A Deep Understanding of Romanian Attitude and Perception Regarding Nuclear Energy as Green Investment Promoted by the European Green Deal

Abstract

The analysis of public attitudes towards nuclear energy represents an issue that is commonly investigated, especially considering the new context of classifying some nuclear power plants as green investments under the European Green Deal. The importance of this topic is critical to the future of nuclear power generation. The purpose of this study is to identify the relationships that exist between the different factors and the attitude of the public towards nuclear energy in the context of the European Green Deal. The article identifies and analyzes the main factors that influence this relationship. In this context, a questionnaire-based survey was conducted regarding the identification of the relationship between public knowledge, degree of cooperation, perceived risks, trust and attitude towards nuclear energy. The sample was chosen using the snowball method. The analysis was made up of 578 respondents from different segments of age, gender, place of residence, field of activity, work experience and income. Following the survey, the main conclusion was that over 30% of the respondents do not want nuclear energy and are adamantly opposed to it. At the same time, the results indicate that the respondents’ attitude is not directly influenced by the risks they perceive in relation to nuclear energy.

1. Introduction

a

Current background of nuclear energy

Nuclear energy is the largest source of clean energy production. A nuclear power plant operates for around 40 years and its emissions are approximately 1 gCO₂/kWh(e), compared to fossil fuels, from which CO₂ emissions correspond to values of more than 400 g/kWh(e) [1]. This industry has always been characterized by its complex and abstruse science. The public is either curious or totally repulsed by the nuclear industry. There has always been a debate around nuclear energy that has focused on two major issues: on the one hand, its ability to mitigate climate change, to produce reliable energy, to offer stable electricity prices or to offer competitiveness in the market; on the other hand, its dangerous potential to cause irradiation through accidents or through remaining radioactive waste, to facilitate nuclear weapons proliferation, or to have a major economic impact due to very high initial costs [2].

The US, for instance, has a rich experience in nuclear energy exploitation. Starting in the 1970s, when the government decided to improve the economy by making use of nuclear energy, and coming up to recent times, the US has always been a world leader in terms of nuclear energy usage. At the end of 2019, it was still leading the world rankings with 96 reactors [3], followed by France with 58 nuclear reactors, China with 48 and Russia with 38, according to IAEA’s publication [2]. Wu [4] shows that China has ambitious plans regarding its nuclear development.

Disastrous experiences over time in the nuclear field have led to the shutdown of reactors in some countries, such as Japan, Germany and Italy [5]. Other countries, such as the USA, Canada, Russia, France and India, have decided to continue to use nuclear energy, but to slow down its development. Those who have continued to use nuclear energy have also decided to enhance regulatory requirements and standards [6]. Countries which took the decision to slow down the usage of nuclear energy, or even to close nuclear reactors, faced an important obstacle which led to such a choice, i.e., the opposition of the population to nuclear energy [7].

Considering all these factors, understanding the public attitude towards nuclear energy is important for the future development and usage of nuclear energy.

b

Public attitude toward nuclear energy in the scientific literature

Scientists, politicians and the public share opinions and perceptions that are in favor or against nuclear energy. New controversial debates have arisen from new plans drawn up by the European Commission to classify some nuclear power plants as green investments [8].

In the literature, many researchers have considered the analysis of public attitude towards nuclear energy as a particularly important subject, so they have searched for relationships, correlations and associations that exist between different factors and the public attitude. Several factors have often been analyzed, such as knowledge, benefits, risks or trust [9,10,11]. A survey that took place in the European Union showed that a major proportion of the population does not consider that there is an association between nuclear risk and the health of their families. In their perception, risk is associated more with the possibility of terrorist attacks, with generated radioactive waste and the disposal of radioactive waste [12].

