Testing Hypothesis in Chapter Four Essay
Excerpt from Essay :
Management Strategy to Utilize Meta-Analysis Technique for Nuclear Energy and Waste Disposal and Create Social Sustainability
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, it makes sense that nuclear power would be increasing in share, not decreasing. 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.
Table of Contents
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 #1 9
Hypothesis #2 10
Hypothesis #4 11
Theoretical Perspectives 12
Assumptions and Biases 14
Significance of the Study 16
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: Research Design 41
Research Traditions 41
Research Questions and Hypotheses 44
Research Design 47
Ethical Issues in the Research 49
Summary of Chapter Three 49
Chapter Four: Findings 52
Findings -- Hypotheses #1 52
Findings -- Hypothesis #2 56
Findings -- Hypothesis #3 59
Findings -- Hypothesis #4 62
Findings -- Tying everything together 65
Chapter five: Conclusions 68
Limitations of the Study 68
Implications for Practice 70
Implications of Study 72
Recommendations for Future Research 73
Appendix A: Nuclear Energy Market Share Worldwide (source: IAEA, 2015) 84
Appendix B: Nuclear Reactors Operating Worldwide (source: IAEA, 2015) 85
Appendix C: Number of Nuclear Reactors Under Construction Worldwide (source: IAEA, 2015). 139
List of Figures
[Add List of Figures here ix
Chapter One: Introduction
Nuclear energy was first harnessed for power in 1954, at the Obninsk scientific city some 110km outside of Moscow (Josephenson, 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 to destroy life and also save 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 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).
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.
Social Dimension in Nuclear Energy
The social dimension of nuclear energy is also evident in 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.).
While 22 countries have nuclear power plants, more than half of the world's nuclear power plants are housed in three countries i.e. France, Japan, and the United States. Notably, the average age of development of new nuclear power reactors has increased to 24 years given the declining investment in further development of nuclear power reactors. The decline in investments in further development of nuclear power plants and reactors is also attributed to the unresolved challenge of identifying permanent geologic repositories for utilized nuclear fuel. Moreover, the nuclear power industry is characterized by the increased cost of decommissioning aged nuclear power plant and facilities, which has hindered the appeal of nuclear power in countries that house nuclear power plants. From a social point-of-view, the decline of nuclear power is suddenly uncertain and characterized by various challenges at a time when the total energy consumption is increasing throughout the globe.
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 have 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 closure of nuclear power plants, they have been successful in changing people's or the public's opinion regarding nuclear power or energy.
Political Dimension in Nuclear Energy
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 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…
Sources Used in Documents:
Abokeng, A.K. (2005). Understanding Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 90, 845-848.
Alic, J. (2012). Six things to do with nuclear waste: None of them ideal. Oil Price.com. Retrieved June 17, 2015 from http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/6-Things-to-do-with-Nuclear-Waste-None-of-them-Ideal.html
Alley, W. & Alley, R. (2013). Too hot to touch: The problem of high-level nuclear waste. Review by Konikow, L. (2013). Hydrogeology Journal.
Bangert-Drowns, Robert L. & Rudner, Lawrence M. (1991).Meta-analysis in educational research.Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2(8). Retrieved September 4, 2008 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=8
Cite This Essay: