that the Secretary of Defense is likely a high ranking general, Secretary of Education is an educator and the Health Secretary is likely a medical professional. Those running the country hail from high level positions and call on their own experiences and expertise. In the UK cabinet ministers are all politicians who, due to the nature of the democratic system, are likely to have “one eye on the next election cycle” [13]. Any Member of the House raised to a cabinet or ministerial position knows that they will likely only have 2-3 years before a reshuffle takes place to make an impact [13]. Ministers often come into government jobs with limited background knowledge about their department and have no time to learn (it should be noted this is not the case for every single representative). Nuclear is not a subject that can be understood and appreciated from a five-minute briefing paper and it requires large investment and long-term planning. A minister who only has two or three years to show their effectiveness is unlikely to take a positive view of a project that is estimated to cost billions of pounds and take years to complete. State megaprojects also have a habit of causing great public discourse with overruns [13]. A minister will inevitably prioritize a quick win which can be reflected in an election brochure or discussed in a debate [13]. Nuclear does not come under that bracket and is an easy target for misinformation and negativity from amongst lobby groups. Accidents such as those at Chernobyl and Fukushima-Daichi have done plenty to spread a fear over nuclear energy and make it an easy target for negative press despite the fact that nuclear is contributing to fewer deaths per kilowatt hour than any other energy source on the planet [14].

All this information combines to provide a rather bleak outlook on any chance of government making positive movements when it comes to nuclear. There is however one thing that can move politicians to act faster than any other and that is negative public attitudes to the work they are doing. If a large swell of nuclear support were to materialize government would have no option but to act on this and make investments or risk challenge from the opposition and loss of voters at the next election cycle. Providing public support is the fastest way to get nuclear moving again in Britain's or any other nations' industries.

If the government is to support nuclear power financially, it must be aware of a large public consensus on the technology. This means widespread support would be required. The first question then is how realistic this consensus is currently. In 2019 the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy surveyed the British public on its attitude toward a range of climate change topics [15]. There was a slight majority of those in favor, with 35% supporting nuclear energy as opposed to 23% against it [15]. Comparing this to 2015 shows a slight shift toward opposition of a few percent [16]. Nearly 40% [15] took up a neutral position—by far the majority. Whilst the 2019 survey did not touch on radioactive waste the 2015 version did—nearly 85% claimed to not understand how the UK deals with radioactive waste [16]. This is a concern—this group of people are very much at risk of having false information supplied to them by antinuclear groups and having their views prejudiced toward opposition.

Similar attitudes were found in a study by the Nuclear Energy Agency [17]. This covered a much larger geographical area than just the UK but threw up many of the same conclusions—more support than opposition, with a majority ambivalence in the middle ground [17]. Both studies show a more positive outlook toward Nuclear amongst males, college graduates and those in higher perceived social classes with a trend toward the political right [15,17]. One of the largest discrepancies is generational—with those over the age of 45 much more likely to support the technology than those in school and universities [18]. The NEA concludes that changing the perception of the industry is not a fast process—levels have remained fairly steady over the years, with the only real big trends being negative in the aftermath of accidents such as those at Fukushima and Chernobyl—though these do tend to climb back to pre-accident levels in time [17]. Fear and understanding would appear to be a common theme with a number identifying concerns around radioactive waste, nuclear weapons and terrorism but also conceding support for nuclear when the benefits in the fight against climate change were explained to them [17]. Another point that comes to light is the perception of how much power nuclear is providing to the grid—with almost the real value almost half of that presumed [18]. This suggests people have not grasped the level of dependence on fossil fuels that we have to replace if we are to become carbon neutral.

Zooming in on a more local level similar results are expected. Cumbria provided the first power station at Calder Hall, reprocessed fuel for decades and is now the storage and treatment facility for a large percentage of Europe's waste. Nuclear is ingrained in the Cumbrian society with the Sellafield site historically being the largest provider of jobs and infrastructure in the area. A survey of the people of Cumbria found a level of realism about the acceptance of risk and uncertainty surrounding the technology that was down to a better understanding of the technology and this led to a less negative view of the industry. Having experienced nuclear first-hand the local populace is more accepting of the technology because they better understand the risks and have seen that danger and risk are effectively mitigated by good design. This is likely a result of better education and understanding of nuclear technologies and experience of site safety culture. However, it also led to a large negative view of the nuclear establishments running the site, particularly the now defunct BNFL [19]. One area brought up in the study is that a large-scale nuclear site like Sellafield was perceived to be having a negative effect on the local area as it had become so overly dominant to the local economy that it was hurting small businesses [19]. This brings up an interesting opportunity for a technology like Small Modular Reactors (SMR) [20]—which can provide power without potentially monopolizing regional workforces.