A literature review also shows that public attitude and perception are inconsistent because of many key factors [13]. Moreover, according to [14], all nuclear energy approaches should consider radioactive waste and its disposal. The public attitude and their acceptance are issues often ignored or have only recently been analyzed, because of the many aspects involved, such as environmental issues [15]. The public represents a key stakeholder in the process of nuclear energy acceptance. Attitudes towards nuclear energy may also be influenced by perceptions regarding alternative methods of electricity generation. Research studies show that the public is more confident with renewable energy sources [16]. However, studies conducted in countries which operate nuclear power plants have indicated a more positive attitude, together with greater ease in expressing opinions [13].

Knowledge of nuclear energy is critical when discussing attitudes towards the industry and important for understanding the information provided by the stakeholders in the case of decision making or problem solving [17]. To gain knowledge in the field of nuclear energy means to have an individual willingness to obtain such information and to have the ability to acquire this information.

A lack of information regarding energy mix, as well as both positive and negative aspects, leads to incompatible attitudes regarding energy sources. The public may be against carbon dioxide emissions, but may not be against gas plants, or may show support for wind and solar power [18]. More focused on spreading information about nuclear power are international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which represents a center for cooperation in the nuclear field. The IAEA has an interest in informing the public through many channels. They aim to capture the public’s attention and provide easy-to-understand information about nuclear energy. Information has two levels, one focused on experts working in the nuclear field [19] and the other focused on common people. Information in European countries, for example, is somewhat divided among the public, so a small part of the population feels more than well informed, while another part feels not at all well informed. When discussing sources of information, Europeans tend to show confidence in scientists, national safety authorities and international organizations [13].

The nuclear industry is subject to many cooperation agreements among energy producers, suppliers, researchers, governments, and international organizations. On top of this, there is the public, which represents an extremely sensitive subject in terms of cooperation. The public can be open to cooperation with stakeholders involved in the construction of a radioactive waste disposal facility, either unconditionally or by obtaining benefits. The literature has not addressed cooperation among stakeholders and the public, so this represents an innovative approach. Cooperation could support problem solving by creating links and enhancing trust, especially between the general population and responsible stakeholders. Willingness to cooperate could induce a positive attitude of the population towards nuclear energy.

Several studies showed that risk perception could have a negative influence on the nuclear energy. Subjective risk is more important in analyzing the attitude of the public because this kind of risk involves fear for present generations, as well as future generations, panic, lack of control, uncertainty, and anxiety [20]. The population’s control over the hazard determines if the risk is seen as personal or societal. Early studies found that perceived risk over the society is also seen as a personal risk [21,22,23]. Risks perceived by the public could lead to different attitudes regarding nuclear energy. Risks associated with emplacement of a radioactive waste disposal facility are different in the view of the population depending on their knowledge or their fears.

Trust is analyzed by different researchers in different forms: trust in stakeholders, such as scientists, governments, and national safety authorities, or trust in nuclear energy [24]. Trust is also important when discussing the public attitude regarding nuclear energy and this is important because the public should have enthusiasm and a willingness to rely on the stakeholders responsible for providing information [25]. Knowledge and trust are related because when knowledge or the level of information is very low, only trust in governments, scientists or mass media remains [26].

The public attitude has a significant importance in the context of nuclear energy use and development [27]. These ideas are associated with the fact that social sciences have a powerful role in technology [28,29].

A positive public attitude is hard to build and very easy to destroy, especially in cases involving nuclear power.

c

Relevance of the European Green Deal in the nuclear field

Nuclear energy as a source for electricity production involves public acceptance as a key element for its sustainability and for promoting new green investments by the European Green Deal. The transition to clean energy sources is influenced by society. This transition process benefits if the social dimension is taken into account, especially in cases involving difficult issues such as nuclear energy. There is a need to not ignore the society regarding the problems that concern the shaping of the green future from an energetic point of view [30].

