Social Sustainability Through Nuclear Energy and Waste Disposal

¶ … Meta-Analysis of Nuclear Energy and Waste Disposal in Social Sustainability A Dissertation Presented using the Meta-Analysis Technique Komi Emmanuel Fiagbe Gbedegan Christina Anastasia PH-D, Chair [Committee Name], [Degree], Committee Member [Committee Name], [Degree], Committee Member Date Approved Komi Emmanuel Fiagbe Gbedegan, 2016 This research proposal explores the link between public perceptions of nuclear power, how those perceptions are formed, and what influence those opinions have on energy policy. These issues are important in light of two realities. First, nuclear energy is declining in its share of global energy.

Second, nuclear energy offers what might well be the best solution to climate change. Given the threat posed by climate change, greater understanding of why nuclear is decreasing rather than increasing is the purpose of this proposed study. This Research proposal seeks to look at some of the issues facing nuclear power, and how it can overcome these issues to increase share going forward. The research will utilize meta-analysis technique to examine the use of nuclear energy and waste disposal in social sustainability.

Add a Dedication, if desired [Add Acknowledgements] Table of Contents Abstract ii Dedication iii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents v List of Tables viii List of Figures vii Chapter One: Introduction 1 Topic Overview 7 Problem Statement 8 Purpose Statement 10 Social Dimension in Nuclear Energy 3 Political Dimension in Nuclear Energy 4 Economic Dimension in Nuclear Energy 6 Research Objectives 7 Hypothesis 9 Hypothesis #1 9 Hypothesis #2 10 Hypothesis#3 11 Hypothesis #4 11 Theoretical Perspectives 12 Assumptions and Biases 14 Significance of the Study 16 Delimitation 17 Limitations 18 Definition of Key Terms 19 General Overview of the Research Design 20 Summary of Chapter One 21 Organization of the Study 22 Chapter Two: Literature Review 23 Hypothesis #1: Public perceptions of nuclear energy are largely driven by disasters.

24 Hypothesis #2: Public perceptions can influence political decision-making 28 Hypothesis #3: Unresolved technical issues contribute to policy 30 Hypothesis #4 Nuclear energy is not viewed as a viable solution to climate change 34 Chapter Three: Methodology 41 Research Traditions 41 Research Questions and Hypotheses 44 Research Design 47 Validity 48 Reliability 48 Ethical Issues in the Research 49 Summary of Chapter Three 99 List of Figures [Add List of Figures here] viii Chapter One: Introduction Overview Nuclear energy was first harnessed for power in 1954, at the Obninsk scientific city some 110km outside of Moscow (Josephson, 2000, p.2).

At the time, nuclear power was viewed as the energy of the future. Unharnessing the power of the atom, it was thought, was to provide a stable, reliable source of energy for the future. Even at the time, it was known that fossil fuels were not going to sustainable as an energy source. The use of atomic weapons at the end of the Second World War highlighted the value of harnessing the atom -- nuclear energy was essential in war, and to meet civilian energy needs.

The most technologically advanced societies of that age, the U.S. and USSR, were the leaders in the development of nuclear technology, but they were soon joined by a number of other nations. Nuclear energy can be described as the energy in the core or nucleus of an atom, which is a small unit that contributes to all matter in the universe.

Nuclear energy is derived from nuclear reactions, which are used to produce heat that is most commonly used in steam turbines to generate electricity, especially in a nuclear power station. According to Remo (2015), nuclear energy, which is utilized in weapons and for generating electricity, has the probability of destroying life and saving lives on Earth (p.38).

As a result, the likelihood of effective use of nuclear energy to save lives as well as for producing a catastrophic thermonuclear war on Earth has contributed to a huge debate and controversy relating to nuclear energy. Today, nuclear energy provides for roughly 10% of the world's energy needs. There are reactors in 31 countries, for a total of 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.

Thus, the nuclear power industry is in decline. While some of this can be attributed to the Fukushima disaster that took some of Japan's capacity offline, the fact that nuclear energy is not growing is somewhat perplexing. Since 2002, the world's collective knowledge of climate change has increased substantially. Many nations around the world made commitments to reduce their carbon emissions in the Kyoto Protocol (UN FCC, 2014). Yet, despite this, there has been a very little new investment in nuclear power.

Total capacity has declined as noted above, and given that overall energy production capacity has likely increased in this period, the market share for nuclear power has declined significantly in this period. Three-quarters of the decline came from Japan, but the top five other nuclear power generators also decreased their output as well (Schneider et al., 2013). In 1993, nuclear power peaked at 17% of total global energy production but now sits at 10% (Ibid, p.7).

With no major new build programs, the average age of the world's nuclear reactors is at 28 years, with over 190 units having run for over 30 years, and 44 units having run for over 40 years (Ibid, p.7). There is some new construction, in fourteen countries, with one (the UAE) being a new member of the nuclear power club. There have been many delays that have stalled progress in prospective new members to the nuclear power club, comprised largely of developing world nations (Ibid, p.7).

Problem Statement There are a number of different issues that need to be examined to determine the future of nuclear power. First, there are the social and political dimensions. So many would-be nuclear powers have had trouble getting their reactors built, Bangladesh, Belarus, Jordan, Lithuania, Poland, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam among them (Schneider, et al., p.7). In established nuclear power countries, there is a lack of investment in adding new capacity. Where there is new construction, it is to replace aging facilities.

Secondly, nuclear power policy is in the political domain and in many countries public sentiment affects the political domain. So there are issues raised with respect to the perceptions that public and governments have and whether or not those perceptions are responsible for the decline of nuclear power.

Two issues, in particular, are whether disasters such as Fukushima impact public policy and whether climate change and the need to transition away from fossil fuels is helping to change public perceptions about nuclear power, and its role in the power mix of a given nation (Sovacool, n.d.). The third issue that has risen in the course of researching the subject is the handling of nuclear waste.

Public perception is not all that relevant to this issue -- while there are no studies on the subject, it seems reasonable to conclude that few members of the general public understand the science behind the generation and handling of nuclear waste. But public policy is often informed by the science, and the disposal of nuclear waste remains an emerging field, where scientists are still learning.

There are many challenges associated with handling nuclear waste, and these may be playing a role in the diminishing importance of nuclear power around the world (Dunlap, Kraft & Rosa, 2013) The opportunity presented by the current situation is to determine what the factors are that are constraining the growth of the nuclear power industry. Once these factors are understood, policymakers can have a better sense of how to work around these challenges.

There remain a lot of compelling arguments in favor of nuclear power, for its efficiency, for its ability to mitigate the impacts of climate change and even for its safety (Sailor et al., 2000). In order to restore growth to the industry, and the promise of atomic energy, in general, the issues that have befallen nuclear power in recent years will need to be better understood. The general problem is that nuclear energy has been declining in its share in the global energy resource.

The decline in the share of nuclear energy has been influenced by various factors including the political, social, and economic dimensions relating to nuclear power. These varying dimensions have in turn generated several issues that face nuclear power and played a major role in shaping public perception on this source of energy. Public perceptions have in turn had considerable impacts on energy policy and affected the development and growth of nuclear power as a major source of energy (Schwarz & Cochran, 2012).

The specific problem is that nuclear power is not used as a major source of energy despite its potential to help in lessening global climate change or global warming. Global climate change or global warming is brought by burning of fossil fuels and emission of greenhouse gasses into the Earth's atmosphere. These factors that contribute to the problem of global warming are in turn brought by the current sources of energy.

As the problem of global climate change continues to escalate due to the current sources of energy, it is surprising that nuclear power has not been considered as an alternative energy source that could help deal with this problem (Schwarz & Cochran, 2012). In essence, a greater understanding of the decline of nuclear energy in the global energy mix when it can help address global climate change is required.

The specific problem identified for this study is a major issue in the modern society because of the increased problem of global warming. While governments, policymakers, and other relevant stakeholders have been involved in looking for measures to lessen the emission of greenhouse gasses into the Earth's atmosphere, it is increasingly important to identify a suitable alternative energy source with little or no environmental impact (Wittneben, 2012).

This implies that the evaluation of nuclear power as a suitable alternative source of energy to address the issue would require identifying effective management strategy for utilizing nuclear energy and waste disposal in a manner that generates social sustainability. Therefore, this study is geared towards developing an effective management strategy for the use of nuclear power and waste disposal in a sustainable manner to address the problem of global climate change.

Through this study, the researcher seeks to provide insights on how nuclear energy could be a suitable alternative to meet the ever-increasing energy demands across the globe with little or no environmental impact. In this case, nuclear energy is regarded as a sustainable energy source through balancing the need to meet the current energy demands and ensuring environmental stability (Sailor et al., 2000).

Research Objectives First, this research seeks to identify whether or not there are any commonalities in the reasons why nuclear power is in decline at a time when it probably should be increasing in importance in the global energy mix. Secondly, the research will seek to identify if there are certain themes that can be identified with respect to nuclear power policy, and if those themes are intractable or not.

By determining the different factors that drive nuclear energy policy, the people who are responsible for making such policy around the world will be better equipped to counter the objections that they might face. The people in the nuclear power industry will also have a better sense of the problems that they need to be resolved.

Third, the research will also seek to determine whether public perceptions and attitudes have any impact on nuclear energy policy or the decline of nuclear power at a time when its significance in the global energy mix should be increasing. An understanding of the role of public perceptions and attitudes on nuclear power helps in determining the need for re-evaluating existing energy policies.

The other important element relating to public perceptions on nuclear power, which will be highlighted in the research, is to ensure the public is well-informed and considers that nuclear power benefits outweigh risks. The researcher will evaluate the link between public attitudes and perceptions towards nuclear power and the extent of knowledge and power regarding the issue. Fourth, the issues to be addressed by the researcher regarding nuclear power or energy are not expected to solely be about public perception or policy.

There are clearly some technical issues that are holding back the development of nuclear power, particularly with regard to waste disposal and management, as well as the risks posed by environmental catastrophe. Fukushima has changed the way a lot of people around the world think about nuclear power. The technical issues will be examined based on social, political, and economic dimensions relating to nuclear power or energy.

Research Question and Hypotheses Based on the specific problem for this study, the research question is, "why is nuclear energy decreasing at a time when its significance in the global energy mix should be increasing, particularly in relation to dealing with the problem of global climate change?" This research question will be examined through testing a number of hypotheses in this study. The hypotheses will focus on what current literature has demonstrated with respect to nuclear energy or nuclear power.

Hypothesis #1: Public perceptions of nuclear energy are largely driven by disasters. The underlying logic here is that the public lacks the technical knowledge with respect to nuclear energy. The general public -- in any country -- can only form opinions based on what they know, and they know little beyond headline events (Wolsink, 2010). Furthermore, people tend to be risk averse, and nuclear power represents an unknown.

Combining nuclear fears, lack of understanding and a few high-profile disasters, it is believed that the research will show that the general public's opinions about nuclear power are largely formed by disasters (Lowe et al., 2006, p.436). When testing this hypothesis, the researcher will explore how public opinion regarding nuclear energy has been largely affected by the Fukushima accident.

Actually, the Fukushima accident in 2011 had largely varying effect on public attitudes and energy policies across the globe similar to other major disasters that have taken place in the nuclear power industry (Duffy, 2012). According to a poll or survey conducted by the Huffington Post in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident, 25% of people who oppose nuclear power or energy did so because of Fukushima and other accidents in the nuclear power industry (Duffy, 2012).

Generally, Fukushima and other accidents in nuclear power industry have largely reinforced current views or opinions and pushed those who are skeptical into negative perspectives about nuclear energy. Hypothesis #2: Public perceptions can influence political decision-making. This hypothesis should, in theory, hold in a democratic society. Where people vote for their politicians, and politicians set energy policy, those politicians have the incentive to set policy in line with the perceptions and desires of the public.

This hypothesis is not expected to hold in non-democratic societies, should there be any information available from such countries. But in democratic nations -- both those with and without nuclear power, it is believed that the public's views about nuclear power play an influencing role on public policy regarding nuclear power (Wolsink, 2010). Political decision-making is a policy area that is largely influenced by public opinion or perceptions and sometimes protest-led.

Public opinion shapes political decision-making relating to nuclear power or energy because politicians use these opinions in attempts to balance competing concerns among various interest groups (Wittneben, 2012). Similar to other sectors, political decision-making in the energy sector is largely influenced by public opinion since the public consumes energy resources and is better placed to provide feedback regarding the various issues relating to nuclear energy. Hypothesis #3: Unresolved technical issues contribute to policy. The literature on nuclear power shows that the treatment and disposal of waste continue to be a challenge.

There is no clear consensus on the best way to handle waste. Studies seem to indicate that there are multiple ceramic types that are used and that these can vary in effectiveness depending on the conditions of the surrounding rock, moisture levels in said rock, and other environmental factors. There appears to be quite a bit that scientists do not know about nuclear waste disposal, even after sixty years of nuclear power (Lee et al., 2006).

These issues are more technical in nature, but those involved in setting energy policy should be able to process that knowledge. Thus, technical issues and the awareness thereof should be factors in setting policy with respect to nuclear energy (Horwitz, Dietz & Fisher, 1991). Hypothesis #4: Nuclear energy is not viewed as a viable solution to climate change. Nuclear energy is not a significant contributor to climate change.

Thus, in some circles it has been marketed as a potential solution to climate change, allowing us to meet our energy needs while at the same time reducing our carbon emissions (Nicholson et al., 2011). This hypothesis is that as of yet, policymakers are either not searching for carbon alternatives to mitigate climate change, or they do not see nuclear power as a viable alternative.

The degree to which this hypothesis holds is going to be important going forward if this is to become a selling point for renewed investment in the nuclear sector going forward. The development and growth of nuclear energy relative to climate change have attracted controversies and different opinions between proponents and opponents. The nuclear industry has been characterized by perennial issues associated with problems of safety, environmental, and security.

These perennial issues have been the reasons some countries have decided against the development and growth of nuclear energy (Royal Institute of British Architects, n.d.). These perennial issues are largely attributed to the fact that radioactive contamination from nuclear power has significant impacts beyond borders, which poses significant threats to the health and well-being of environments and nations across the globe. The link that ties these four together is that they will specifically address whether public perception is a means by which nuclear power can increase its market share.

Public perception can be a limiting threat to the growth of nuclear power, but it can also be an opportunity for nuclear power to increase its market share. Theoretical Perspectives The proposed study will seek to address the research question through a pragmatic lens, but also aims to provide valuable information to the industry and to decision makers with respect to nuclear energy policy going forward. The first basic premise that underlies this proposed research is that nuclear energy is generally a viable form of energy.