The one area that immediately jumps out from these studies is the concept of understanding. Many people identified that they did not feel they had a lot of knowledge about nuclear and in those cases, they were more likely to be against it. More men support nuclear than women—this seems a likely scenario as nuclear, like most engineering industries, suffers from a lack of diversity of the sexes (something that the British government is trying to address with its recent Nuclear Sector Deal [21]). If there are more men working in nuclear than women, then it is reasonable to assume there would be a higher average knowledge level and therefore a bigger propensity to support the technology. A person from a higher social background is traditionally more likely to attend higher education [22] and those attending university courses are more likely to get exposure to a better understanding of nuclear technology and how it works or a better capacity to analyze and digest wider arguments based on scientific theory.

The effects of familiarity and understanding can be seen in action when looking at the United States [23]. The favorability toward nuclear energy of those living within 10 miles of a nuclear plant (excluding households with an immediate family member working at the plant) is 83%. This could be a placebo type effect. Living so close to the plant and not experiencing any negative health effects commonly rolled out by antinuclear groups calms the nerves and reduces anxiety that can often be felt with the industry. Again those who felt better informed were more likely to be in support [23]. Surprising is how low the understanding levels of some have been found to be, as well as how quickly their opinion can be influenced. When surveyed, 67% of respondents were unaware that nuclear did not release greenhouse gases [23] and 70% were unaware of the scale difference between a nuclear plant output and renewables output [23]. Upon learning this new information, 86% of those who initially were reluctant to support the technology changed their mind and indicated that nuclear should be a part of the energy mix [23]. Similar results can be seen across the world [17]. When those without good background knowledge have the technology explained to them in a way that is easy to understand they inevitably see an upswing in positive feelings toward this misunderstood technology.

This theme of familiarity and understanding is persistent across Europe. Nuclear safety culture is a huge positive of the industry, and to this day helps contribute toward the nuclear industries' leading rate of 0.1 deaths per trillion kilowatt hour, a vastly lower and therefore safer, number compared to its competitors [14]. Even with the addition of disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima and factoring, in widely different views to health and safety from country to country, that number is still just over half of deaths experienced due to wind power whilst providing nearly 6 times as much electricity [14]. This is something that appears to be much better understood by those who have experienced it firsthand. Compare those countries that do and do not have Nuclear power in Europe and the results are conclusive—those without power stations are all much more likely to be of the opinion that they are unsafe or too risky [17]. Safety culture is a hard concept to explain to the uninitiated, and as such not being able to experience it is likely to make someone less trusting of it.

One area that is of cause for concern is the number of young people who do not support nuclear [18]. In the 18-24 category support plummets to just 22%, and there is an almost linear increase as the age bands go up [18]. In the same young person's age group, only 26% were in agreement that nuclear is low carbon and they were also the smallest group to identify “security of supply” as a benefit. The three biggest areas of concern raised were “radiation,” “waste,” and “risk of accidents.” The security of supply is an interesting indicator. It is easy when you are young and impressionable to not look at the bigger picture—renewables would seem perfect for this category of young people as they seem to offer all of the answers to the climate change problem, however for a school or university age student security of supply is not likely to be an issue that has ever been of major concern. Particularly in a country like Britain most students have never had to face the prospect of the power going off for an extended period of time. A look at the UK curriculum can provide an understanding of why these issues persist [24]. Students are given the positives and negatives [25], however much of this information is based on the traditional understanding of the industry and does not touch on the great progress that has been made in research to make nuclear safer, more affordable and more efficient. For example, Thorium is a readily available resource, and has an energy density far in advance of traditional plants—it is believed there is enough thorium in the earth to power the human race for the next 1000 years [26], knowledge that could greatly change how young people view nuclear. More could be done to expand upon the lesser known advantages of nuclear science, touching on developments in medicine; re-use of waste fuel in breeder reactors [26,27] and the plans for a Geological Disposal Facility.

