What do millennials think about nuclear energy?

Grace Meikle | July 2017

What do millennials think about nuclear energy? This is a question worth exploring. After all, these so-called “millennials”, myself included, will eventually take over the nuclear energy workforce. A scary thought, I know.

In the nuclear policy world, millennials have already generated quite a bit of buzz. The U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council has a special group for us called “Millennials in Nuclear”. A number of people, including those at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Nuclear Energy, have decided millennials ought to be targeted first and foremost when promoting nuclear energy.

Even our own Secretary is talking about us – just last week, when he was on the radio with Salem Radio Network talk show host Hugh Hewitt, Perry asked: “If you’re a millennial, and you really care about the climate of the globe…how can you not be for nuclear energy?”

Makes sense, right? But in order to convince millennials that nuclear energy is important, it’s necessary to understand how we think. What are our predefined opinions about nuclear energy? What is important to us? What distinguishes us from other generations, and do these differences open the door to outreach strategies that are different from what’s been done before? Most importantly: are the differences significant enough to make sweeping generalizations about the entire millennial generation?

For the purposes of writing this article, I conducted a mini-study of available opinion data for millennials on nuclear energy. I contacted a well-known expert, Dr. Hank Jenkins-Smith. Hank is a Professor of Political Science at Oklahoma University who maps public opinion around controversial subjects, such as nuclear waste and nuclear accidents. You may have heard of him – he visits the Office of Nuclear Energy once per year, and his research is partly funded by DOE. For comparison, I also looked at opinion data for millennials from Bisconti Research, Inc.

​

Who are “millennials”?

Before discussing what millennials think, we first need to know: who are these people? I don’t know, I just know I am one. Throughout this article, it’s important to bear in mind that generational boundaries are, by nature, completely arbitrary – I’ll come back to this point later.

In the interest of starting somewhere, however, sometimes you have to draw lines in the sand. I defined “millennials” as those with birth years ranging from 1985 – 2000. That would include individuals entering college today all the way up to those who have been in the workforce for up to ten years.

What do we think millennials think?

I hypothesized that millennials would be quite different than our predecessors in our attitudes towards nuclear energy. In particular, I imagined that we must be different from the “baby boomers” – i.e., those currently in their 50s and 60s – that lived through Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the Cold War. Presumably, minus the weight of all that emotional baggage, shouldn’t millennials be more open-minded about nuclear energy? So went my thinking.

How do we collect data about millennials?

Hank conducts his research in two principal ways: (1) annual nationwide polling of 2000+ participants with a demographic profile that reflects the national census; and (2) a constant intake and sorting of tweets that include the word “nuclear”, “nuke”, or related terms. For my mini-study, I relied on Hank’s method (1). I asked him to segregate his data base on my definition of a millennial and compare it to data for the general population.

What does the data say?

In 2016, Hank made the following findings:

• Millennial opinions towards nuclear energy are slightly less impacted by the Fukushima nuclear accident. When the general public is polled on how the Fukushima nuclear accident impacted their support for continued U.S. reliance on nuclear power, on a scale of -10 (strongly reduced) to +10 (strongly increased), the overall population polled at -2.04, whereas millennials polled at -1.36.

• Millennials are slightly less supportive of new nuclear builds. When asked about their preferences for constructing new nuclear reactors at new locations on a scale from 1 (strongly oppose) to 7 (strongly support), overall survey respondents averaged below mid-scale, at 3.88. Millennials averaged even lower, at 3.5.

• Millennials are slightly more concerned about the environment. When asked how much risk climate change poses for people and the environment, on a scale from 0 (no risk) to 10 (extreme risk), the overall sample of respondents averaged 7.15. Millennials averaged 7.4.

• Millennials are slightly more likely to perceive nuclear power as risky. Millennials (and their immediate predecessors, the Gen-Xers) are slightly more concerned about the potential risks posed by nuclear power, especially those involving proliferation. Risk was rated by millennials at 6.96, and by the entire sample at 6.44.

• Millennials are slightly more trusting of the government, environmental groups, and the mass media. When polled regarding how much they trust DOE experts to provide information about nuclear issues, millennials scored 6.11 compared to 5.65 for the rest of the population. Millennials also have more positive attitudes towards environmental groups such as the EPA, which rates a trust score of 6.36 among millennials, but only 5.86 among the entire sample. Millennials also trust the national news media more – they score 4.8, compared to everyone else, who scored 4.4.

Also of note: millennials and the population sample overall perceived the benefits of nuclear energy to slightly outweigh the risks.

What does the data mean?

From the data, we can say that millennials appear to be more trusting, more concerned about the environment, and more concerned about the risks of nuclear. But if truth be told, the differences between millennials and other generations aren’t as significant as I thought they’d be. Hank described the data as having “a gradually shifting mean”. No matter how you slice it, you’ll get data points across the entire spectrum of opinions, and the bulk of the data moves gradually left or right for each question as you shift the age boundaries.

Upon deeper inspection, however, Hank found something rather interesting. The differences between millennials as defined by the birth years 1985-2000 and the other generations appears to be driven almost completely by the group born in 1996 or later (the data cuts off after those under 18). In fact, if you remove the 1996-2000 group from “millennials”, there is scarcely any difference at all between them and the Gen-Xers, or those currently in their 30s and 40s.

If we are to define generations by significant events, this younger group – also known as “Generation Z” – would be too young to remember the dot com bubble or 9/11. It seems they may be worthy of study as their own group, independent from the larger demographic of millennials.

According to Hank’s data, this younger group is more concerned about climate change and is significantly more trusting of environmental organizations, such as the EPA. Interestingly, they also appear to be less supportive of nuclear energy than the general population. They are more supportive of anti-nuclear groups – these are often the same as the environmental organizations, such as Green Peace and the Sierra Club. They also perceive nuclear as quite a bit more risky. They rate nuclear’s risk at 7.5, compared to 6.4 for the general population – a statistically significant difference.

What do other people say?

In addition to Hank’s data, I was able to obtain a survey of 1000 members of the public by Bisconti Research, Inc., which defines millennials as those aged 18-34. This approximately matches my own definition.

The Bisconti survey found that millennials favor nuclear energy just as much as other groups, but are less likely to take its benefits in account, such as clean air and reliability. They are also less likely to rate the nuclear plants currently operating as “safe”. The survey did not include separate data for those born 1996 or later, and did not include specific questions regarding millennials’ attitudes towards climate change and the environment.

Conclusion – Strategies for Outreach

How do we perform outreach to millennials – and for that matter, Gen-Zers? The Office of Nuclear Energy and Secretary Perry are approaching this question by highlighting nuclear energy as the only energy source that can provide clean power, twenty-four seven.

I think this approach is right on track. The operative word here is “clean”. Outreach campaigns to these groups need not be about changing their values – we merely need to convince them that supporting nuclear energy already matches their existing values. Gen-Zers in particular consider themselves to be environmentalists, and look to environmental authorities to help form their opinions. To many of these groups, nuclear energy is bad for the environment. Perhaps our campaigns should focus on helping environmental authorities and their followers to recognize the clean energy muscle of nuclear power.

Of course, nuclear energy is so much more than clean – it is innovative, it is reliable, and it offers meaningful ways to reduce global proliferation risks. “Clean” is a starting point that can open the door to a broader recognition of the full scope of benefits that make nuclear energy truly unique.