It has been demonstrated to be such for the past sixty years. While there have definitely been a handful of major disasters, there have also been major disasters in other energy fields as well. The occurrence of some major disasters in the nuclear power industry does not necessarily imply that nuclear power is not a viable form of energy. Something like Deepwater Horizon has not necessarily had any impact on public perception of fossil fuel consumption, but 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, as trying to provide useful information for the industry. That said, it should be noted that the author has no stake in nuclear power or any other form of energy. There is no commercial interest in this proposal for a dissertation, just one from the perspective of someone who is curious about the issue. Nuclear power is fascinating.

It entered the public consciousness in the most shocking way possible, at Hiroshima, and fears about nuclear power have had a significant influence on popular culture. Yet, nuclear power is actually fairly benign, in terms of how many people it has actually harmed in its usage as a civilian energy source (Wittneben, 2012). The apparent linking of the concept of nuclear energy and the concept of nuclear holocaust has an interesting effect on energy policy where nuclear power is concerned, and that 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). This is not necessarily true, the general public is often considered to have a fairly minimal influence on policy decisions, especially in areas where corporate lobbying is intensive, but the basic view of democratic political systems is that the outcomes of those systems roughly reflect the wishes of the people who live and vote within those systems.

There will be points in the proposal where democratic nations and undemocratic nations need to be separated in discussing nuclear policy, based on this inherent belief that democratic nations set policy in line with public preference. A final theoretical perspective is that there is an extent to which marketing is a part of the issue for nuclear power (Nivola, 2004). Issues of public perception, especially in a knowledge vacuum, should have a marketing bent.

The same concepts of branding, and influence public opinion in order to increase market share, or to receive a more favorable political environment, can be found in marketing. The author has a business and management background, so one of the underlying theoretical perspectives is that the desire to increase the share of the energy market for nuclear power can be examined as a management problem. Assumptions and Biases The author has a general assumption that nuclear energy is generally safe and effective.

This report is intended to be neutral in nature, and non-judgmental, but where nuclear power is concerned there is seldom a lack of opinion. Most people seem to have formed an opinion about the safety and desirability of nuclear power, and, in this case, the author is generally in favor of nuclear power. This bias is relatively minor, and is not believed to have influenced the outcome of the research, but it is worth mentioning nevertheless.

It is a logical fallacy to assume that because someone has admitted a preconception that everything they write on the subject is thus invalidated. That is far from the case. The assumption about the nature of democratic societies was stated above. This assumption is rooted in a basic belief about democracy that, in its purest form, it should reflect the wishes of the people. Elected officials and, therefore, viewed as legitimate proxies for public preference. The reality is that this is never really the case.

Voters choose their candidates on a wide range of criteria and in most instances the candidate's stance on nuclear power is not going to be one of the major deciding factors in a vote. This is why the hypothesis of public perception is considered relevant to policy-making. The basic assumption is rooted in the fundamental nature of democracy, and what it should be in its ideal. Democracy around the world live up to this idea is to varying degrees, a fact that is understood by the author.

That said, the idea that democracies reflect the collective will of the people is nevertheless a cornerstone of why society has democracy, and if nothing else makes a good starting point. It is important that the reader understands that this bias exists and that the author is aware that this assumption never holds completely in real life. There is a further assumption that underlies this study. The author assumes -- based on the admittedly imperfect science that is available that there are no major long-term issues with nuclear power.

Some of the waste created by nuclear power has a half-life of 1000-year, while some other waste has a half-life of a million years (Alic, 2012). These issues will be described in more detail later on, during the literature review. The implication, however, is clear. Nuclear power is risky, and some of the risks are entirely unknown at present.

Should some of these risks bring about a catastrophe that would shift the balance of the decision with respect to nuclear power? This is of particular importance when discussing the merits of nuclear power as a means of mitigating the effects of climate change. So it should be kept in mind that there is an underlying bias towards the idea 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 climate change.

The final assumption that should be noted from the outset is that the author is coming at this paper from a managerial perspective. There are other perspectives that could frame this paper just as well, a political science perspective, a scientific one, or even an international relations perspective (Wolsink, 2007). The author is completing a B.Sc. in Management, so management is the focal point. That means there is a focus on the strategic elements of the issue identifying the problem with an eye towards developing solutions to the problem.

This perspective will inform some of the approaches, in particular, and the methodology will be limited to approaches that do not overstretch the author's capabilities with respect to the science of nuclear power or energy and nuclear waste. Significance of the Study Most of the current literature on the subject of nuclear waste tends towards one of two types. One type is technical, building the knowledge about materials and natural mineral composition and how those variables affect the storage of nuclear waste material.

The other type is related more to the political side of nuclear power, in particular, responses to the Fukushima disaster. This study aims to bridge these two issues and fill in additional gaps that exist with the general public's perceptions of nuclear energy. The technical studies inform the political decision-making, but so too do the public perceptions, which is why that area needs to be incorporated into this study as well.

Ultimately, there has not been a comprehensive study to identify the myriad issues that are contributing to the decline of nuclear power. While this 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. Since nuclear power was envisioned in a bigger picture in the 1950s i.e. as a universal technology that could be used in solving global problems in relation to energy, the research will adopt a bigger picture.

The use of a bigger picture approach is a major theme in this research process because it will help in generating a better understanding of issues associated with the adoption of nuclear power. In essence, the researcher does not examine the issue from an individual basis but focuses on an aggregate basis of analysis. The aggregate basis of conducting the study will entail examining it from a human level including benefits and problems associated with nuclear power.

Delimitations The study is bound by the four hypotheses that will incorporate an open-ended research query, in terms of the literature sought out. But the study will narrow down what is ultimately a highly complex topic and focus specifically on the four issues that the author intends to research. The limits will reflect the need to keep the report focused.

There are so many directions available, most of which have received rather a limited study in the academic journals that an entire book could easily be written without covering too much old ground. But the reality of this study is that there are four critical hypotheses that will help inform future decision-making, and the study will focus primarily on those four hypotheses, and the research that is needed in order to address those questions effectively. The other delimitation that the author must impose is with respect to the scientific information.

Nuclear technology is incredibly complex and is a highly-specialized field. It takes many years of study to gain expert knowledge of nuclear technology, including nuclear waste handling. The author is not a nuclear scientist. It is entirely possible that a delimiting factor in this paper will be the scientific capabilities of the author, which may at times be insufficient to truly grasp the concepts being discussed, especially in the scientific journals.

It is worth noting, however, that the people who set out energy policy in most countries are also not nuclear scientists, and must rely on the same non-scientific interpretation of scientific data in order to make their decisions (Nivola, 2004). But while the author is more or less in the same situation as policy-makers, this is still a delimiting factor that could affect the study. It is not known if it will be possible to determine these reasons.

Each country has its own reasons for its policies with respect to nuclear power, and these are not always disclosed. Even within democracies, it is not always possible to obtain this information. While this reality may constrain the study, it does not mean that the study should not be attempted. It is critically important to understand what the different underlying factors of public policy are with respect to nuclear power. So that is the main objective for the research.

Limitations In addition to the limits on the study that the researcher controls, there are also external limits that will affect the study. The biggest limitation on the study will doubtless be with respect to the availability of data. Indeed, one of the reasons why democratic societies were the focal point of decision-making is because they tend to be more transparent. There are undemocratic nations with nuclear power -- the first one, Russia, among them, but the lack of transparency will hamper the availability of reliable data.

In this case, the development and enactment of the energy policy are not really clear and does not depend on a democratic process. The undemocratic nations with nuclear power have not subjected their nuclear industries to political turbulence. This is largely different from industrial nations that have subjected their nuclear industries and nuclear power to political turbulence (Nivola, 2004). This places specific limits on the study, as the author has to work with the information that is available in the public sphere.

There is definitely a limit to what license can be taken with this information. Another limit will be that the study will have to 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 technical materials. These may not be published in English, but the author can only work with what the author can understand.

Data that is published exclusively in Russian, Chinese or Arabic will, for this reason, have to be omitted from the study. Definition of Key Terms Actinide: a class of elements on the periodic table, many are by-products of nuclear fission, and are reprocessed back into fuel. 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. GWe-- Gigawatt electrical, a measure of power generation Half-life -- This is the time it takes a radioactive substance to lose half of its radioactivity. The half-life is a means of measuring how powerfully radioactive something is. Nuclear waste material half-lives range from 1000 years to 1 million years, which make their safe storage especially challenging.

Meta-analysis -- The use of a statistical approach and procedure to merge the results from numerous studies to enhance projections of the size of the impact and/or deal with any uncertainties in the studies. Nuclear Energy - The energy in the core or nucleus of an atom, which is a small unit that contributes to all matter in the universe. (Nuclear) Meltdown - There is no fixed definition of a meltdown. However, it typically refers to core damage from overheating.

At least one nuclear element in a reactor will exceed its melting point during a meltdown, and the result is a threat to the stability of the entire system. Radiation poisoning of nearby areas is a known risk of meltdowns, which is why they are so feared by the public.

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, reprocessing takes spent nuclear fuel and uses it for other applications. This is sometimes weapons, but not always so. Sustainability -- The ability to endure while remaining diverse and productive for a long period of time. To vitrify -- a technique that involves turning a liquid into a glass.

General Overview of the Research Design The nature of this research issue requires a more objective analysis of evidence and selected studies. As a result, the researcher will utilize descriptive meta-analysis technique in the study. Generally, meta-analysis can be used to synthesize descriptive and experimental research. Meta-analysis basically entails translating results from various studies to a universal metric and statistically evaluating the link between research characteristics and findings (Bangert-Drowns & Rudner, 1991).

Egger, Smith & Phillips (1997) define meta-analysis is a statistical process that entails integrating the findings of various independent studies that are considerably combinable (p.1533). Similar to any other research process, the use of meta-analysis in this study will be characterized by several steps i.e. formulating the issue or problem to be studied, data collection and analysis, and reporting the findings. Meta-analysis technique is appropriate for this study since it promotes clear definition and analysis of the issue or problem being examined.

Secondly, this technique is an appropriate research methodology for this study mainly because effectively performed meta-analyses promote a more objective evaluation of evidence or selected studies that conventional narrative or literature reviews (Egger, Smith & Phillips, 1997, p.1533). For this study, the researcher will utilize Glassian or Classic Meta-Analysis, which incorporates various steps including defining questions to be analyzed, collecting data, and examining relations between code study characteristics and results.

As previously mentioned this meta-analytic approach applies a more liberal inclusion criterion and considers the study finding as the unit of analysis (Shachar, 2008). A typical qualitative or quantitative methodology will not work for this study because of the need to generate comprehensive explanations of the heterogeneity between the results of several studies regarding the use of nuclear power as an energy source and waste disposal in a sustainable and beneficial manner (Shachar, 2008).

This research issue requires a collection of methodical techniques for resolving obvious contradictions in research findings and translating results from various studies. These processes cannot be achieved through a typical qualitative or quantitative research methodology, which implies that they will not work or be suitable for the issue under evaluation. Moreover, the research topic is a broad issue that has generated considerable attention in the recent past, which has led to numerous research and studies. These researchers and studies need to be synthesized in attempts to deduce accurate findings.

Consequently, a typical qualitative or quantitative methodology would not be suitable in generating accurate findings regarding the issue under evaluation. The research design is that the literature will provide insight into the research question and hypotheses. The literature review will identify 20 studies to address the research questions and hypotheses. The style of the report is a research synthesis, which is an overview report of the existing literature on the subject (New York University, n.d.). The analysis in this instance will focus on the synthesis of many different subject areas.

Where most papers take a narrow focus, this paper will seek to step back and provide an overview. The result of this is that the research design consists of examining the existing literature, as well as publicly-available data from either government or international agencies, in order to test the hypotheses. The research, therefore, will be primarily qualitative in nature as no surveys or instruments will be incorporated.

This research design has been developed on the basis that the research question is explanatory in nature since it focuses on the why question. Generally, researchers usually develop research designs depending on whether the research question is descriptive or explanatory (New York University, n.d.). In this case, the research question is seemingly explanatory since the researcher will focus on examining why nuclear energy has declined in its significance in the global energy mix despite being a suitable alternative for dealing with the problem of global climate change.

Since the research question is explanatory in nature, the researcher will develop casual explanations to argue different phenomena related to the issue (New York University, n.d.). The casual explanations will act at the basis for identifying the various issues relating to nuclear energy and its decline in the global energy mix. Moreover, these casual explanations will provide insights regarding the link between these issues and the increasing reluctance to use nuclear power as an alternative source of energy that will help deal with global climate change.

Notably, this study will be conducted through meta-analysis technique, which is a suitable research methodology for the issue under examination because it promotes a more objective evaluation of evidence or selected studies in a manner that is more effective than conventional literature or narrative reviews. Meta-analysis is basically a statistical procedure that integrates findings of several independent studies that are considered as combinable (Egger, Smith & Phillips, 1997, p.1533).

This research methodology will be appropriate for the study since the researcher seeks to synthesize different independent studies on different topic areas relating to the issue under evaluation in this research. The suitability of meta-analysis in this study is also evident in the fact that it enables more accurate prediction of results and comprehensive explanations of the heterogeneity between findings of individual studies (Egger, Smith & Phillips, 1997, p.1533).

Moreover, the suitability of meta-analysis technique for this research is attributed to the fact that it's a collection of methodical techniques for resolving obvious contradictions in research findings. This technique also involves translating results from varying studies to a universal metric and statistically examining the relation between research characteristics and findings (Bangert-Drowns & Rudner, 1991). This research methodology promotes clear definition and analysis of the issue or problem being examined given the broad nature of this research topic.

Through the use of this technique, the researcher will primarily focus on examining different studies in terms of their information and contradictions before statistically examining their characteristics and findings (Bangert-Drowns & Rudner, 1991). This process will be geared towards integrating the results of these independent studies to generate significant conclusions regarding the topic. Therefore, the use of meta-analysis technique in the study will help generate important information about the issue.

Summary of Chapter One Nuclear energy is the energy in the core or nucleus of an atom, which is a small unit that contributes to all matter in the universe. Throughout history, nuclear energy has not only been essential in war but has also been utilized in meeting the energy needs of civilians. Currently, nuclear energy accounts for approximately 10% of energy needs across the globe. In addition, only 31 countries worldwide have nuclear reactors i.e. 421 reactors across the globe by the end of 2013.

However, the nuclear power industry has experienced a considerable decline over the past two decades because of the very little investment in nuclear power throughout the world. While the production capacity has slightly increased during this period, the market share for nuclear power has decreased significantly.

This study seeks to examine the issues that have befallen nuclear energy in recent years in order to provide necessary insights that could contribute to the restoration of the growth of this industry and realization of the promise or potential of atomic energy in general. It is quite evident that the development and growth of nuclear power have been largely affected by social, political, and economic factors, which shape public perception. Public perceptions, attitudes, and opinions regarding nuclear power in turn affect political decision-making (Wolsink, 2007).

The main objective for this study is to examine underlying factors of public policy in relation to nuclear power. As a result, the researcher will identify certain themes that are evident with regards to nuclear power policy and whether the themes are intractable or not. In order to achieve this research objective, the author will test four hypotheses depending on what literature has demonstrated with regards to nuclear energy.

These hypotheses include public perceptions of nuclear energy are largely driven by disasters, public perceptions can influence political decision-making, unresolved technical issues result in policy, and nuclear energy is not regarded as a viable solution to climate change. This research is also based on several theoretical perspectives including nuclear energy is generally a viable form of energy, public policy choices are driven by needs of the public, and marketing is a major issue in nuclear energy.

The author has several assumptions and biases when conducting the study including nuclear energy is generally safe and effective, the nature of democratic societies; there are no major long-term issues with nuclear power and the managerial perspective of the researcher. The significance of the study is that the author bridges the two issues in current literature on the issue of nuclear waste and fills in extra gaps, in general, public perceptions of nuclear energy.

The limitations of this study include limited availability of data, especially the nature of democratic societies relative to nuclear power and exclusive focus on studies published in English. Organization of Dissertation (or Proposal) This study is organized in different chapters that seek to examine the issue to be discussed and achieving research objectives. The first chapter provides an overview of the dissertation, which includes the topic overview, problem statement, purpose of the study, research objectives, hypotheses, theoretical perspectives, assumptions and biases, and significance of the study.

The other issues covered in this chapter include delimitation, limitations of the study, definition of key terms, general overview of the research design, summary of the chapter, and organization of the dissertation or study. The second chapter is a literature review, which examines existing literature regarding the topic. In this case, the researcher examines each of the hypotheses relating to the topic issue and in light of the research objective. For each of the four hypotheses tested in this chapter, the researcher provides an alternative or null hypothesis.

The third chapter provides the research design i.e. meta-analytic comparison of studies on nuclear waste disposal. This chapter also includes research traditions, research questions and hypotheses, research design, validity and reliability of the design, ethical issues in the research, and a summary of issues discussed in the chapter. The fourth chapter of this dissertation provides findings of the tests conducted in each of the hypotheses.

The findings of the hypotheses are discussed based on their relevance to the research objectives or topic and meta-analytic comparison of studies on nuclear power and nuclear waste. The final chapter provides conclusions based on study findings and results of the tests of the hypotheses. This chapter includes limitations of the study, implications for practice, implications of the study, recommendations for future research, and reflections. The other parts of the dissertation are references and appendices.

Chapter Two: Literature Review 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 110km outside of Moscow (Josephson, 2000, p.2). At the time, nuclear power was viewed as the energy of the future. Unharnessing the power of the atom, it was thought, was provided a stable, reliable source of energy for the future.

Even at the time, it was known that fossil fuels were not going to sustainable as an energy source. The use of atomic weapons at the end of the Second World War highlighted the value of harnessing the atom nuclear energy was essential in war, and to meet civilian energy needs. The most technologically advanced societies of that age, the U.S., and USSR, were the leaders in the development of nuclear technology, but they were soon joined by a number of other nations (Josephson, 2000, p.3).

The studies that have been identified for analysis have been selected based on their relevance to the research topic. The researcher has not only examined published articles but also used a robust search to identify contextual articles relating to this issue. These studies have effectively met the selection criteria for the location of relevant studies. They cover a wide range of issues that are relevant to the issue under evaluation and provide important insights that can be used to generate suitable and accurate findings.

Some of the most common issues covered in these studies that make them appropriate for study include public perceptions towards nuclear energy, energy policy making processes and initiatives, impact of accidents in nuclear power plants on policy making initiatives, and the suitability of nuclear energy as a solution to the problem of climate change across the world. These were important aspects that influenced the researcher's decision to select the studies and incorporate them in this study.

The studies that will be analyzed for this research include Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W. & Simmons, P. (2011). Reframing Nuclear Power in the UK Energy Debate: Nuclear Power, Climate Change Mitigation and Radioactive Waste. Public Understanding of Science,17(2), 145-169. Bird, D.K., Haynes, K., van den Honert, R., McAneney, J. & Poortinga, W. (2014, February). Nuclear Power in Australia: A Comparative Analysis of Public Opinion Regarding Climate Change and the Fukushima Disaster. Energy Policy, 65, 644-653. Boin, A., Hart, P. & McConnell, A. (2009).

Crisis Exploitation: Political and Policy Impacts of Framing Contexts. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81-106. Corner, A., Venables, D., Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Demski, C., Pidgeon, N. (2011). Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Security: Exploring British Public Attitudes. Energy Policy, 39(2011), 4823-4833. Duffy, R.J. (2012). After Fukushima: Nuclear Power in the United States. Retrieved from University Pompeu Fabra website: http://regulation.upf.edu/exeter-12-papers/Paper%20236%20-%20Duffy%202012%20-%20After%20Fukushima.pdf Feldhoff, T. (2013, May 24). New Challenges After Fukushima. Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies, 13(1). Hultman, N. & Koomey, J. (2013).

Three Mile Island: The Driver of U.S. Nuclear Power's Decline? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 69(3), 63-70. Hymans, J.E.C. (2015). Veto Players and Japanese Nuclear Policy After Fukushima. Retrieved October 30, 2015, from https://networks.h-net.org/system/files/contributed-files/hymans-pfj-final-h-energy.pdf Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C., Nowlin, M. & de Lozier, G. (2011). Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility. Risk Analysis, 31(4), 629-644. Pidgeon, N., Lorenzoni, I. & Poortinga, W. (2008).

Climate Change or Nuclear Power - No Thanks! A Quantitative Study of Public Perceptions and Risk Framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 69-85. Rogers, J., Simmons, E., Convery, I. & Weatherall, A. (2008).Public Perceptions of Opportunities for Community-based Renewable Energy Projects. Energy Policy, 36(11), 4217-4226. Rothstein, H., Irving, P., Walden, T. & Yearsley, R. (2006). The Risks of Risk-based Regulation: Insights from the Environmental Policy Domain. Environment International, 32(8), 1056-1065. Sailor, W., Bodansky, D., Braun, C., Fetter, S. & van der Zwaan, B. (2000). A Nuclear Solution to Climate Change? Science, 288(5469), 1177-1178. Schneider, M.

& Froggatt, A. (2014). 2012-2013 World Nuclear Industry Status Report. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 70(1), 70-84. Schwarz, P.M. & Cochran, J.A. (2012, October 3). Renaissance or Requiem: Is Nuclear Energy Cost Effective in a Post-Fukushima World? Contemporary Economic Policy, 31(4), 691-707. Skea, J., Lechtenbohmer, S. & Asuka, J. (2013). Climate Policies After Fukushima: Three Views. Climate Policy, 13(1), 36-54. Slovic, P., Flynn, J. & Layman, M. (1991).Perceived Risk, Trust and the Politics of Nuclear Waste. Science, 254(5038), 1603-1607. Sovacool, B. & Cooper, C. (2008).

Nuclear Nonsense: Why Nuclear Power is No Answer to Climate Change and the World's Post-Kyoto Energy Challenges. William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 1 (2008). Wittneben, B.B.F. (2012, January). The Impact of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on European Energy Policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 15(1), 1-3. Wolsink, M. (2007).Planning of Renewable Schemes: Deliberative and Fair Decision-making on Landscape Issues Instead of Reproachful Accusations of Non-cooperation. Energy Policy, 35 (2007), 2692-2704. Overview of Studies to be Analyzed Bickerstaff et al.

(2011), postulate that nuclear power is an effective means of mitigating climate change because it is not associated with increased use of fossil fuels. However, there is increased reluctance to accept nuclear power as a viable option to resolve climate change, which necessitates reframing nuclear energy debate in the future. There is the possibility, however, that information campaigns can reframe nuclear power. In particular, the fear of climate change is growing, and at a rate faster than the fear of nuclear energy.

While public perception of nuclear power is not especially safe at the moment, it may be that in the near future the fear of climate change is greater than the fear of nuclear energy, and at that point there may be a shift in public sentiment with respect to nuclear energy (Bickerstaff et al., 2011). Bird et al. (2014) conducted a comparative assessment of public opinion about climate change and the Fukushima disaster with regards to nuclear power in Australia.

The analysis found that Australians believe nuclear power provides cleaner, more efficient alternative to coal but are against nuclear energy because of safety concerns and distrust. Therefore, there is a reluctance to accept nuclear power, which is a reflection of the fragile attitudinal state that is easily swayed. Bird et al.

(2014) noted that public opinion in Australia changed after Fukushima, from 42% of Australians in favor of nuclear power, as a means of reducing carbon emissions, to ranking it as 40% opposed a year later, and well behind three other options for addressing climate change through a shift in energy policy. The views of nuclear power have always been more negative after disasters. Bird's study (2014) showed that in Australia, nuclear power as a solution to climate change went from being a favorable option pre-Fukushima to an unfavorable option post-Fukushima.

This illustrates that under normal circumstances when there are no disasters; nuclear power is viewed as a method of reducing carbon emissions while retaining our energy capacity. The fact that the views about nuclear energy were strong before Fukushima shows that this is essentially a default position, but that when people are reminded of the risks associated with nuclear energy, they turn to other ways of addressing climate change. Nuclear power must compete, in the mindset of the public, with renewable energy sources, in terms of the climate change debate.

Boin, Hart and McConnell (2009) examined the impact of major, disruptive emergencies on public policies and politicians. In the study, these researchers argue that politicians and public policy are usually shaken when a major, disruptive emergency occurs. As a result, the emergencies or crises create framing contests for interpretation of events relative to political objectives and directions for future policy.

Where nuclear power is concerned, disasters do shape opinions, but disasters not relating to nuclear energy can similarly be leveraged as an opportunity to reshape public opinion with respect to nuclear power. Disruptive emergencies can shift the fate of both politicians and public policies, because of the profound impact that emergencies have on the public (Boin, Hart & McConnell, 2009). According to Corner et al.

(2011), public perceptions and attitudes towards nuclear energy in the United Kingdom have been sharply divided because of the increased effect of concerns regarding climate change and energy security on the energy policy in Britain. Based on their analysis, the researchers conclude that these concerns will only enhance acceptance of nuclear energy under restricted circumstances. Duffy (2012) examined nuclear power in the United States in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident, which prompted a global reevaluation of nuclear power.

While other regions reevaluated their nuclear energy policies and programs in the aftermath of Fukushima, the United States did not allow the accident to disrupt its nuclear programs. The United States was regarded as surprisingly resistant to concerns expressed regarding nuclear power in other countries. In a study conducted by The Huffington Post in the aftermath of the Fukushima incident, 25% of people who opposed nuclear power in 24 countries where the survey was conducted opposed nuclear power because of the devastating impacts of the incident (Duffy, 2012).

The same survey demonstrated that the incident galvanized already negative perceptions and opinions regarding nuclear power in Germany and Italy. Duffy (2012) concludes his analysis of the effect of this incident by stating that the Fukushima accident's main impact on energy policy was to largely reinforce the existing negative perceptions and provoke negative decisive action in countries that were already skeptical about nuclear power. Feldhoff (2013) conducted a study on new challenges brought by Fukushima in relation to energy policies in Japan.

He argued that Fukushima accident generated a crucial juncture that could provide a new means of managing energy through accommodation of a new regional development system. As evident in the study, Fukushima disaster contributed to a re-evaluation of energy policies in Japan because of increased public concern regarding nuclear risk. Feldhoff (2014) concurs with Duffy (2012) by arguing that the Fukushima accident in March 2011 forced Japan to shatter its nuclear-dependent energy policy (p.87).

Hultman & Koomey (2013) carried out a study in which they examined the role of Three Mile Island in America's nuclear power decline. In the study, the authors state that America's nuclear power industry experienced significant challenges in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island, which exacerbated the already existing problems in this industry. This industry already faced significant economic and competitiveness obstacles given that safety concerns have been the main factor in shaping public opinion about nuclear energy.

Hultman & Koomey (2013) support claims that the nuclear power industry has experienced cancelation of 40% of all reactors in the United States between 1960 and 2010 (p.63). This cancelation of reactors in the past few decades has in turn forced the nuclear power industry to face significant financial and competitiveness obstacles, which has become prevalent across the globe. Hymans (2015) discusses nuclear policy and veto players in Japan in the aftermath of Fukushima disaster.

The analysis highlights the country's failure to change its long-term nuclear policy approximately three years after the accident, which is due to political failure. In essence, political failure can act as a major stumbling block towards nuclear policymaking. Hymans (2015), states that Japanese nuclear policy change seemingly occurred after the Fukushima accident, which demonstrated several technical issues relating to nuclear power and energy. Jenkins-Smith et al. (2011) utilized the case of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant to examine the change of risk perception and acceptance with regards to nuclear waste.

This study was carried out because of the increased opposition against nuclear waste repositories. The researchers found that risk perception and acceptance is influenced by various factors like ideology, wider environmental concerns, government approval, and partisanship. According to these researchers, nuclear power policy is influenced by several factors including ideology, partisanship, government approval and environmental concern. Pidgeon, Lorenzoni & Poortinga (2008) stated that climate change and nuclear energy are considered problematic by people with regards to risks and reluctance to accept nuclear power as a solution to climate change.

These findings were based on a quantitative assessment of public perceptions and risk framing in the United Kingdom. These researchers noted 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 carbon emissions, and attitudes do not appear to be shifting particularly quickly, based on surveys conducted over the years. Rogers et al.

(2008) conducted a study on public perceptions and attitudes regarding opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects. They concluded that community renewable energy projects are likely to obtain public acceptance through they are unlikely to become prevalent without institutional support. They found that higher levels of citizen participation in determining energy policy will bring about lower levels of resistance; many citizens, in particular, want to understand how a proposed project will benefit their community. Rothstein et al.

(2006) evaluate risks associated with risk-based regulation in light of its increased popularity in recent years and in relation to environmental policy. In light of the controversies and debates relating to risk-based regulation, environmental outcomes that the regulations seek to provide is more important with regards to regulatory objectives. Risk-based regulation is common, but can be challenging to implement with respect to nuclear waste because while overall probabilities are very low, the negative outcomes are very high should they occur. Sailor et al.

(2000) examines whether nuclear power is a solution to climate change given the need for a transformation of the global energy supply to mitigate climate change. They conclude that nuclear power is a viable option despite its decrease in the global energy mix. However, nuclear power is characterized by several barriers that are surmountable. Sailor et al. (2000) argue that nuclear is the only viable option, based on their calculations.

The authors note that nuclear power can bring about the target greenhouse gas emission reductions faster than any other form of energy generation, which puts nuclear power at the center of the debate with respect to reducing carbon output. Schneider & Froggatt (2014) provided an analysis of the world nuclear industry in 2013 in which they examine the impact of the Fukushima disaster on the global nuclear industry. The report examines this impact with regards to global electricity generation and the current trends of nuclear power programs throughout the globe.

The report also provides an outlook of nuclear reactor units that are currently operating and under construction in the aftermath of this incident. The researchers conclude that global nuclear renaissance, which was flourishing before Fukushima, has stalled since the accident generated additional issues to the already existing grave problems, especially poor economics. Schneider & Froggatt (2014) contend that the decline in this industry is reflected in the reduction of global electricity generation from nuclear power plants by 7% in 2012, which was a record (p.70).

Schwarz & Cochran (2012) examined the cost-effectiveness of nuclear energy following the Fukushima accident, which contributed to a reconsideration of the role of nuclear energy power production in the future. These researchers focused on examining the future viability of nuclear energy in comparison with lessening dependence on it and its suitability as an alternative to burning fossil fuels. They state that public perceptions have in turn had considerable impacts on energy policy and affected the development and growth of nuclear power as a major source of energy.

Decisions to decrease or stop the future use of nuclear power were not based on a rational economic analysis in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. Skea, Lechtenbohmer and Asuka (2013) examined climate policies in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident given the worldwide impact of this incident. Through focusing on three major economies, they conclude that climate policies across the globe varied after Fukushima due to various reasons and factors. They studied the response to nuclear power as a climate change solution in the UK, Germany, and Japan, after Fukushima.

The authors note that in all three countries, citizens and policymakers alike had seen nuclear power as a viable strategy for mitigating carbon emissions and managing climate change. Slovic, Flynn and Layman (1991) evaluated perceived risk, trust, and politics in relation to nuclear waste given the political opposition against disposal of high-level radioactive wastes that was fueled by public perceptions regarding risk. An evaluation of public perceptions highlighted deeply rooted fear that has existed since the discovery of radioactivity and linked to the creation and use of nuclear weapons.

In their study, they examined the relationship between perceptions and policy-making with respect to nuclear power. Sovacool & Cooper (2008) examined the potential solution of nuclear power as an answer to climate change and energy demands worldwide. They concluded that nuclear power is a poor alternative or answer to meeting the energy challenges of the most carbon-constrained, post-Kyoto world. This is primarily because nuclear power generators are increasingly vulnerable to unresolved economic, environmental, social, and infrastructural problems, especially in comparison to renewable energy technologies.

They state that social dimensions relating to the growth of nuclear power have largely been centered on public opinions about nuclear power that have been shaped by accidents that have taken place in the nuclear power industry such as the Chernobyl incident and Fukushima accident. Wittneben (2012) conducted a study to examine the impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on energy policy in the European region. This analysis was carried out on the premise that the incident generated considerable debate regarding the future of nuclear energy.

The researcher concludes that Europe's response to the accident differed substantially among member states because it was geographically removed from the radioactive fallout. This difference was also influenced by the extent of media reporting, increased trust in renewable energy technologies, a sense of cultural proximity to the Japanese, and history of nuclear resistance. According to Wittneben (2012), the intensity of media reports has played a crucial role in the social dimension of nuclear power since media informs a lot of what people perceive about key issues.

The researcher studied the effects of Fukushima on policy-making in both Germany and the UK. Wittneben's study looked at the other factors and predicted that the reaction to Fukushima would be stronger in Germany, and more negative towards nuclear power, at least compared with the United Kingdom. Wolsink (2010) evaluated the controversy in the environmental policy infrastructure since decisions for developing new infrastructure is usually contested. Similarly, the social acceptability of developing infrastructure as an important element of environmental policy is also contested and relatively unclear.

He concludes by arguing that social acceptance of nuclear power facilities and programs is a multi-dimensional phenomenon demonstrated across geographical scales and governance levels. Review of the Studies Today, nuclear energy provides for roughly 10% of the world's energy needs. There are reactors in 31 countries, for a total of 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. Thus, the nuclear power industry is in decline.

While some of this can be attributed to the Fukushima disaster that took some of Japan's capacity offline, the fact that nuclear energy is not growing is somewhat perplexing. Since 2002, the world's collective knowledge of climate change has increased substantially. Many nations around the world made commitments to reduce their carbon emissions in the Kyoto Protocol (UN FCC, 2014).

Schneider & Froggatt (2014) concurs with the existing studies regarding the decline of nuclear power industry by arguing that the decline in this industry is reflected in the reduction of global electricity generation from nuclear power plants by 7% in 2012, which was a record (p.70). Hultman&Koomey (2013) support these claims by stating that the nuclear power industry has experienced cancelation of 40% of all reactors in the United States between 1960 and 2010 (p.63).

This cancelation of reactors in the past few decades has in turn forced the nuclear power industry to face significant financial and competitiveness obstacles, which has become prevalent across the globe. Yet, despite this, 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 in this period, the market share for nuclear power has declined significantly in this period.

Three-quarters of the decline came from Japan, but the top five other nuclear power generators also decreased their output as well (Schneider et al., 2013). In 1993, nuclear power peaked at 17% of total global energy production but now sits at 10% (Ibid, p.7). With no major new build programs, the average age of the world's nuclear reactors is at 28 years, with over 190 units having run for over 30 years, and 44 units having run for over 40 years (Ibid, p.7).

There is some new construction, in fourteen countries, with one (the UAE) being a new member of the nuclear power club. There have been many delays that have stalled progress in prospective new members to the nuclear power club, comprised mainly of developing world nations (Ibid, p.7). The countries with the greatest usage of nuclear power are the U.S., France, and Russia.

The top ten are rounded out by 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 altogether and in many other nations capacity peaked several years ago. Nuclear power only makes up 50% or more of power generation capacity in three countries -- France, Slovakia and Belgium (Schneider, et al., p. 13).

The evidence is that the use of nuclear power is in decline, which defines a problem for the industry. In several countries, such as South Korea, Belgium, and Mexico, a combination of repair work and quality control scandals reduced capacity (Schneider et al., p.13). The decline in the development and growth of nuclear power or energy is attributed to social, political, and economic factors that influence public perceptions, attitudes, opinions, and public policy regarding this issue.

Nivola (2004), states that political and economic factors have been crucial factors in the stuttered development and growth of the nuclear power industry. Political and economic factors have been the major causes of troubles and frustrations relating to the growth of nuclear energy across the globe. These factors have not only influenced public perceptions and attitudes but also affected policy development relating to the development and growth of nuclear power.

Social dimensions relating to the growth of nuclear power have largely been centered on public opinions about nuclear power that have been shaped by accidents that have taken place in the nuclear power industry such as the Chernobyl incident and Fukushima accident (Sovacool, n.d.). These perceptions have affected the construction of nuclear power plants and the overall growth of nuclear energy. Social Dimension in Nuclear Energy The social dimension in nuclear energy is largely attributed to people's perceptions about nuclear power on how informed they are.

The starting point in recent literature for understanding the effects of disasters on public perceptions with respect to nuclear power is, naturally, Fukushima. The Fukushima disaster occurred in March 2011, in Japan, when an earthquake triggered a tsunami that in turn damaged several reactors at the Fukushima site.

The threat posed to Japan in particular by these reactors and the high level of publicity that the tsunami and the Fukushima reactor issues received led to a number of academic studies and white papers that specifically evaluated the effects of Fukushima on public policy. Moreover, public opinions regarding nuclear power changed in the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident in 1987. In general, people are spurred to action by a number of factors. One is that there are structural barriers that make it difficult for people to undertake climate-positive actions.

But more than that, people are typically oriented towards the status quo change is only something people are motivated to undertake when a crisis emerges. In terms of climate change, that crisis point apparently has not hit, though the hurricane of misinformation coming from the fossil fuel industry and conservative politicians doubtless contributes to the problem, because crises that do occur are obfuscated. Whatever the excuse, psychological barriers may be, colloquially known as "dragons of inaction" limit the ability of the public to change perceptions with respect to climate change.

It's either the public lacks the scientific literacy to understand the issue, they cling to ideological worldviews that prevent them from accepting reality or they fear change because that's what people do (Gifford, 2011). The other major social dimension aspect in nuclear energy is the fact that growth in the nuclear power industry across the globe has been lagging for over two decades. The installed nuclear power capacity has grown every year by a meager 1.3% since the 1987 Chernobyl incident.

This slight growth over the past two decades has occurred despite the annual growth and increase in the demand of electricity by nearly 3% every year. While the total primary energy consumption has increased by more than 26% in the past two decades, the aggregate growth in installed nuclear power has been a scanty 15% (Sovacool, n.d.). Hultman & Koomey (2013) support this view by claiming that the United States has canceled approximately 40% of all its nuclear power reactors between 1960 and 2010.

These cancelations have played a role in the decline of the industry by generating considerable financial and competitiveness obstacles across the globe. The same view of decline in nuclear power industry as an important factor in the social dimension in nuclear energy is upheld by Schneider & Froggatt (2014).

These researchers reported that nuclear power industry experienced a record 7% decline in the global electricity generation from nuclear power plants in 2012.According to Wittneben (2012), the intensity of media reports has played a crucial role in the social dimension of nuclear power since media informs a lot of what people perceive about key issues. In his study, Wittneben (2012), states that the German media covered Fukushima extensively, but in a manner that provided in-depth scientific explanations.

In the UK, media reports were less frequent and were soon eclipsed by UK troops fighting in Libya. The differences in coverage would lead to the view that Germans would have higher awareness and their opinions would be more informed. There would be a risk that British citizens, having received fairly limited knowledge, might be less aware of Fukushima but could have a higher level of concern because they did not receive the same high level of technical information.

Similarly, Carter (1987) found that the views about the handling of nuclear waste shifted from being something that should be recycled if possible to being something that needed to be buried deep in the ground in a study published in the aftermath of Chernobyl disaster. Dunlap, Kraft & Rosa (1993) state that the perceptions of nuclear waste handling were affected by Three Mile Island since the effects seemed to be fairly long-lasting.

This in turn contributed to increased public debate about the handling of nuclear waste which continued on through the 1980s, many years after Three Mile Island was no longer a major talking point. Sovacool (n.d.), concurs with Dunlap, Kraft & Rosa (2013) by stating that social dimensions relating to the growth of nuclear power have largely been centered on public opinions about nuclear power that have been shaped by accidents that have taken place in the nuclear power industry such as the Chernobyl incident and Fukushima accident.

In a study conducted by The Huffington Post in the aftermath of the Fukushima incident, 25% of people who opposed nuclear power in 24 countries where the survey was conducted opposed nuclear power because of the devastating impacts of the incident (Duffy, 2012). The same survey demonstrated that the incident galvanized already negative perceptions and opinions regarding nuclear power in Germany and Italy. These negative views were evident in the major public votes or policy decisions carried out in the aftermath of the accident.

Actually, an Italian referendum in the aftermath of the Fukushima incident resulted in an emphatic rejection of nuclear power as a source of energy. In Germany, the Fukushima accident forced the government to close several nuclear power plants and established plans to shut down the remaining power plants in the country by 2022.

Duffy (2012) concludes his analysis of the effect of this incident by stating that the Fukushima accident's main impact on energy policy was to largely reinforce the existing negative perceptions and provoke negative decisive action in countries that were already skeptical about nuclear power. Feldhoff (2014) concurs with Duffy (2012) by arguing that the Fukushima accident in March 2011 forced Japan to shatter its nuclear-dependent energy policy (p.87). In the immediate aftermath of this accident, Japan closed all its nuclear power plants either temporarily or permanently.

Similar to Germany, Japan has maintained a secure energy supply that is characterized by a significantly decreased or even zero nuclear energy since Fukushima happened in March 2011. Japan and Germany have maintained approximately 30% of electricity produced from nuclear power plants. However, the aftermath of the Fukushima accident was characterized by a steep reduction in dependence on nuclear power though these countries had different ways of responding to the crisis.

The other social aspect that has hindered the growth of nuclear power industry is the emergence and growth of social movement organizations that campaign for the abolition of nuclear power, especially the development and growth of new nuclear power plant and facilities. These social movement organizations has emerged in the aftermath of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident that had devastating impacts on people's lives and demonstrated the inherent dangers of nuclear power (Satoh et al., 2014, p.178).

While these social movements have not contributed to the closure of nuclear power plants, they have been successful in changing people's or the public's opinion regarding nuclear power or energy. Bird (2014) noted that public opinion in Australia changed after Fukushima, from 42% of Australians in favor of nuclear power, as a means of reducing carbon emissions, to ranking it as 40% opposed a year later, and well behind three other options for addressing climate change through a shift in energy policy.

The views of nuclear power have always been more negative after disasters. Public perceptions can also be influenced by misinformation. An example would be with strontium-90 pollution. A self-styled activist group claimed that Sr.-90 levels in the environment are rising, and tied to an increase in cancers. Not only is this claim unfounded in the scientific literature, but 99% of Sr.-90 in the environment is there as the result of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the Cold War era.

The dose has basically nothing to do with nuclear power and only consists of 0.3% of the average American's exposure to background radiation. Nuclear power plant emissions of Sr.-90 are negligible (NEI, 2014). The Nuclear Energy Institute logs and routinely has to counter spurious and entirely unfounded claims about nuclear power that arise from nuclear power opponents. The impact of misinformation is not entirely known, but there are plenty of recent examples of how misinformation can inform opinion for large numbers of the public.

The doctrine by which disasters will shape opinions is not dissimilar to the idea of the shock doctrine, wherein a major shock allows for a change in public consciousness (Klein, 2007). People are generally oriented to the status quo until such time as the status quo becomes a problem. The need for change, therefore, is the main driver of the change. In the shock doctrine, politicians have an agenda ready, waiting for the shock so that they can implement it (Klein, 2007).

Where nuclear power is concerned, disasters do shape opinions, but disasters are not relating to nuclear energy can similarly be leveraged as an opportunity to reshape public opinion with respect to nuclear power. Disruptive emergencies can shift the fate of both politicians and public policies, because of the profound impact that emergencies have on the public (Boin, Hart & McConnell, 2009). Political Dimension in Nuclear Energy Nuclear power policy is in the political domain, and in many countries public sentiment affects the political domain. According to Jenkins-Smith et al.