A similar problem occurs through the concept of radiation. The school curriculum highlights the dangers associated, but there is very little comparison with background levels and effect on the average yearly dose. The Fukushima accident provides a good juxtaposition here—official reporting attributes 0 deaths to immediate radiation exposure [28], and today less than 0.01% of all radiation on earth comes from power stations [28].

Perhaps the most interesting data found is that of the Nuclear Energy Agency [17]. Whilst their study was primarily on the subject of the public perception of nuclear they also asked some wider questions about the concerns of those studied (the study took place across a wide range of European countries so gives a good outlook on the populace as a whole). One of the first questions posed in the survey was around “What do you first think of when you hear the words ‘energy issues’?” [17]. Only 8% of those surveyed thought that nuclear was the biggest issue. It would be tempting to presume that something relating to climate change would be the top issue. In fact the top issue by a considerable margin was “Energy Prices” [17]. This lines up with a later question in the poll surrounding what respondents thought their government's energy policies should focus on. Making up 80% of the share were “guaranteeing low prices” and “guaranteeing continuous supply” with only 30% suggesting that protecting the environment should be a priority. This suggests that perhaps the promotion of Nuclear is focusing on the wrong areas. Nuclear's benefits toward climate change can have a big sway on a percentage to the supportive side of the argument, but the focus should be more on nuclear's socio-economic benefits. This is especially prevalent in the UK where a decade of austerity measures, booming housing prices and slow real-time wage growth have led to salaries being stretched further than ever before. If nuclear was publicized as a low carbon source that will have the smallest effect on monthly bills it could do a better job of gaining support. Given the current economic climate in reference to the effects of the UK's divorce from the European Union and the devastating effects of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, there may be no better time to be promoting the role nuclear can play in the economic recovery [29] by hitting the three key areas, sovereign control, continuous supply and low carbon. This is also an ideal time to remind people that countries with large nuclear programs like France pay less than their renewable heavy colleagues [7], are much more secure on the current grid [10] and provide large numbers of high skilled, well paid employment for extended periods of time [29,30]. More visibility needs to be given to less traditional supporters such as antinuclear voices in the journalistic and scientific communities who now champion Nuclear as an integral part of a diverse energy mix. It may also be time to more aggressively fight the fear of radiation—something that was quickly taken advantage of by antinuclear campaigners in the aftermath of both the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents.

This fear can be seen firsthand with the recent television series “Chernobyl”—aired on U.S. network Home Box Office (HBO). The series spiked a huge increase in “dark tourism” at the exclusion zone and led to massive internet traffic increase in searches linked to the disaster. It quickly became HBO's highest rated television show of all time—but has had some of its scientific integrity questioned numerous times [31]. The series was accompanied by a podcast with the show runners [32] where they explained that the aim of the show was to reflect on how cutting corners, pushing for results and covering up the scale of problems by the Soviet Union led to the disaster [32], however lines in the film about irradiated babies, child cancers and widespread radiation poisoning had the result of exactly the same worries and prejudices against the technology being present today as they were back then.

Similarities can be drawn between the Nuclear industry and the way membership of the European Union was perceived in Britain. There is potential for lessons learned to be utilized in a referendum type question. The UK is not a big user of referendums except for big constitutional questions that effect the direction of the country such as membership of the EU. “Should the UK continue to pursue Nuclear energy?” is a very viable option and if that were to become a reality, then lessons need to be taken from the EU referendum to better understand how Nuclear can come out victorious. The similarities between the two events are listed below:

1. Demographics. The split of the public in terms of opinion was similar, and just like nuclear, it has proved difficult to change people's minds over the years. This was the second referendum on Britain's relationship with Europe. The first took place in 1975. Studies from that time [33] found very little discrepancy between men and women, but a huge positive swing toward remaining for those in higher social groups and the better educated. It is also interesting to note that the group that voted most strongly to leave was the 18-25 group. In 2016 this age group would have been around 60 years old and was the group that most overwhelmingly voted to leave again—nothing that had happened over the course of 41 years caused a change in opinion.

