IndexIntroductionPublic perception of nuclear energy after a nuclear accidentInvestigating public perception of risk and perceived benefit after FukushimaOther methods and models of risk perception and what Australia thinksConclusionReferencesIntroductionProduction of energy for domestic consumption in Australia is currently dominated by coal, oil and gas, with only a minor component coming from renewable sources. Although Australia has significant reserves of uranium and is one of the world's leading exporters of the ore, it does not exploit nuclear energy. Australia has long debated the possibility of using its excess source of uranium for more than just trade. The use of nuclear energy nationwide has become a national debate that continues today. This is a general debate with many individual aspects being discussed. Some of the focal points of the debate are waste disposal, the siting of nuclear plants, education and emissions. This consultative report will deconstruct the overriding issue that underpins every debate, which is the acceptance of nuclear energy by the Australian public. It is recognized throughout Australia's nuclear energy conferences that public acceptance and long-term, bipartisan energy policies are essential prerequisites for large-scale nuclear investment. Wide-ranging consultation is key and the keys to the successful use of nuclear energy in Australia are the development of transparent policies, broad community consultation, in-depth psychological research and a robust regulatory system, which takes advantage of the strong Regulatory history of Australia. The focus of this report is the perceived risk and social psychology of the potential for nuclear accidents. Previous research shows that a major nuclear reactor accident strongly influences lay people's attitudes toward nuclear energy. It is crucial to understand public perception of the risks and effects of a nuclear accident. We can do this through various psychometric models that explain public perceptions of nuclear energy before and after major nuclear accidents. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Public Perception of Nuclear Energy After a Nuclear Accident Various studies have analyzed public perceptions before and after major nuclear accidents. The majority concluded with a negative perception of the spread of nuclear energy. After the nuclear power plant accidents at Chernobyl in 1986 and Three Mile Island (TMI) in 1979, many studies investigated people's attitudes toward nuclear energy by comparing laypeople's opinions about nuclear energy before and after the disasters comparing the results of different samples both over time and between countries. Furthermore, some longitudinal studies have investigated attitudes assessed before and after catastrophic events. Thus, nuclear accidents have accelerated the decline of public support for nuclear energy. A study investigating beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intentions towards nuclear energy in the Netherlands among a sample of Dutch citizens two months before the Chernobyl accident (1986), one month after the accident, six months after the accident and one year and seven months after the accident. In particular, nuclear technology has advanced many generations since the Chernobyl plant and Australia are implementing the latest generation design. A month after the accident, tests revealedmore unfavorable attitudes that became less antinuclear five months later. At the end of 1987 attitudes were more antinuclear than ever. Furthermore, the subjective probabilities of the occurrence of catastrophic accidents were elevated immediately after the accident with a linear trend over time, in relation to these subjective probabilities, and levels of concern decreased. The findings underline the predominance of the perceived catastrophe consequences attributed to nuclear energy in the public's perception and evaluation of this technology. Investigating public perception of risk and perceived benefit after Fukushima It is this type of perception that Australians also reflected in a study that conducted a nationwide survey before and after the Fukushima nuclear explosion accident in 2011. The survey showed that the majority of respondents (42%) would be willing to accept nuclear energy if it could help combat climate change. The post-Fukushima results show that the majority of respondents (40%) were unwilling to accept nuclear power as an option to help tackle climate change, despite the fact that the majority of Australians still believed that nuclear power offered a cleaner and more efficient option than coal. , which currently dominates national energy production. Expanding the use of renewable energy sources (71%) remains the most popular option, followed by energy-efficient technologies (58%) and behavioral change (54%). An online questionnaire was conducted to obtain the highest response rate. The 2012 questionnaire used the same questions as in 2010, only more questions were added, to allow comparisons and identify changes in public opinion. From these studies it is clear that the perceived risk of a nuclear accident causes public opinion against the use of nuclear energy. In particular, most participants responded that they did not trust the Australian government to safely operate nuclear power plants. Most participants also agreed that more information is needed to form a clear opinion on nuclear energy. This implies the need for education where practical, easy-to-understand Australians have intrinsic values ​​to place and the thought of something dangerous forces people to look for alternatives. Renewable energy is an option that most Australians accept as a viable source for their home energy future. However, there are many flaws in renewable energy, in particular their efficiency is too low for Australian domestic demand. Other Risk Perception Methods and Models and What Australia Thinks Looking at a study from the UK, participants living near a nuclear power station undertook a Q-Method Factor Test which measured their views on 4 main factors. 90% of participants are not in favor of building another factory. All statements relating to the nuclear threat received a high rating and the outlook especially emphasized the perceived need to stop using nuclear energy and switch to using renewable energy sources as soon as possible. Nuclear energy was seen as risky and neither clean nor a “necessary evil” that might be needed to help fight climate change or improve the UK. The Australian public has demonstrated that it supports similar values ​​always with a focus on renewable energy as the future. Risk perception is important to the development of nuclear power plants in Australia..2018.05.007, 120, (294-301), (2018).