(2011), nuclear power policy is influenced by several factors including ideology, partisanship, government approval and environmental concern. Nivola (2004), states that political and economic factors have been crucial factors in the stuttered development and growth of the nuclear power industry. The troubles and frustrations in the nuclear power industry are regarded as more political than economical. Actually, politics has been regarded as the main source of exceptional troubles and frustrations in nuclear power than economic factors.

For instance, the potential of nuclear power in the United States has been hindered by a hostile regulatory environment and unconventionally risk-averse public whose opinion regarding nuclear energy has been influenced by politics (Nivola, 2004). Political and legal institutions in the United States and other parts of the world have been largely uncooperative with regards to the further development of nuclear power plants and growth of nuclear energy. Political factors play a major role in nuclear power development because politics influences the regulatory framework of this industry.

Political Factors and Public Perception Political factors have not only influenced public perceptions and attitudes but also affected policy development relating to the development and growth of nuclear power. So there are issues raised with respect to the perceptions that publics and governments have, and whether or not those perceptions are responsible for the decline of nuclear power.

Two issues, in particular, are whether disasters such as Fukushima impact public policy and whether climate change and the need to transition away from fossil fuels is helping to change public perceptions about nuclear power, and its role in the power mix of a given nation. Link between Public Perception and Policy-making Slovic, Flynn & Layman (1991) studied the relationship between perceptions and policy-making with respect to nuclear power.

The political environment seeks to weigh the trade-offs between the risks inherent in nuclear power and the benefits that it can convey to a society. One of the problems that the authors identified are that not only is there a distrust of nuclear power among many people but they largely do not understand the issues. Wittneben (2012) studied the effects of Fukushima on policy-making in both Germany and the UK.

One finding was that Germany had some regional elections in the weeks following Fukushima, while the disaster was ongoing, and the result was that the politicians had to address the issue of nuclear power, which remains a significant power source for Germany. There were no elections in the UK, so politicians had no incentive to address the issue of nuclear power. German response would also have been affected by the fact that Germany has a strong market for renewables, and that Germany has a long history of anti-nuclear sentiment.

Germany is also seen as having a closer cultural similarity to Japan, that if a disaster could occur in Japan with its engineering prowess, the same could happen in Germany (Wittneben, 2012). The UK has less close cultural proximity, less anti-nuclear sentiment, and the UK is further behind the curve on renewables. Based on this examination, it would be predicted that UK response to Fukushima would be minimal, but that in Germany there could be considerably more response, and much of it may well be negative.

Wittneben's study looked at the other factors and predicted that the reaction to Fukushima would be stronger in Germany, and more negative towards nuclear power, at least compared with the United Kingdom. The reality is that Germany ended up issuing temporary shutdowns on some nuclear facilities, and safety inspections of the others. For these same reasons, the UK did not shut down older facilities, and politicians were able to relatively easily reaffirm Britain's use of nuclear power going forward.

Wittneben (2012) found that the German response to Fukushima was to shut down older reactors temporarily and perform safety evaluations on its facilities while the British response was a relatively brief affirmation of the current nuclear strategy, which included increasing capacity. Overall, these responses were predicted by the variables that Wittneben identified, and those variables might form an interesting framework for further analysis of public perceptions of nuclear power.

It is clear from the evidence presented here, however, that disasters can affect public perceptions of nuclear power, and that public perceptions can affect public policy. One of Wittneben's points in the framework was the history of resistance to nuclear power, and another country that has been studied is Australia, which traditionally has had a high level of resistance to nuclear power. Schneider et al.

(2013) did not list Australia among the nations with nuclear power, but it is also worth noting that Australia also has taken an anti-renewable stance for some reason in recent years, offering a rather conflicted stance with respect to energy policy, a nation with a strong coal lobby doubling down on fossil fuels. Hymans (2015), states that Japanese nuclear policy change seemingly occurred after the Fukushima accident, which demonstrated several technical issues relating to nuclear power and energy.

Schwarz & Cochran (2012) argue that decisions to decrease or stop the future use of nuclear power were not based on a rational economic analysis in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster (p.691). Public perceptions and attitudes regarding nuclear power influenced political decision-making in Japan, Italy, and the United States among other nations. In their study, Schwarz & Cochran (2012) state that Italy abandoned plans to reactivate old nuclear energy power plants, Japan temporarily halted operations of nuclear power plants, and the United States tempered the push for a nuclear resurgence (p.691).

These decisions were largely influenced by public perceptions about the nuclear power after the Fukushima incident. Wolsink (2010) noted that the public does play a role in forming public policy. The role is twofold. First, the public has a need for infrastructure, and that need is part of what drives policy. Second, the public acts as a constraint on certain types of infrastructure. Devine-Wright (2005) noted that public acceptability is usually a significant barrier in relation to the development of renewable energy.

This is mainly because acceptance often comes over time, especially after something has been implemented and there has been no harm come. In the year 2011, the World Energy Outlook presented a reference of the business as usual scenario essentially based on the continuation of existing policies and trends (Schneider & Froggatt, 2014, p.72). The new policies that were put in place take into account the importance of nuclear energy and announced the commitment and the plans.

Given the necessity and importance that is observed in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the major scenario of the company policy examine the changes that take place in the energy system that would be essential in the long-term in bringing the concentration of the carbon (IV) oxide equivalence in the atmosphere to below 450 parts per every million by the year 2050 (Schneider & Froggatt, 2014, p.72). Handling Nuclear Waste Another issue that has arisen in the course of researching the subject is the handling of nuclear waste.

There are many challenges associated with handling nuclear waste, and these may be playing a role in the diminishing importance of nuclear power around the world. There are numerous studies that have been carried out to examine the handling of nuclear waste in relation to the development of this industry (Vandenbosch & Sussane, 2007; Ewing, Weber & Clinard, 1995; McPheeters et al., 1984; McKinley, 1987; Weber et al., 1998). Vandenbosch and Susanne (2007) define waste burden as the negative effects of the waste products.

It is referred to as the risk of radiation to the people and the environment and the difficulties that are involved in the failure to mitigate them. Some of the components of the nuclear waste vary in the level of radiation and the duration of radioactivity. The components of nuclear waste and the dangers that are involved in the nuclear process have long-term implications.

Following a revision of testing methodologies in the early 1980s, McPheeters et al., (1984) and Chapman and McKinley (1987), point out that burying nuclear waste is generally the safest method of handling the waste though even burial comes with many issues. In particular, there are issues with the use of certain materials in the burial process that need to be better understood.

Giusti (2009) weighs in by arguing that waste typically needs to be treated to some extent prior to disposal, and major sites for treating waste exist in all major nuclear power producers. However, when looking at waste disposal issues, an important starting point is to understand what types of waste are generated by nuclear power, and how much of such waste there actually is.

Ewing, Weber and Clinard (1995) wrote about this, twenty years ago, discussing how much waste was around at the time, but also analyzing some of the chemical treatments needed to manage waste. Pyrochlore is used to neutralize plutonium, for example. However, the study of how chemicals like pyrochlore are affected by their exposure to nuclear waste is ongoing. Science has no definitive answers to some of the problems that are presented in the management of nuclear waste. Weber et al. (1998) lend specific discussion to the issue of crystalline ceramics.

Radiation affects the materials that are used to encase it. Given the very long half-life of some forms of nuclear waste, it is essential to understand how the waste will degrade the materials to ensure that the materials will survive the length of time needed. In order to determine the best storage locations, different rock types have been critical examined. Neeway et al. (2015) modeled the effects of nuclear storage on the environment, in particular on Callovo-Oxfordian clay rock in France, where nuclear glass is stored.

This is one of the emerging issues in the science of nuclear waste disposal, and it shows that the work is still ongoing, and until everything is understood that there will still be some risk associated with nuclear waste disposal. The more that is known about nuclear waste disposal, the more regulation is going to be required. Even the German response to Fukushima involved more inspections, but with new knowledge comes new regulations and new protocols.

Ojovan and Lee (2014) cover some of this in their book on immobilizing nuclear waste, and the challenges associated with the management of such waste. The regulatory environments with respect to nuclear power differ from country to country as well, but of course this also creates differential risk environments. The International Atomic Energy Association has set out basic guidelines for the handling of nuclear waste, but individual nations also have their own regulations (IAEA, 2009).

Risk-based regulation is common, but can be challenging to implement with respect to nuclear waste because while overall probabilities are very low, the negative outcomes are very high should they occur (Rothstein et al., 2006). This can make for normal risk-based analysis to be an ineffective means of setting policy no politician wants a disaster on their watch, even if the risk of such disaster is a minute. Politicians and civilians alike are not risk-neutral, but risk-averse.

India, as a nuclear power has sought to manage the safety of nuclear energy by reprocessing to recover plutonium and unused uranium, effectively diverting this waste for other purposes (Raj, Prasad & Bansal, 2006). Actinides are recycled back into fuel, and the Indian government has a program to research the "long-term evaluation of vitrified waste product under simulated repository conditions" (Raj, Prasad & Bansal, 2006). Vitrification is a process that is commonly used for immobilizing high-level nuclear waste by "combining it with borosilicate base glass" (Hand et al., 2005).

Not all countries are using vitrification as a means of handling nuclear waste; this is something the more developed nations do. Many other nations simply store the waste in ceramics, and avoid reprocessing, but just aim for finding safe disposal sites. This approach is less sophisticated, but it also reflects that not every country with nuclear power utilizes the most up-to-date disposal practices (Lee, et al., 2006). Emergence of Technical Issues Fukushima has presented science with some other problems.

One such problem that has been identified is that Fukushima created radioactive ash (Parajuli et al., 2013). There is work now being done to understand not only the composition of this ash but its effects on the environment as can blow around the world, so the effects may be distant from the disaster site. Further, there needs to be an understanding of how to mitigate such effects as might occur from things like radioactive ash.

The reality is that each new paper seems to show more about what science does not know about nuclear power, rather than contributing certainty and solutions. This has to be disconcerting for those seeking to promote nuclear power to an increasingly skeptical populace and political base that must act with popular opinion in mind. Tsumune et al. (2012) have contributed a study of the distribution of oceanic 137Cs from Fukushima.

The authors used a model of predicting how this radioactive cesium would be distributed around the world by ocean currents, in order to better understand some of the risks that are associated with nuclear disasters. Understanding the nature of risk is important in policy-making. Thus, while is alarming that so many different issues have arisen from Fukushima, that disaster also provides science with many more opportunities to learn about the risks associated with nuclear power, something that should improve policy-making going forward.

Another emerging issue is the use of photocatalytic processes to degrade and mineralize materials under CV-radiation (Rekab et al., 2014). A lot of the waste from nuclear power generation is in the form of water, and it is necessary to pull contaminants out of the water in order for the water to be disposed of.

There are different processes, and the current studies on the issue are focused on examining the effectiveness of the different techniques, again highlighting the emerging nature of this research, even some sixty years after nuclear power was first introduced by the Soviets. Broczkowski, Noel and Shoesmith (2004) studied the effects of hydrogen on the corrosion of uranium dioxide under nuclear waste disposal conditions, noting that dissolved hydrogen can polarize the UO2 surface to reducing potentials.

Underground repository conditions are a critical success factor for nuclear waste disposal, and there is significant work being done still to determine the best conditions, given corrosion and other variables. Archeological artifacts can inform researchers about the best methods of storing waste long-term, and predictive models are still a work in progress (Feron, Crusset & Gras, 2008). The models will often make use of probabilistic risk assessment. One of the issues with this is that studies usually relate to "known" or anticipated risks.

It will be critical to improve the value of such predictive models by building more complex models (Lee & Lee, 2006). Research continues on the storage of nuclear waste makes it quite clear that there is much that we do not know about this disposal, something that has to inform political opinion with respect to the reliance of nuclear power.

In an article about nuclear hot water, Alley and Alley (2013) point it out explicitly we do not know all that much more about nuclear waste disposal than we did fifty years ago.

There is significant room to improve our knowledge of nuclear waste disposal, but the fact that so much remains a mystery definitely makes it more difficult to convey to the public, and to politicians, that nuclear power usage should be increased, especially as it competes for the climate change narrative with renewable sources of energy that do not have nearly the same amount of dangerous waste associated with them.

Economic Dimension in Nuclear Energy In the past few decades, the circumstances of nuclear energy have been extremely unfavorable as compared to conditions that prevailed prior to the 1970s energy crisis. In the United States, these unfavorable conditions have not only been brought by political obstacles but also due to inappropriate basic economic considerations. The nuclear power industry has lacked adequate economic support and considerations to propel the development of nuclear energy.

Actually, the existing economic considerations related to this industry have contributed to several obstacles in the construction of new nuclear power plants. Moreover, the economic realities of the current energy sector demonstrate that this industry is largely cost competitive. In essence, gas and coal-generated power have been cost competitive and increasingly preferred than nuclear energy (Nivola, 2004). The cost competitive nature of the energy sector, which has favored alternative energy sources, has contributed to several difficulties in the development and growth of nuclear energy.

It is also evident that nuclear power plants take an exceptionally long time to construct and eventually costs more than it should to develop safely according to many financial analysts (Nivola, 2004). There have been several challenges in efforts to lessen the overall completion time and lower the costs of construction. Financial analysts have argued that lessening the completion time of constructing a nuclear power plant and reducing development costs by a quarter would still not enhance the competitiveness of nuclear energy relative to coal and other sources of energy.

The opportunity presented by the current situation is to determine what the factors are that are constraining the growth of the nuclear power industry. Once these factors are understood, policymakers can have a better sense of how to work around these challenges. There remain a lot of compelling arguments in favor of nuclear power, for its efficiency, for its ability to mitigate the impacts of climate change and even for its safety.

In order to restore growth to the industry, and the promise of atomic energy, in general, the issues that have befallen nuclear power in recent years will need to be better understood. Nuclear Power and Climate Change There are only five energy generation methods that are capable of providing base load electricity while meeting the greenhouse gas emissions guidelines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and Generation III nuclear fission is among them (Nicholson, Beigler & Brook, 2011). Sailor et al.

(2000) argue that nuclear is the only viable option, based on their calculations. The authors note that nuclear power can bring about the target greenhouse gas emission reductions faster than any other form of energy generation, which puts nuclear power at the center of the debate with respect to reducing carbon output (IAEA, 2014). Nuclear power is, the authors conclude, the best to replace fossil fuels, but that at present carbon remains underpriced, something that makes things like pulverized fuel coal a cheaper alternative.