2. The Government. Much like with nuclear energy there is a large majority in Government who were in support of the membership of the European Union. While voting in the referendum was anonymous it is estimated that of 650 MPs, there was a large 310 majority toward remaining in the European Union [34]. This majority was fairly well spread across the house—with only the Conservative party (184-139 split) showing any real divide. This shows that, just like in the case of nuclear, if the vote was put directly to the elected officials then it would have been a landslide victory for remain. Unfortunately they failed to translate this well enough across to the British public. Translation of this message is crucial—divisions in the Conservative party over Europe had the effect of breaking traditional party tribalism and opening people up to being swayed by third parties [35].

3. Public opinion levels were similar to how they are for nuclear today.

4. The mood of the people all across Europe when concerning the Union tends toward pessimism—while there are many benefits these are often ignored over fears concerning shared economies, bureaucracy and politics [36]. Positive views tended to be concentrated toward southern countries where the benefits of free movement, frictionless trade and shared values were most noticeable [36], whereas some of the northern countries (particularly the UK which shows an abject rejection of the feeling of being “European” [36]) were much more likely to be distrustful or anti-EU. This could be of particular importance—current UK nuclear plans have reactors being provided by French and Chinese organizations, and the over-reliance on foreign knowledge and help may be detrimental to the national pride felt (though there is opportunity here with the hopeful development of the UK SMR—provided by a consortium of British companies led by Rolls-Royce [20]). There was real lack of knowledge as to what the EU was and how it works, with the media having a much bigger influence than the Union's own bodies. An explanation of what the EU was and how it operated for the people provided a big increase in support in those surveyed [36]. When polled, a large percentage of the UK populace said they did not feel well informed about the EU and that the information available was complex, overly long and difficult to follow [37]. Positive feelings toward the EU had a slight majority over negative feelings, but again 3 in 10 did not really lean either way, making this group kingmakers in a situation where a choice would be required.

5. Familiarity played a large role. One of the big battlegrounds fought during the referendum was on the subject of immigration. In fact, it was actually a much bigger issue overall than the topic of the EU referendum was Ref. [38]. Similar to the energy prices issue, this was a much bigger concern for the British public than the rules and regulations of the European Union. The effect of leaving on immigration levels was much better connected by the leave campaigns than by the remain groups, who were unable to provide much in the way of tangible benefits to leaving. This is where the familiarity comes into play. A quick analysis of which side of the coin the electorate fell shows a clear bias toward remain in large cities (particularly London), whereas more rural and local areas favored leave [39]. For the purposes of this work Scotland and Northern Ireland shall be negated from the data as they bring additional political connotations that would undoubtedly have effected their voting patterns (not least of which being the recent Scottish Independence vote). Large metropolitan areas like London are much more likely to have experienced mass immigration first hand—both into the country but also in getting the benefits of free movement by being able to travel abroad more as cities provide the traditionally high paying jobs. Therefore the residents of these cities were more likely to see firsthand the benefits of immigration. In the more rural parts of the country, which have struggled to match the growth and expansion of neighboring cities, much less immigration is likely to be seen. Many small towns now see large numbers of immigration and asylum seekers without seeing advances in their hospitals, infrastructure or quality of life. Much like nuclear the benefits of immigration have to be seen to be believed.

6. The financial element provides a big comparison. Much like nuclear the payments made to the European Union are large (£13Bn per year in the case of the UK [40]), not dissimilar to the cost of Hinkley Point C [41]. The UK's contribution makes up roughly 10% of the EU budget—a large number but smaller than that of leaders France and Germany [40] however in the interest of fairness the standard practice for the EU is for the more prosperous countries to pay more money in and those less well-off to receive a bigger benefits package. When other factors are considered (money returned to the UK being the biggest of these) the net contribution drops to about EUR 9 bn [40]. This makes up EUR 8 bn of contributions to the budget and roughly EUR 850m in membership fees [42]. What this number does not cover is how much additional benefit financially the EU membership had on the United Kingdom. Whilst the UK's membership has a negative effect on the country's finances (it pays more in than it receives in grants and EU expenditure) it is able to trade in the free market—the EU currently accounts for roughly £436 bn in trade each year—far in excess of the membership fee and over double that which is traded with the U.S. and China combined [43]. So the real time financial benefits are grossly disproportionate to the drawbacks. Similar to nuclear, which includes waste disposal and decommissioning in its levelized cost, this financial message was not clearly gotten across to the British public during the referendum.