Many researchers have approached and still fully address the nuclear energy topic today. The European Green Deal topic is closer to the business environment. The EU Green Deal was launched in December 2019, with the main objective of making the EU the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. In this approach, the EU will promote a cleaner environment, green energy, smarter cities, and a higher quality of life [31]. From a scientific point of view, only a few articles consider the EU Green Deal and nuclear energy. This subject is only presented in a wider context in the case of national energy strategies [32], energy transition scenarios [33] or economic growth and reduction of emissions [34,35]. Energy transition trends which affect EU countries are characterized by EU greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fossil fuels supply, energy imports, energy cost, diversify of renewable energy sources, energy consumption and energy waste [36].

d

Overall aim of the study and a brief statement on the methodology

Through this article, we aim to clarify the way in which the public perceives nuclear energy and the relationships that exist between various factors and the public’s attitudes towards nuclear energy. This article outlines the framework that captures nuclear energy, its use, current and future plans, as well as the public as a key element in the entire process involving nuclear energy as a form of electricity production. It presents how the public perceives nuclear energy, how this subject of nuclear energy is approached from the perspective of society and what are the relationships between different factors and the attitude of the population towards nuclear energy.

It starts from the premise that various factors influence the public’s attitude, so that a good identification of them can lead to the success of many projects in different fields, i.e., the nuclear field in this case [37].

This article conducts an exploratory study that aims to determine the relationship between the attitude towards nuclear energy and various factors, such as knowledge, the degree of cooperation, perceived risks and trust.

The research methodology describes the way in which the survey was carried out, the type of questionnaire used, the research objectives and hypotheses established, as well as the data collection method. The answers of the respondents were processed and analyzed horizontally and vertically. The horizontal analysis followed the systematization of the survey data in order to characterize the variables selected for this study, such as determining the profile of the respondents, while the purpose of the vertical analysis was to construct the Spearman’s rho correlation matrix. Based on the results obtained, conclusions and recommendations were formulated to improve the way the public perceives nuclear energy and to create and capitalize on opportunities for the development of nuclear energy in the context of green investments promoted by the European Green Deal.

2. Materials and Methods

The research on the public attitude regarding the nuclear industry has the capability to offer a deep understanding of this area and to find answers to an extremely controversial topic. The new plans of the EU Green Deal, which may include some nuclear power plants as green investments, increase the importance of the population attitude and perception regarding nuclear energy.

Specifically, the study was focused on determining the relationship between different factors, such as knowledge, degree of cooperation, risk perception and trust, and the attitude towards nuclear energy, as a method of electricity production in the context of the new green investments promoted by the European Green Deal.

The study of the influence of different factors based on primary data was concentrated on the use of the characteristics of the Romanian population in both urban and rural areas. Finally, the study included a number of 578 people. Given that the sample was chosen by the snowball method, it is difficult to make an exact calculation of the response rate. Thus, the absolute sample size can be questioned. The literature studies show that having five to ten times the number of questions is a good approach [38,39]. In the present analysis, the ratio is 578/29 (i.e., 19.93 times), a value that matches very well with the information indicated in the research literature.

The proportions of responses collected came from both nuclear engaged people and lay people were somewhat evenly split between genders. Between residences, ages and occupation categories, the proportions were variable. The questionnaires were distributed through contacts among the inhabitants of the areas with nuclear objectives, but also among the inhabitants of more distant areas. Respondents had clear written information at the beginning of the questionnaires, so that there was clear information about the purpose of the questionnaire. The confidentiality of the respondents is respected throughout the study. Personal data were not the subject of this study, and the questions provided are not subjective in nature. The phenomenon of social desirability is eliminated by avoiding the occurrence of disruptive factors [40]. The questionnaires outline the demographic profile of the respondents including, at the same time the questions specific to the investigated subject, which were then the basis of the following investigations. The specific questions used in the current study included items about respondents’ characteristics, attitudes, and perceptions regarding various aspects of nuclear energy. The economic, social and environmental characteristics were the basis for the development of the questionnaire. Different types of questions were included, such as closed questions, dichotomous, multiple-choice questions or those measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Likert scales, named after their inventor, Rensis Likert are used with great interest by the scientific community because they have the advantage of being common techniques used to measure attitudes and opinions [41]. At the same time, it was taken into account that the respondents may have a neutral position and do not know how to answer some questions. The questionnaire used in the investigation allowed obtaining quantitative and qualitative information, which facilitated the knowledge of the relationship between different factors and the respondents’ attitudes. In conclusion, in the exploratory research carried out, special attention was paid to identifying the influences that different factors exert on the attitude towards nuclear energy. Access to the questionnaires was possible via Google forms for those answering remotely. Questionnaires were also distributed in printed format by the team involved in the research or by other collaborators. The data was collected during the period 2019–2021.