Until carbon pricing is better aligned with its costs to the environment, nations will be hesitant to switch, even to nuclear (Nicholson et al., 2011). Still, if nuclear is the only option, however, that might not appeal to people, the responsible thing to do is to change people's attitudes about nuclear power and to seek to implement more nuclear power, at a time when the world is actually decreasing its usage of nuclear power. The economics of using nuclear power as a climate change mitigation policy are favorable.

The early closing of Fukushima is estimated to cause cumulative global GDP losses of 0.7% by 2020, as that energy will be replaced by carbon. The current trend of decreasing nuclear capability, therefore, is a blow to efforts to mitigate climate change and for the affected countries to meet their carbon emissions reduction guidelines going forward (Bauer, Brecha & Luderer, 2012). Bird's study (2014) showed that in Australia, nuclear power as a solution to climate change went from being a favorable option pre-Fukushima to an unfavorable option post-Fukushima.

This illustrates that under normal circumstances when there are no disasters, nuclear power is viewed as a method of reducing carbon emissions while retaining our energy capacity. The fact that the views about nuclear energy were strong before Fukushima shows that this is essentially a default position, but that when people are reminded of the risks associated with nuclear energy, they turn to other ways of addressing climate change. Nuclear power must compete, in the mindset of the public, with renewable energy sources, in terms of the climate change debate.

Skea, Lechtenbohmer and Asuka (2013) studied the response to nuclear power as a climate change solution in the UK, Germany and Japan, after Fukushima. The authors note that in all three countries, citizens and policymakers alike had seen nuclear power as a viable strategy for mitigating carbon emissions and managing climate change. After Fukushima, the UK has maintained its pro-nuclear stance, while Germany is looking to exit nuclear power, and Japan is also going to phase out its nuclear power as well.

There are some similarities between those countries, as Wittneben (2012) noted, but it should be noted that they are in very different places with respect to their adoption of renewable energy sources. Germany is far along, and can probably better envision a smooth transition to solar and other renewable energy forms (Wittneben, 2012).

Japan may be less further along in its adoption of renewables, but the decision to phase out nuclear power there stems from strong public concern about Fukushima, combined with historically negative views about nuclear power, and the evident risk that Fukushima presents to Tokyo, which houses around a quarter of all Japanese people (Schwarz & Cochran, 2012).

The threat to Tokyo can be expected to have a significant impact on public perception of nuclear energy, in particular with respect to how nuclear energy can be used as part of a climate change mitigation strategy. While politicians in the UK have taken a generally favorable view of nuclear power, the British public is less enthusiastic. Pidgeon, Lorenzoni & Poortinga (2008) state that the British public has generally unfavorable views about nuclear power as reflected in a survey that was carried out in 2007.

These views are somewhat conditional, especially when nuclear power is framed as a means of mitigating climate change. Faced with that argument, the British public was found to be slightly more willing to accept nuclear power, though the authors note that most respondents did not have a sophisticated understanding of the risk-risk analysis on which to base their opinions (Pidgeon, Lorenzoni & Poortinga, 2008).

There are very few Britons who unconditionally accept nuclear power as a means of mitigating climate change and carbon emissions, and attitudes do not appear to be shifting particularly quickly, based on surveys conducted over the years (Corner, et al., 2011; Poortinga, Pidgeon & Lorenzoni, 2006). There is the possibility, however, that information campaigns can reframe nuclear power. In particular, the fear of climate change is growing, and at a rate faster than the fear of nuclear energy.

While public perception of nuclear power is not especially safe at the moment, it may be that in the near future the fear of climate change is greater than the fear of nuclear energy, and at that point there may be a shift in public sentiment with respect to nuclear energy (Bickerstaff et al., 2011), something that is also predicted in Wolsink's (2010) discussion of how public fears can place constraints on infrastructure investment.

In countries that are major fossil fuel economies, the discussion about climate change tends to be one of willful ignorance, unfortunately. Oh, Pang and Chua (2010) conducted a study in Malaysia that found only a small movement towards green power, and basically zero appetite for nuclear power, even though climate change affects everybody. Another consideration within this subject is that there is carbon emissions associated with nuclear power, something that is often ignored when nuclear power is presented as a climate change mitigator.

The carbon output of nuclear power, especially when the life cycle approach is taken, is not insignificant, and there are unknown variables (Fthenakis & Kim, 2007). In the UK, people have become more accepting of wind power, but that aesthetics, and not a logical analysis of energy policy alternatives, is the driver of public perceptions about wind power (Warren et al., 2005). Indeed, the visuals and type of landscape seem to be almost the entire driving factor in most people's decision-making on the issue of wind power (Wolsink, 2007).

This could mean that people are less willing to accept nuclear power if they can see the cooling towers, which would put the perception of risk towards a more immediate perception. It has also been found that higher levels of citizen participation in determining energy policy will bring about lower levels of resistance, many citizens, in particular, want to understand how a proposed project will benefit their community (Rogers et al., 2008).

It is believed that lessons learned from wind power are roughly applicable to nuclear power though certainly wind power does not have the same degree of baggage as nuclear, which was a boogeyman for many people who grew up during the Cold War and the nuclear testing era. One of the issues that arise is that there is a gap in concern about climate change and fear of nuclear power. For example, Lorenzoni and Pidgeon (2006) found that while many people in the U.S.

and the UK are concerned about climate change, this concern tends to be secondary in their everyday lives. The reality is that this guides and informs their opinions about climate change solutions. There is simply no sense of urgency, and nor will there be until climate change has directly affected their lives. Maybe even then not, if recent U.S. experience says anything. But changing attitudes is simply the first step; the next step is to change behaviors.

For voters in either of these countries, it appears that for them to be more welcoming of nuclear power they would have to be more concerned about climate change, as the authors seem to indicate that there is a link between these things. Indeed, there is a link between physical vulnerability and willingness to accept alternatives to carbon.

It has been found that the more people become physically vulnerable to the effects of climate change, the more they are willing to accept other alternatives, even alternatives that they had previously considered palatable (Brody, et al., 2008). There is an element of immediacy that matters to people. So someone who otherwise does not accept the idea of nuclear power may be swayed by a carbon-related or climate-change related disaster.

This is the same conceptually as someone changing their mind about nuclear power in the wake of Fukushima or some other nuclear disaster. The way that people conceptualize their policy options is definitely dependent on the stability or lack thereof in their immediate circumstances (Brody et al., 2008). Some opposition to nuclear power, however, is based on unfounded concepts and ones that make no sense.

One opposition argumentative text, for example, argues about high capital costs, rising uranium costs, and other irrelevancies, what matters is how these costs compare with the costs associated with carbon (Sovacool & Cooper, 2008). Safety issues and national security issues and reactors are targeted for attack is perhaps more meritorious points of opposition. Such sources highlight the need for discourse on nuclear power in the public sphere to be driven by scientists. Furthermore, there are people who object specifically to nuclear power being a factor in green energy solutions.

Though it has been demonstrated to be the most effective means of mitigating climate change, nuclear power is simply not viewed either as "green" or as renewable by many (Wustenhagen & Bilharz, 2006), which may be a causal factor for why publics in many countries do not necessarily view nuclear power as an acceptable climate change solution, even though the evidence says that it is. American perceptions of climate change have followed this somewhat predictable trend.

Public support for policies to deal with climate change "will be greatly influenced by public perceptions of the risks and dangers posed by climate change" (Leiserowitz, 2005). In particular, when the risk is abstract, it is easier to dismiss but likewise when the response to the risk is also viewed in the abstract, people are more likely to accept it.

The author here found that climate change risk is generally perceived to affect other people -- geographically and temporally distant people -- and that Americans generally do not care about those people. The study did not say whether these findings could apply to other cultures though behavior says they probably can. There is, in fact, little voluntary work done to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Awareness of climate change is high, but it is unusual for people to directly take action to address climate change, 43% of people reduced energy usage at home and 39% reduced gasoline consumption in response to concerns about climate change (Semenza, et al. 2008), but the authors did not examine the role that acceptable of nuclear power might play in fighting climate change and what the perception of such a policy might actually be. Overall, there has been a considerable amount of research done on all four of these topics.

This interdisciplinary approach will serve to best explain some of the phenomena that surround nuclear power, the disposal of nuclear waste, and the public perceptions of nuclear power. By examining this research, it should be possible to derive some critical insight as to the role that nuclear power can and will play in the post-carbon energy future. Conceptual Framework The researcher has identified a minimum of 20 studies that will be analyzed based on their relevance to the research question and hypotheses.

These studies will comprise published and contextual articles addressing the issue of nuclear power, especially with regards to reducing climate change. The 20 studies to be reviewed were identified through the robust search of the topic area, which is an important process for this research design and methodology. Notably, the researcher will have the preference of journal articles over other types of articles because of the likelihood of published and contextual articles to meet all requirements for the research process.

The preference of journal articles over other types of articles is also fueled by the fact that they seem to be credible as compared to other kinds of articles. Moreover, the researcher will utilize journal articles published in English. The most suitable methodology for analyzing these published and contextual articles for this study is meta-analysis technique (Egger, Smith & Phillips, 1997, p.1533).

This methodology will be used to analyze the identified articles because the purpose of the research is, therefore, to piece together what truths are known, and identify the different areas where future research would benefit. Ultimately, the methodology has to move beyond the literature review and arrive at generalizations that can be more broadly applied, which is also known as empirical generalization. The hypotheses to be tested in this research have been prompted by the previously described research question.

In essence, the research question is "why has the significance of nuclear power declined in the global energy mix at a time when it should be increasing to help deal with the problem of global climate change?" Given the broad nature of the research question, it has contributed to the development of several topic areas that are used as the basis for developing the research hypotheses. Some of these topic areas emerging from the research question include: The development of nuclear power.

The decline of nuclear power in the recent past. The impact of nuclear power disasters on the overall development and decline of nuclear power. The impact of nuclear power disasters on public perception. The link between public perception and policy making. The effectiveness of current policies in promoting the growth and development of nuclear power industry. The use of policy initiatives to deal with the problem of nuclear power disasters. Technical issues relating to the use of nuclear power as an alternative source of energy.

How nuclear power can be used to address the problem of global climate change. Why nuclear power is not used as an alternative source of energy that would deal with climate change. How nuclear power and waste disposal can be utilized in a sustainable and effective manner in handling the problem of global climate change. Why is nuclear energy decreasing at a time when its significance in the global energy mix should be increasing with regards to dealing with the problem of global climate change Reasons 1.

Public perception, which is largely influenced by disasters 2. Political decision-making, which is driven by public perceptions 3. Unresolved technical issues that influence nuclear energy policy 4.

Nuclear energy is not considered as a viable solution t o the problem of climate change Contextual Factors Development of nuclear power Decline of nuclear power in recent past Impact of nuclear power disasters on growth and decline of nuclear power Impact of nuclear power disasters on public perception Link between nuclear power disasters and public perception - Effectiveness of existing policies in promoting nuclear power growth - Use of policy to address the issue of nuclear power disasters - Technical issues on use of nuclear energy - Use of nuclear power to resolve climate change - Lack of consideration of nuclear power as a solution to climate change -Use of nuclear power and waste disposal to deal with climate change.

R obust Literature Research on the Topic Area 1. Published Articles 2. Contextual Articles Research Methodology Meta-Analysis technique in reviewing identified literatureConceptual Framework Diagram Summary of Chapter 2 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 110km outside of Moscow (Josephson, 2000, p.2). At the time, nuclear power was viewed as the energy of the future.

Unharnessing the power of the atom, it was thought, was provided a stable, reliable source of energy for the future. Even at the time, it was known that fossil fuels were not going to sustainable as an energy source. The use of atomic weapons at the end of the Second World War highlighted the value of harnessing the atom nuclear energy was essential in war, and to meet civilian energy needs. However, nuclear power currently provides for roughly 10% of the world's energy needs (Schneider et al., 2013).

The decline in the development and growth of nuclear power industry can be attributed to several dimensions, particularly social, political, and economic factors. These factors impact the industry through shaping public perception and political decision-making on nuclear energy (Wolsink, 2007). The impact of these dimensions on nuclear power is evident through four hypotheses, especially in relation to the aftermath of incidents or accidents in this industry. Numerous studies exist in current literature regarding nuclear energy in terms of its development and decline in the past few years.

These studies demonstrate that nuclear power has experienced a tremendous decline in the recent past despite showing significant promise in the early years of its initial discovery and use. The studies also highlight some of the major political, social, and economic dimensions relating to nuclear power industries and nuclear energy. Political and economic factors have been crucial factors in the stuttered development and growth of the nuclear power industry.

Political and economic factors have been the major causes of troubles and frustrations relating to the growth of nuclear energy across the globe (Wittneben, 2012). These factors have not only influenced public perceptions and attitudes but also affected policy development relating to the development and growth of nuclear power.

Social dimensions relating to the growth of nuclear power have largely been centered on public opinions about nuclear power that have been shaped by accidents that have taken place in the nuclear power industry such as the Chernobyl incident and Fukushima accident (Schwarz & Cochran, 2012). Some of the major political, social, and economic factors identified in current literature regarding nuclear energy in relation to climate change include the fact that public perception is strongly linked to disasters in nuclear power plants.

Generally, public opinions and attitudes regarding nuclear power plants seemingly change in the aftermath of a disaster in nuclear power plants such as Chernobyl and Fukushima (Schwarz & Cochran, 2012). These perceptions are greatly influenced by the information people receive, especially after the accidents. Secondly, public perception plays a major role in policy making since policymakers use public opinion as the basis for developing and enacting policies (Wolsink, 2007).

For instance, countries like Japan, Italy, Germany, and the United States responded to accidents in nuclear power plants through a review of existing policies on nuclear energy and temporal and/or permanent closure of nuclear power plants or reduction of nuclear power reactors (Wittneben, 2012). Handling nuclear waste and technical issues are crucial factors in the development of energy policies, especially those that directly relate to nuclear power.

It seems that policymakers in the energy sector develop new initiatives for handling nuclear waste and addressing some technical issues in attempts to promote the safety of nuclear power plants and overall consideration of nuclear energy as an alternative source of energy that could help handle global climate change. Nuclear energy is a suitable alternative source of energy to help address the problem of global climate change since it does not entail the burning of fossil fuels that escalate this problem.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence and literature that demonstrate the potential suitability and effectiveness of nuclear energy as a solution to the problem of global climate change. However, despite the existing evidence in the current literature, nuclear energy is not currently used to address this problem given its decline in the recent past. The researcher has identified a minimum of 20 studies comprising published and contextual articles that will be analyzed based on their relevance to the research question and hypotheses.