7. There were pros and cons to both sides of the argument which could have been better articulated. It is well known that there are challenges with nuclear surrounding safety, nonproliferation and waste. But the belief in science community is that these risks are less than the opportunities nuclear provides, and well mitigated. A similar situation arises in Britain's view of the EU. A rational discussion could conclude that there were benefits and drawbacks to the relationship Britain had with it membership, but many of these, particularly on the “pro” side of the argument proved difficult to provide in simple terms how they affect the common person on the street. It was more successful for Leave to sell the idea of £350 million per week that could be better put to use in the NHS than it was for remain to articulate how a free trade deal benefits the monthly budget of the majority of the British public.

Now that similarities between the two have been established, it is prudent to look at how the campaign was won in order to apply this learning across to the nuclear industry. The campaign was fought on a number of fronts. Largest of these were the official Remain campaign—“Stronger together in Europe,” run by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron and the two leave campaigns—Leave EU and Vote Leave. Vote Leave was the official campaign whereas Leave EU was a well-funded fringe group who's focal point was prominent Eurosceptic MEP, Nigel Farage. Similarly, a referendum style choice on nuclear could also see two Government led main campaigns bolstered by an antinuclear fringe group.

The Vote Leave campaign was run by Dominic Cummings. He is credited as being the brains behind a campaign that achieved a shock victory when all of the polls had predicted a comfortable win for Remain. Writing in the British press [44] Cummings gave his thoughts behind why his team were successful. He breaks down the electorate into three distinct groups—one of which being very pro-Europe, one very likely to vote to leave (this group being particularly closely linked with Nigel Farage and the UK Independence Party) with the largest majority being those undecided voters in the middle (applying this to the nuclear industry we have those who are connected and informed about the industry, those from the antinuclear groups and those in the middle who are more concerned about their energy prices ad willing to vote either way). Understanding the inclination of these groups to voting was crucial to the way the campaign was run. One of the first things vote leave did was to distance itself from the Leave EU campaign—Cummings was aware that the divisive way in which Leave EU centered its arguments on immigration hit well with their own voter base(which would vote to leave no matter what happened in the campaign), was having an adverse effect on the middle ground voters [44] (UKIP was regularly criticized for inflammatory comments by the center and these voters did not want to be seen to be associating with that ideology). Vote Leave saw that this middle ground group were likely to swing the vote, and if they could be swayed away from the “safe” option of remain then they could have turned the result. Again here the focus on the majority rather than on those who are unlikely to ever be in favor of nuclear ensures the message is directed at the people who are most likely going to be influenced by it.

Vote Leave focused on a specific group, with a smaller spread of issues and worries that could be addressed effectively and allowed a much more cohesive message to come out from the campaign. This is in stark contrast to the Stronger Together campaign, which suffered greatly from mixed messaging as it tried to reach too big a percentage of the electorate in one go.

A recent documentary released by Netflix [45] is able to provide further information into how the Leave campaign's successfully used their understanding of the electorate to win the battle. The film's main subject, David Carroll, carried out significant research into how the leave campaigns were effectively using their data, and using this to target specific areas of concern. What this led to were some very successful uses of secondary messaging [45]. While Leave EU hammered home numerous messages about immigration and Stronger Together warned of the dangerous economic risk of leaving, Vote Leave took these messages and turned them into something that would hit a lot closer to home for the average voter which had worries about paying the bills, as well as the speed of provision and quality of healthcare [46]. Vote Leave did an excellent job of counteracting the claims of the other campaigns and formatting them in a way that people could easily relate with. A prime example of this is the infamous “battle bus”—with its slogan highlighting the sending of £350 m per week to the NHS. The engagement came from the promise of a weekly injection of cash into the NHS of a Rough Order of Magnitude of £100 s of millions. The potential effects of this on A&E wait times, GP consultations, access to medicines and quality of aftercare were a big selling point for a lot of concerned Britain's. Immigration was worked in a similar way, most Britain people were not worried about large numbers of people moving here, but they were worried about stories seen in the press of criminal gangs, benefits cheats and the erosion of the British culture [36]. This key secondary messaging was what really hammered home with the public and ensured that those undecided voters were getting the information they really wanted to be hearing—it was this focus on public finance and the effect of leaving on the weekly budget that won it for Vote Leave [33]. If the nuclear industry was to apply this to its own messaging—something akin to “nuclear will help decarbonize our energy industry whilst still keeping the lights on 24/7” would be more effective at swaying voters than the environmental message would alone.