Based on the research literature and the information presented above, the following objectives and hypotheses were developed and considered:

Objective 1.

Determining the relationship between the knowledge of the public in terms of plans, policies and programs in the nuclear field and the public’s attitude with regard to nuclear energy used for electricity production.

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

The public’s knowledge of the nuclear field influences its attitude towards nuclear energy.

Objective 2.

Determining the relationship between the degree of cooperation of the stakeholders involved in the siting of a radioactive waste disposal facility and the public’s attitude with regard to nuclear energy used for electricity production.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

The way the public cooperates with the stakeholders involved in the nuclear field influences the attitude of the public towards nuclear energy.

Objective 3.

Determining the relationship between the risks perceived regarding nuclear energy and the management of radioactive waste and the attitude of the public regarding nuclear energy used for electricity production.

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

The public’s perceived risks influence its attitude towards nuclear energy.

Objective 4.

Determining the relationship between the trust in the stakeholders involved in the process in providing information in the nuclear field and the attitude of the public with regard to nuclear energy used for electricity production.

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

Trust influences the public attitude towards nuclear energy.

In order to obtain the research results, there were used analysis and database management programs, such as Excel and SPSS. The statistical analysis performed as a result of the processing of the questionnaire was based on the following stages: collection, processing, analysis and interpretation of the survey results. The vertical analysis aimed at statistical correlations in order to explore their presence and intensity between the variables included in the model. Spearman’s rank correlation was used.

In addition to the above, it can be mentioned that the financial aspect, the number and the training of the people involved in conducting the survey, the complexity of the information in the questionnaire, the duration of completing the questionnaire, the sensitivity of the chosen field and the unmotivated nature of the respondents are part of the limits of this research study, thus influencing the final sample size.

3. Results and Discussions

After processing the survey data, the study went on to conduct a horizontal and vertical data analysis. The horizontal analysis of the data focused on the characterization of the variables contained in the questionnaire and used in this analysis, as well as determining the profile of the respondents. Vertical analysis aimed at statistical correlations to explore their presence and intensity between the variables included in the model. Spearman’s rank correlation was used. The vertical analysis was aimed at achieving statistical correlations between variables, in order to explore their presence and intensity among the variables included in the model.

Spearman’s rank correlation was used in the vertical analysis and included the following variables: knowledge of the public in terms of plans, policies and programs in the nuclear field, the degree of communication between the public and the stakeholders involved in the siting of a radioactive waste disposal facility, the risks perceived by the public regarding nuclear energy and the management of radioactive waste, the public’s trust in the stakeholders involved in the process in providing information in the nuclear field, as independent variables and the attitude of the public with regard to nuclear energy used for electricity production, as a dependent variable.

This section emphasizes the main results of the research study. This part starts with a presentation of the demographic profiles of the respondents. At the same time, a characterization of the variables included in this study is carried out by using graphic illustrations as presented in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5.

Table 1. SPSS plot illustrating the demographic characteristics of the sample.

		Frequency	Percent (%)
Age	<20 years	17	2.1
	20–30 years	267	47.2
	31–45 years	192	33.9
	>45 years	102	16.8
	Total	578	100.0
Gender	Men	328	52.9
	Women	250	47.1
Residency	Rural	69	12.5
	Urban	509	87.5
	Total	578	100.0
Field of activity	Production	98	17.0
	Trade	43	7.4
	Consultancy	26	4.5
	Services	78	13.5
	Central/local public administration	45	7.8
	Education	126	21.8
	Healthcare	84	14.5
	Defense	7	1.2
	Other	71	12.3
	Total	578	100.0
Work experience	<2 years	153	14.0
	2–5 years	201	40.5
	>5 years	196	45.5
	Total	578	100.0
Gross income (euro)/month	<700	34	5.88
	700–1000	286	49.48
	1001–1400	144	24.91
	1401–1800	61	10.55
	>1800	53	9.17

summarizes the demographic characteristics of the sample as age, gender, residency, field of activity, work experience and income.