The researcher will have a preference of journal articles over other types of articles because of the likelihood of published and contextual journal articles to meet all requirements for the research process and study.

The research question for this study is "why has the significance of nuclear power declined in the global energy mix at a time when it should be increasing to help deal with the problem of global climate change?" The next chapter provides a discussion regarding the research design and methodology that will be used in this study. In this case, the researcher examines research traditions and provides a discussion regarding the research questions and hypotheses.

The other elements discussed in Chapter 3 include the research design, validity of the research, reliability of this study, and ethical issues in the research. Chapter Three: Methodology Research Traditions There are a number of different research traditions that could be used to understand a subject as broad as nuclear power. Generally, the wide nature of this issue implies that the research methodology utilized, measurements undertaken, and the kinds of people examined differ depending on the study while the topic is the same (Glass, 1977, p.351).

Ultimately, the most appropriate method depends on a number of different variables. The availability of hard data will determine whether quantitative methods can be used. What data is available is dependent on the research question itself. In the case of this project, the research question focuses on the future of nuclear power. Nuclear power decisions are made most often at the political level, as a matter of national energy policy, rather than the scientific level.

In terms of the science, there is little doubt that nuclear power can be used, albeit with some fairly significant risks (Alic, 2012). Nuclear power has remained an increasingly controversial issue for a long period of time. The controversy has largely been centered on whether using this type of power as an energy source would be beneficial or harmful to the society and environment.

Even though nuclear power is associated with some harmful effects that could be devastating to the environment, there are significant benefits attributed to using it as an energy source. The controversial nature of this topic implies that a suitable methodology has to be selected for this study in order to generate accurate findings and conclusions. Actually, this research issue entails examining the benefits and harms associated with nuclear power in order to develop management strategies for using nuclear power and waste disposal in a sustainable manner (Alic, 2012).

The researcher's ability to effectively examine these issues and develop accurate conclusions for future studies and implementation is directly affected by the research methodology. Moreover, the broad nature of the research issue implies that the researcher must careful consider the various research methodologies and approaches before selecting a suitable one.

In light of these factors and considerations, the most appropriate methodology for this research would be the Meta- Analysis Technique, which is a statistical process that integrates the findings of different independent studies that are regarded as combinable (Egger, Smith & Phillips, 1997, p.1533). Meta-Analysis technique is an appropriate research methodology for this study mainly because effectively performed meta-analyses promote a more objective evaluation of evidence or selected studies that conventional narrative or literature reviews (Egger, Smith & Phillips, 1997, p.1533; O'Rouke, 2007, p.p.580).

The other benefits of using meta-analysis technique in this research include its provision of more accurate prediction of results and comprehensive explanations of the heterogeneity between findings of individual studies (Cornell & Mulrow, 1999). In this case, meta-analysis will enable the researcher to provide comprehensive explanations of the heterogeneity between the results of several studies regarding the use of nuclear power as an energy source and waste disposal in a sustainable and beneficial manner.

However, these benefits would be realized through carefully planning the research project via a comprehensively written protocol that is prepared before the commencement of the study. According to Hunter, Schmidt & Jackson (1982), there are several different procedures for carrying out a meta-analysis that involves the accumulation of correlations. These different procedures will be utilized to examine heterogeneity of the findings of different studies regarding this issue.

The suitability of meta-analysis technique for this research is attributed to the fact that it's a collection of methodical techniques for resolving obvious contradictions in research findings. This technique also involves translating results from varying studies to a universal metric and statistically examining the relation between research characteristics and findings (Bangert-Drowns & Rudner, 1991).

Some of the benefits of using meta-analysis include disciplined procedures of summarizing research findings, differentiated and sophisticated representation of key study findings unlike traditional review processes, ability to find obscured effects or relationships, and organized means of handling information from numerous studies under review (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p.6). According to Egger, Smith & Phillips (1997), meta-analysis is a statistical process that entails integrating the findings of various independent studies that are considerably combinable (p.1533).

Similar to any other research process, the use of meta-analysis in this study will be characterized by several steps i.e. formulating the issue or problem to be studied, data collection and analysis, and reporting the findings. Meta-analysis technique is also appropriate for this study since it promotes clear definition and analysis of the issue or problem being examined. Actually, natural, biological, and physical sciences usually enable research problems or issues to be clearly defined and evaluated through uniform and commonly accepted methodologies and measures (Wolf, 1986, p.9).

As previously mentioned, nuclear power is a broad topic that has attracted significant attention in the recent past, which has contributed to numerous research and studies on this issue. In essence, the broad nature of the study not only contributes to use of different research traditions but also generate various kinds of studies. The findings of the numerous existing studies on the issue of nuclear power are relatively fragile as research on the topic is increasing at an astounding rate, particularly because of increased climate change in the recent past.

Research findings of existing studies on the issue of nuclear power are fragile since they are characterized by irregularities across several factors such as contexts and classes of subjects. This is usually a major challenge in education research because of the rapid increase in research on dozens of topics (Glass, 1976, p.3). Therefore, the need for meta-analysis technique in conducting this study is relatively clear.

Through the use of this technique, the researcher will primarily focus on examining different studies in terms of their information and contradictions before statistically examining their characteristics and findings. This process will be geared towards integrating the results of these independent studies to generate significant conclusions regarding the topic. The use of meta-analysis technique in the study will help generate important information about the issue. Thus, this is not a study rooted in the technical sciences, but rather in the social sciences.

The matter at hand in the four research hypotheses that are being examined is essentially qualitative in nature. The studies that have been produced are somewhat thin on the ground, there have been a handful of studies, but none so closely related that they can be subject to traditional quantitative analysis. But this does not mean that these studies cannot be analyzed for common traits, nor does it mean that we cannot extrapolate from a grouping of studies truths about the world at large.

To be certain, one country's experience cannot fully and smoothly equate to another country's experience, there is always local context, but again, that is inherent in the social sciences. Social sciences work is not conducted in a laboratory, but in the real world. The problem with quantitative studies is that they leave little room for things like context and nuance; only qualitative analysis by an expert practitioner can result in a meaningful interpretation of diverse sets of qualitative and quantitative data, for instance, the Meta-Analysis Technique (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003).

However, since qualitative research does not entail creating research hypothesis, the researcher will also utilize quantitative methods in this study. The significance of quantitative research method is that it enables development of several hypotheses that are used in the research process in order to examine the specific issue under evaluation. On the contrary, qualitative research will be utilized since it is more effective in social research. Given that this study is not based on technical sciences but on social science, qualitative research will be vital.

Actually, qualitative research has a longstanding history of providing significant insights regarding social structures, cultures, and behaviors. Moreover, qualitative methods help in development and evaluation of social policy, which makes them effective in social research (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, p.25). In this case, the use of qualitative methods will not promote the development of the various contextual factors or hypotheses relating to the issue of the decline in the share of nuclear power in the global energy mix such as public perception, policy making, and technical issues.

The meta-analysis technique will be utilized to integrate studies that are grouped based on their findings on the contextual factors relating to the topic. Studies will be grouped together based on their relation to the four hypotheses and will entail using SPSS. In this case, a unique study identification code will be developed and utilized for grouping the studies based on the contextual factors or hypotheses. A critical evaluation will be carried out on the individual studies relative to the contextual factors or hypotheses.

Meta-analysis technique will utilize statistical measures for evaluating information and contradictions in findings on public perception, policy making, and unresolved technical issues based on their relevance to the topic. Type of Meta-Analytic Approach to be utilized There are a number of critical competencies that a researcher needs to have in order to apply expert analysis to a given subject matter.

The research needs to be able to effectively manage information; the organization of the literature review along the individual research questions was instrumental in developing the needed organization to answer these questions. There also needs to be systemic competencies such as research capabilities, the ability to apply knowledge, the ability to adapt to one's set of circumstances and creativity (Verd, 2010). The field of meta-analysis has different approaches that can be used depending on the suitability of the approach in examining the research issue.

These approaches differ on the basis of processes, computations of research findings, and interpretation of these findings. As a result of the existence of different meta-analytic approaches, researchers need to clearly state the approach utilized in the specific study. Glass (1977) argues that academic research and analysis is wide and broadly scattered as evident in the production of hundreds of studies within a short period of time (p.351).

Therefore, research techniques, undertaken measurements, and types of people studies tend to vary from one research to the next even if the research issue or problem is the same (Glass, 1977, p.351). The nature of academic research and evaluation in the past few years, as well as differences in these components, imply that selecting a suitable research methodology is crucial towards generating accurate research findings and conclusions. Therefore, the researcher will clearly state the type of meta-analytic approach to be utilized in this study based on its suitability in the research.

However, the researcher will provide a brief description of the other meta-analytic approach that is commonly used in research projects before elaborating the techniques of the selected approach in light of their suitability in this study (Egger, Smith & Phillips, 1997). The two most common types of meta-analytic approaches that are commonly used in researches are Study Effect Meta-Analysis and Classic or Glassian Meta-Analysis.

Study Effect Meta-Analysis differs from the other approach on the premise that it has more selective inclusion rules and the study act as the unit of analysis (Shachar, 2008). In this approach, researches with serious methodological mistakes are excluded from the study while one effect size is computed for every research or study. In contrast, Glassian Meta-Analysis is regarded as the precedent or pattern for conventional meta-analysis and adopts liberal inclusion criteria.

In this approach, the study finding is the unit of analysis and allows several comparisons between groups and subgroups on varying criteria. Unlike in Study Effect Meta-Analysis, the effect sizes in Glassian Meta-Analysis are calculated or computed for every comparison (Shachar, 2008). For this study, the researcher will utilize Glassian or Classic Meta-Analysis, which incorporates various steps including defining questions to be analyzed, collecting data, and examining relations between code study characteristics and results.

As previously mentioned this meta-analytic approach applies a more liberal inclusion criterion and considers the study finding as the unit of analysis (Shachar, 2008). These two components of Glassian Meta-Analysis are important in this study because of the nature of the issue or problem being examined. Since nuclear power is a broad and increasingly controversial issue, liberal inclusion criteria will enable the researcher to examine many studies relating to the topic area through a robust search of the topic area.

The liberal inclusion promotes a robust search of issues relating to the topic and enables the researcher to carefully and effectively select studies that provide significant insights to this issue (both published and contextual). The use of liberal inclusion criteria for this study is also based on the fact that the controversial nature of nuclear power has contributed to numerous studies being conducted on this issue (Shachar, 2008).

The availability of huge literature and data relating to nuclear power implies that restricted inclusion criteria would limit the ability of the researcher to gain more insights on this issue and hinder the likelihood of generating accurate research findings and/or conclusions. For this study, the research will not limit the selection to studies that primarily focuses on the potential use of nuclear energy as a solution to the problem of global climate change.

The researcher will examine published and contextual articles on the growth and development of nuclear energy facilities across the globe, factors affecting this growth and development, measures undertaken by several countries towards promoting the growth of this industry. The other aspects in the liberal inclusion criteria for the study are the impact of nuclear power disasters on energy policies across the globe and public perception, relationship between public perception and policy making. As previously mentioned, a liberal inclusion strategy is suitable towards obtaining numerous insights regarding the topic.

These various aspects of liberal inclusion for the study will help generate considerable insights on issues that have affected the growth of nuclear energy at a time it should be increasing in the global energy mix, especially because of the problem of global climate change that requires an urgent solution. Secondly, the use of study findings as the unit of analysis is crucial in this research since meta-analysis process will entail making comparisons of research findings and combining research results.

If the study is used as the unit of analysis in the way it is carried out in Study Effect Meta-Analysis, the researcher will seemingly be unable to make effective comparisons of study findings (Shachar, 2008). The nature of the research requires research findings to be the premise or unit of analysis so that the researcher can combine research results while making comparisons between study findings.

According to Glass (1976), meta-analysis can be described as the analysis or evaluation of analyzes in which statistical analysis of a large collection of the findings of individual studies is carried out in order to integrate these findings (p.3). Based on this definition, the unit of analysis is meta-analysis is the findings or results of individual studies utilized in a research project. Since this study focuses on an analysis of findings of individual studies in order to integrate them, Glassian Meta-Analysis will be utilized as the meta-analytic approach.

Glassian Meta-Analysis involves the use of statistical methods to conduct integrative analysis since meta-analysis differs from conventional narrative research methodologies on the basis that it is increasingly statistical and quantitative (Glass et. al, 1980, p.1). As a result, meta-analysis approaches are simply statistical techniques that are appropriate and applicable to the process of integrating study findings.

Glassian Meta-Analysis basically relies on several measures for integrating research findings including a definition of the problem, identifying research studies, coding study attributes, evaluating these findings on a common scale, and examining the aggregation of findings and how they are linked to the characteristics. The researcher will group the identified studies based on the hypotheses and the various aspects of the liberal inclusion criteria.

Once these studies are grouped, the researcher will compare their findings in relation to the specific hypothesis to deduce combinable results that provide significant information on the topic under evaluation. The findings of individual studies will be integrated on the basis of their relevance to the hypothesis or specific category where they are grouped. The integration will entail coding the various attributes of the study using NVIVo software as demonstrated later in this chapter. When coding the research characteristics, the reported thinking and research is documented in relatively the order.

This is primarily because the report incorporates general background or approach, various illustrations of the approach, findings of certain initial research on characteristics, and the outcomes of original research on meta-analytic approach. The most suitable software for coding and analysis that will be utilized in the study is NVIVo, which is a data management program that is highly compatible with a variety of research designs. It's use in this study is influenced by the fact that it is not time-consuming and ease the burden of complex coding and analysis process.

Through these benefits, the software enhances the accuracy and speed of the process, which is essential for this study. The first step in using NVIVo for data coding and analysis in this study will be to create a project that will contain all documents and coding information relating to the project. This will be followed by conducting an electronic search to cover all instances of the results and any recurring patterns. Notably, the electronic search will be combined with manual scrutiny approaches to ensure thorough interrogation of data.

After data collection, the next step in using this software will involve storing the search results in different nodes and manually adding the results of manual scrutiny to the respective nodes. The different nodes that will be created in the research will be in each of the hypotheses. In essence, each of the four hypotheses represents a different case node. This will be followed by coding the results based on each of the hypotheses, which helps in obtaining ideas and identifying theories and patterns in the research material or documents.

In this case, the researcher has identified different codes for each of the hypotheses as follows Hypothesis 1 -- Code: Impact of disasters on public perception Hypothesis 2 -- Code: Impact of public perception on political decision-making Hypothesis 3 -- Code: Link between unresolved technical issues and energy policy Hypothesis 4 -- Code: Nuclear energy as a solution to global climate change In this case, the researcher will utilize thematic codes for each of the hypotheses because of the nature of the topic under evaluation.