An interesting point to note here is in the use of risk/fear. It has been documented how negativity bias results in our being more susceptible to negative messaging and fear mongering than a positive story [35], and this was seen firsthand with how the Remain campaigns ran “project fear”—listing out all of the risks of leaving the EU and painting a very negative picture whereas the Leave campaigns triumphed with a positive message of reclaimed sovereignty, control over immigration and the power to choose. A closer look reveals that actually the Leave campaigns focused on risk in a much greater way than the remain campaigns ever did [47]. There is potential here to better utilize the inherent risk associated with nuclear—a tradeoff between a marginal increase in radiation levels with sovereign control of Britain's power network, whilst providing a plethora of export options and skilled jobs may be the best way to navigate around the fear that people feel toward radiation.

One element not yet discussed is that of the UK Press, but they play a vital role in all of the above discussed factors. Press in the United Kingdom has the same benefits and drawbacks as that in most developed countries. Newspapers and TV stations are largely free to publicize in whatever way they see fit and can frame stories to best suit their target audience. The press in the UK is known to be very politically influenced, with heavy bias seen in the majority of papers [48]. Over the years the rise in digital media and social networking has led to an abundance of information and traditional media have had to adjust their tactics to keep selling papers. This has led to a strong lean toward Euroscepticism over the decades [38] which has allowed for a series of sensationalist articles with hard hitting headlines to dominate the front pages and drive up sales. Particularly in the circumstances of the referendum the press has tended to move away from scientific and analytical sources and tended to lean more toward political commentary. In the lead up to the referendum the press leaned heavily toward leave and gave a great platform to a number of prominent campaigners whilst only 2% of quotes in the press coming from academics—with nearly a fifth of all those quotes coming from one strongly proleave academic [38]. In the days leading up to the referendum the press hammered home the message with nearly blanket coverage. Similar tactics could be seen within the Nuclear industry, where the press has tended to prefer publishing exaggerated claims about accidents [49], emergencies [50], and drastic financial implications [27] rather than the many positives that the industry provides. The industry needs to work better with the press if it wants the sort of coverage that could help its case. There is a perception that the more the industry claims the brilliance of its safety record, the more likely the public are to think something is being hidden, which when combined with reports that local communities feel nuclear organizations are not being open and honest with them [19] opens them up for more vigorous challenge. A similar thing can be seen when the Sellafield Corporation defended its risk reduction in front of the Public Accounts Committee [51]—emphasizing the unique challenges and dangers of a site like Sellafield is useful for explaining delays and justifying the financial input needed, but it will not go down well with a public looking for positive reinforcement. There are opportunities here to go on the offensive more. Nuclear could reframe its safety record against other industries such as the renewable industry and point to hard evidence that more people will be injured/killed making and maintaining wind turbines by a big margin [14] and it could factor in the 1.8 million lives that are saved each year through reduction of respiratory diseases caused by fossil fuel inhalation [52]. On a more positive note use of hard hitting numbers such as the number of jobs Hinkley Point C is providing to the local community (and the percentage of contracts going to British supply chains) [53] is an excellent way to hammer home a secondary message, as was discussed earlier, and show a positive impact which could sway other communities to look at the greener grass on the other side (use of smaller local and regional newspapers might also help eliminate some of the political bias from reporting as well). Alternatively simplicity may be key—one power station from the UK SMR consortium will be able to power a city the size of Leeds [20] without having to take up the land mass of 2/3rds of the British Isles [54]. There are a number of things that can be done to provide the press with the hard hitting, eye catching headlines they crave, that will encourage positive engagement and lower the bias which Nuclear could be very susceptible to, it is a case of framing the message in such a way that it hits home.

Similarities between the two have been established and the current climate better understood. A series of lessons can be taken from what happened with the EU Referendum, and applied to the nuclear industry to ensure the same mistakes are not made again.

1. Education and Understanding—Those who are more familiar and understand better the nuances of the technology will be better able to see the benefits and make rational choices as to whether to support or not. Knowing the facts also reduces the risk of being susceptible to misleading, exaggerated or incorrect information. This needs to be both an immediate and long term goal. In the Nuclear Sector Deal [21], The Government committed to getting a minimum 40% female work force. For this to happen they have to be convinced of the benefits of studying science at a young age so that they elect to study it at higher education levels. Progress has been made on this front, with more females taking science A levels than males in 2019 [55]. This is a positive step but there is still a big imbalance in the area of physics [55] and only 21% total students take science subjects [55]. More has to be done to ensure that a broad sweep of the electorate is knowledgeable on the subject area and capable of making informed decisions assessing both sides of the argument.

2. Openness—Dishonesty breeds distrust, and incidents over the years where nuclear organizations have not been fully open about what is going on in their sites have led to great mistrust of the workforce [19] and lead to much greater scrutiny of their activities [51]. Nuclear organizations must do more to work with local communities to treat them as equals and ensure that they feel their voices can be heard, a prime example of good progress in this direction is in the government's decision to open up the siting of a Geological Disposal to a public consultation (though this has brought up problems of its own, very possibly linked to some of the other issues arising in this paper).

3. Simplicity—Keeping the message simple and effective will do more to sway the public than anything else. Being able to simply and effectively display why nuclear can be a force for good will sway people. Alternatively, there may be a need to go more on the offensive—if more people were aware that to power Britain solely off wind power would require 66% of all the UK land mass [54] they may be much more likely to consider other options.

4. Relationship with the press—The press still has a very active influence on the public, and can destroy projects before they have even had a chance to take off with wall to wall negative coverage. In many organizations the press is viewed as “the enemy” because of their propensity to leak stories to the public before organizations have had a chance to frame them with the correct messaging. Nuclear organizations much work to cultivate a better relationship with the press, by giving them the hard hitting headlines they desire so there is less need for them to focus on the negatives. Stories about how SMR's could provide 40,000 UK jobs in a well-paid sector [20] is likely to get people's interest.

5. Be aggressive in the messaging. The British saying goes that “no news is good news,” which is true except for in the case of the press. If the nuclear sector is not supplying constant positive messaging to the public the press will go out and have to find other stories to tell. This opens up the possibility of antinuclear groups spreading misinformation to the public.

6. Understanding the real issues/secondary messaging—climate change remains at the top of the agenda, but it is crucial to remember that the biggest concern for the average household in Britain is that of being able to afford to turn the heating on in winter and feeding the family. The effect nuclear can have on this must be reinforced at every available opportunity as it is the most likely thing to get the public onside.

7. Positive framing—The pitfalls and issues with nuclear are well documented and mitigated for. The sector must be presented as an opportunity to the public if it is to gain support. Understanding the risks is key but it must be presented as the best available option and come with the promise of a better tomorrow—cleaner energy, secure supply and low bills.

8. Link to sovereignty—The Islands of the United Kingdom have been shown to be extremely patriotic and proud of their backgrounds—so much so that there is a distrust of outsiders and a desire to “take back control” of how the country is run. This can be exploited as nuclear can be a heavily sovereign industry [29]. Having a strong nuclear grid reduces dependence on oil and gas imports from abroad and provides great skills and expertise which the UK can export to other countries to boost its economy and if more people are aware of this in Britain they will be much more keen to view it in a positive light.

The energy sector in the UK is at a crossroads. There are several paths the country could go down and not all of them involve a well-developed nuclear industry. To ensure the industry's future more must be done to start influencing the perceptions of views of the public as time will be needed to slowly change people's minds. While beneficial, projects like Hinkley Point C present unique threats (due to their build cost, lead times and heavy government price subsidies for the vendor) and the benefits of these projects whilst being numerous, will not be visible for many years. In the interim there is great possibility that the nuclear industries' influence could dwindle and so great effort is required from all within the sector to hammer home the message to as many people as possible now, so that the sector can grow and develop in the decades to come.

The author thanks the numerous friends and colleagues who have taken the time to read through his work and provide many helpful comments and ideas for improvement, many of whom spent much longer periods going through his work than the author would ever have asked them to. Thanks must also go to my family, who have provided constant support and regular oversight of his work to ensure it is of a consistent standard and reflects the ideas that the author have been working to get across. Finally, the author thanks to the International Youth Nuclear Congress, who provided the opportunity to present and showcase my work at the conference in Sydney in March 2020.