The final step in the use of the software will be making sense of the themes and integrating the findings of individual studies. Through the use of the software, the researcher will map out how the themes relate to one another and write a short summary of each node. Steps in Meta-Analysis and their Application in this Research As previously mentioned, this research will utilize Glassian Meta-Analysis as the meta-analytic approach in comparing and integrating research findings.

This approach consist different steps that are geared towards conducting integrative analysis through statistical methods. While using this meta-analytic approach, the research will incorporate each step in this technique for effective analysis and to generate accurate research findings and conclusions. Some of the major steps that will be utilized in conducting integrative analysis based on Glassian Meta-Analytic approach include: Applying Meta-analysis to the Research Problem The first step in meta-analysis technique is formulating the issue or problem to be examined, which is relatively similar to any other research work.

According to Walsh & Downe (2005), similar to any other research activity, meta-analysis research methodology begins with the formulation of the issue to be addressed (p.206). The problem to be addressed through meta-analysis in a research project is formulated through determining a suitable research question, purpose, and aim. This is the first step in the process because meta-analysis can be regarded as observational evaluation or study of evidence (Egger, Smith & Phillips, 1997, p.1533).

This process requires researchers to prepare a detailed research protocol that clearly shows the objectives, hypotheses to be tested, relevant subgroups, and proposed techniques and method for determining relevant studies. During this process, the researcher also writes comprehensive means for collecting and analyzing information from the selected studies. When formulating the problem to be addressed, the researcher needs to generate a more specific study question, purpose, and aim.

This is primarily because broadly framed research questions, purposes, and aims do not necessarily provide accurate research findings or conclusions even if the meta-analysis process is carried out effectively. In this study, the researcher will develop a research proposal that clearly shows the study objectives, hypotheses, relevant subgroups, and proposed research methodologies and techniques. Generally, the proposal will provide a background of the issue and proposed methodologies or techniques for conducting the study.

Therefore, the process of formulating the problem or issue to be examined in this research will entail developing a research proposal that contains important information regarding the issue and research process. First, the researcher will examine nuclear energy across the globe in light of its development and growth in the recent past. This will be followed by narrowing the research to the decline of nuclear energy in relation to its share in the global energy mix.

This will be the basis for developing the study objectives, hypotheses, relevant subgroups or contextual factors, and suitable research methodologies and techniques for examining the issue. These will be developed based on findings of issues that have seemingly played a role in the decline of nuclear energy in the global energy mix at a time when it should be increasing given its likelihood to act as a solution to the problem of global climate change.

The researcher will develop a proposal based on the findings of evaluation on issues contributing to the decline of nuclear power in the global energy mix while its share should be increasing. The researcher will adopt a more specific approach towards formulating the research problem to be addressed, especially because of the broad nature of the topic or issue of nuclear power. The scope of meta-analysis, in this case, would be on management strategies for utilizing nuclear power as an energy source and waste disposal in a sustainable way.

As previously mentioned, the specific approach for formulating the research problem is developed based on findings on the growth and development of nuclear energy across the globe. In this case, the share of nuclear power in the global energy mix will be evaluated and compared with the share of other sources of energy that have largely contributed to the problem of global climate change through emissions of greenhouse gasses. The comparison will then lead to examining factors that have contributed to its decline though it can help address climate change.

The researcher will examine this issue with a view of demonstrating how the use of nuclear power as an energy source can be beneficial in efforts to lessen global warming and climate change. The adoption of a more specific study question, purpose, and aim would help in locating relevant studies that will be utilized in the meta-analytic process. This implies that formulating the research problem or issue to be addressed through a more specific approach helps in easy identification of relevant material for use in the review or analytic procedure.

Locating Relevant Studies The outcome of the meta-analysis relies on and is based on quality and effectiveness of an industrious search of probable studies. This entails determining probable search directions that will govern the robust search of studies on the topic area. Some of these directions that will be utilized to locate relevant studies for the research include using computer search engines, identifying reference lists from studies, electronic databases, and libraries (Shachar, 2008).

The strategy for identifying and selecting appropriate studies for the research process will be extended to include contextual articles. In essence, the researcher will utilize published and contextual articles that relate to this subject. The use of contextual work in this project is fueled by the fact that the findings of this study may differ from published works and restricting the study to published articles may result in distorted findings because of publication bias (Egger, Smith & Phillips, 1997, p.1533).

However, the researcher will define a preferable inclusion criterion through a comprehensive sensitivity analysis to help ensure that both published and contextual trials utilized for this study are relevant to the topic. The identification of published and contextual articles will be conducted through electronic databases and manual search of journals. This will also entail using a standardized record form to extract data and avoid errors as well as rating the quality of each study.

These measures will help in conducting a detailed scrutiny of each article before determining its use in the research. The criteria for inclusion of articles in conducting meta-analysis include determining a suitable time period to be covered in the review. In this case, the researcher will examine studies that have been conducted on this topic area from 2000 to date. The second criterion to be utilized in meta-analysis is a liberal inclusion strategy in which both published and contextual works will be incorporated.

Third, while the study adopts a more liberal inclusion measure, the researcher will utilize studies that have no severe methodological flaws as a means of ensuring the quality of a study used in this research undertaking. The fourth criterion is the establishing a control group in which every primary study needs to have a comparison or control group.

This is an important criterion in the study since meta-analysis will entail calculating the effect size, which can be described as the mean difference between groups in the form of a standard score (Shachar, 2008). The fifth criterion is ensuring the studies have adequate quantitative data from which the effect size can be calculated. The adequate quantitative data in the studies include sample size, standard deviation, and mean.

Moreover, the researcher will utilize these different measures for deciding which studies to utilize because there are various statistical means for combining the data but no single method is accurate or correct by itself. Synthesizing or combining data for use in this research requires using varying statistical methods in order to enhance the accuracy of research findings and conclusions. Therefore, the researcher will utilize a thorough sensitivity analysis, which is important in evaluating the robustness of combined projections to varying assumptions and criteria for inclusion (Egger, Smith & Phillips, 1997, p.1536).

This will incorporate the use of NVIVo for coding and analysis of data. This software is a data management program that is methodological-specific, which implies that it is highly compatible with various research designs (Zamawe, 2015, p.14). The use of this software in coding and analyzing data is influenced by its compatibility with the research design for this study.

This software is also appropriate because it helps in enhancing the accuracy of study findings, which is crucial in this study since the topic under investigation is a broad issue that requires accurate findings through an effective synthesis of the numerous studies regarding it. A thorough sensitivity evaluation will be carried out as part of meta-analysis process because of the divergence of opinion regarding the most appropriate means for conducting a specific meta-analysis.

The comprehensive sensitivity analysis helps in examining the robustness of the findings with regards to differing assumptions and opinions. The use of robust qualitative meta-synthesis and thorough sensitivity analysis in this study helps in enhancing the credibility of the research process since these two measures act as quality markers for judging qualitative research. These measures also help in determining studies for inclusion in meta-analysis given that published and contextual works are used.

The first step the researcher used to locate relevant papers or studies for the meta-analysis was conducting a robust search on the topic area or issue. In this case, 20 studies were selected to be used in the meta-analysis. Walsh & Downe (2004) state that it's good practice to conduct a robust search on the topic issue or area in the early stages of meta-analysis similar to the way it's conducted when undertaking a systematic review (p.206).

While this process may be relatively inadequate in locating all relevant literature on the issue, it helps in providing direction in the search process and narrowing down to literature that addresses the research issue or problem. Actually, a robust search on the topic area is relatively a straightforward process in the meta-analysis as compared to a systematic review.

As previously mentioned, established databases provide a good platform for undertaking a robust search in meta-analysis since they tend to keep studies that are published as journals, produced as books or reported in journal papers. The use of contextual works in this process is because the depth of meta-analysis synthesis requires the use of such kinds of sources though they are relatively difficult to obtain in some cases.

Once the robust search on studies on the topic area has been carried out, the selected articles will be compiled into an electronic spreadsheet known as Master Database (Shachar, 2008). The compilation of the identified studies enables convenient repetitive sorting and data extraction. This will also help easy selection of the final set of studies that meet the previously mentioned inclusion criteria.

The use of various approaches in deciding which articles to use in meta-analysis is primarily because the qualitative paradigm of this process views truths as multiple, unlike classic meta-analytic accounts which only allows the inclusion of controlled, randomized studies (Walsh & Downe, 2004, p.206). Once the different approaches are utilized in deciding the articles to include in the study, the researcher will synthesize the studies. This process entails translation of one study into another and literally transferring ideas, concepts, and metaphors from one study to another.

This implies that the three approaches the researcher will utilize in deciding relevant literature to utilize in this study with regards to meta-analysis include integration of results of several studies in a related field, synthesizing studies from different researchers, and generating a quantitative summary of major elements in the various studies or researches.

Collection and Analysis of Relevant Data This process entails determining an inclusion criterion for selecting articles to be analyzed and ensuring that a suitable approach is utilized for examining the quality of a study (Egger, Smith & Phillips, 1997, p.1533). The researcher is required to consider trials or articles that are relevant to the topic or issue in order to generate the most optimal research findings. The identified studies focus on the problem purpose of this research i.e.

effective management strategies for using nuclear energy in a manner that generates social sustainability. The problem purpose of this research provided the basis for searching and identifying studies to be utilized and reviewed. The purpose of this study is to develop an effective management strategy for the use of nuclear power and waste disposal in a sustainable manner to address the problem of global climate change.

The research question is, "why is nuclear energy decreasing at a time when its significance in the global energy mix should be increasing, particularly in relation to dealing with the problem of global climate change?" The researcher has used research propositions or hypotheses as the basis for conducting a robust search for studies to be utilized. These research hypotheses or propositions that were utilized in the search are: Hypothesis #1: Public perceptions of nuclear energy are largely driven by disasters. Hypothesis #2: Public perceptions can influence political decision-making.

Hypothesis #3: Unresolved technical issues contribute to policy. Hypothesis #4: Nuclear energy is not viewed as a viable solution to climate change. The results of each study's rating will be demonstrated in a standardized format to enable comparison of the selected articles. Moreover, the use of these strategies is part of using statistical procedures in the meta-analytic review to integrate research findings from various studies and express results through numerical effect-size projections (Bushman & Wells, 2001, p.1123).

The process of analyzing data in this study will also involve calculating the general impact through data combination. However, the researcher will not use a simple arithmetic average to combine data since it would generate misleading results. The methodologies used in meta-analysis to combine data involve weighing an average of the results through statistical measures (Abokeng, 2005). During this process, the degree of similarity in the studies' findings will be tested for heterogeneity across these studies or articles.

During data extraction and coding, the researcher will review all study in order to identify relevant information and important characteristics, which may be linked to the effect size and are linked to the study (Shachar, 2008). The process will entail comparing these studies in terms of their characteristics and findings as well as eliminating any discrepancy.

Notably, the data coding process will involve recording research and thinking in the same order based on characteristics described in Glassian Meta-Analysis such as the background of the approach and several illustrations of the approach (Glass et. al., 1980, p.1). Determining Effect Sizes After data extraction and coding, the next step in this meta-analytic process is identifying the individual and overall effect sizes throughout the studies.

In this case, the individual effect sizes across studies should be demonstrated in a standardized manner in order to enable comparison between the identified relevant studies. Once the effect sizes of the individual studies have been obtained, the overall effect sizes should be calculated using statistical measures such as the use of statistical software or computing program i.e. NViVo. This process will involve using direct weights that are described as the inverse of the difference for every study.

For this study, the researcher will determine the individual and overall effect sizes throughout the relevant studies or researches through the use of previously described statistical methods. Moreover, the researcher will use fixed effects model instead of random effects model for determining the effect sizes across the studies. The use of fixed effects model rather than random effects model is because of the difference in the results and variance in treatment of studies (Shachar, 2008).

Analysis of Bias and Homogeneity Egger, Smith & Phillips (1997), state that the process of meta-analytic review of studies entails examining homogeneity and bias in studies (p.1533). The analysis of bias and homogeneity is fueled by the fact that the technique primarily focuses on explaining the homogeneity between the findings of individual studies. In this case, the researcher utilizes a more objective appraisal of the evidence in the studies in order to clearly demonstrate homogeneity between study findings and develop accurate research findings and conclusions.

For this study, analyzing bias and homogeneity will entail conducting a synthesis of several studies through appropriate calculations. Moreover, the robustness of research results will be examined based on different assumptions. In this case, the researcher will conduct three analyzes of homogeneity and bias to evaluate the robustness of research outcomes to different assumptions. The first homogeneity analysis will focus on individual characteristics which will demonstrate a chance difference in research findings.

Therefore, the researcher will examine whether the differences in the individual characteristics are bigger than those anticipated by chance only (Shachar, 2008). The second analysis is an analysis of bias in which bias will be detected by examining the left-right symmetry of the plot. Juni et al. state (2001) that one of the major concerns in carrying out the meta-analysis is the likelihood of bias to emerge when trials with statistically important results are increasingly likely to be published and used.

The outcome of the arising bias is that plots of trials' differences or sample size against effect size would always be biased and asymmetrical because of publication bias and other partialities that may affect small trials. The final analysis of homogeneity and bias evaluation is a Fail-Safe-N evaluation, which focuses on ensuring that significant effects relating to the research issue or problem are identified (Shachar, 2008). This analysis will be carried out because published article utilized in the research may not publicize significant effects.

This analysis will be carried out in light of the contextual articles utilized in order to demonstrate that the effect sizes would be smaller. Reporting the Results The final step in the meta-analysis technique for research is reporting the results once data has been collected and analyzed. In this case, the researcher provides his/her findings from the combination of the studies' findings. The researcher not only reports similarities between these articles but also demonstrates the differences in the studies.

This is an important part of the process since it demonstrates the applicability of the research findings. According to Bushman & Wells (2001), the findings of a meta-analytic review are usually reported by describing the results through numerical effect-size projections (p.1123). In this study, the researcher will describe the results of the meta-analytic review or technique through the use of numerical effect-size projections. The projections or estimates will be based on the similarities or differences between the studies that were identified in the analysis process.

The researcher will document and describe the findings obtained from the combination of the findings from both published and contextual studies used in this research. The projections are not based on simple arithmetic average of the results but on results generated from statistical measures used in the combination process. During the presentation of research findings, the researcher will demonstrate or report the overall effect size across the various published and contextual studies utilized in this study.

Shachar (2008) states that an overall effect size that is calculated from a huge sample is increasingly likely to be accurate as compared to an overall effect size calculated from a small sample. Therefore, using published and contextual works implies that the.