Table 1 emphasizes that by grouping respondents by age, it can be revealed that most of them are included in the 20–30 years category, corresponding to 47.2% of respondents, followed by the 31–45 years category with 33.9% of respondents. The mean age of the respondents is 33.49. Less representative in the entire sample are those who are younger than 20 years old. Taking into consideration that the population with work experience is a majority in this survey is a fact that the final results are valid for current generations and could also be considered for future generations. Gender results show that men are the most representative category of the sample. Even so, between women and men, the proportions are somewhat equally distributed without a big difference between the two genders, considering that the percentage of women represented 47.1 compared to that of men (52.9%). The most representative category of the sample regarding residence is represented by the respondents living in urban areas, corresponding to a percentage of 87.5. This result emphasizes the difficulty of the population living in rural areas to understand the subject, their lack of nuclear knowledge or interest in this field.

The gross income of 49.48% of respondents is in the range of 700–1000 Euro per month. In terms of gross income, those who have an income ranging between 1401 and 1800 Euro corresponds to 24.91% of respondents.

This study also includes respondents working in a variety of fields. Results show that most respondents are from the following fields: production, services, education and healthcare. Likewise, 12.3% of respondents chose the response “other” for expressing their field of activity. The highest percentage of 21.8 is represented by respondents working in the education sector. Less representative are those who work in defense, consultancy, trade and central or local public administration.

According to work experience, the results indicate that most respondents (45.5%), have more than 5 years of work experience. There are also respondents with less than 2 years of work experience, but in a smaller percentage (14%).

Regarding the characterization of the variables included in the model, the following results can be highlighted in terms of respondents’ attitude towards nuclear energy used for electricity production. It can be pointed out that the general attitude is against nuclear energy (68.16%) with a strong opposition (38.06% of respondents) and a clear and firm opposition (30.1% of respondents), while only 26.82% of the respondents were strongly in favor of nuclear energy (Figure 1). These results illustrate the fact that great effort is needed from the stakeholders in the nuclear field to increase the degree of acceptance regarding this type of energy used for electricity production.

According to the respondents, their level of knowledge in the nuclear field with respect to the plans, programs and policies is quite high (Figure 2). A percentage of 92.21 of the respondents are informed to a lesser or greater extent about plans, policies or programs in the nuclear energy field. These results show that the public is concerned about this aspect and future improvements in clear, concise, and correct knowledge depends on the nuclear stakeholders, as a regulatory body, ministries, government, nuclear businesses and science. At the same time, the respondents consider themselves interested in information from the nuclear field and are open to being contacted and informed. So, this aspect brings a positive note to the previous result regarding the attitude towards nuclear energy and shows that it can be improved significantly if the public will be properly informed and if it will benefit from the attention of the stakeholders regarding the communication of information.

Regarding the degree of cooperation, 37.71% of respondents reject the idea of cooperating with the stakeholders even if the nuclear facility is planned to be in the area where they live or in any other area. Additionally, 47.23% of respondents are open to cooperation without hesitation or without expecting anything in return. If talking about rewards, there are 10.55% of respondents who want to cooperate under the condition that they are clearly rewarded (Figure 3).

These results illustrate that the population can be willing to cooperate with the stakeholders if it is taken into account that their wishes must be listened to. Therefore, it is shown that the national authorities, the government and the business environment in the nuclear field should intensify and diversify their actions regarding the mode of cooperation with the public.

Regarding the risks perceived by the respondents in relation to the location of a radioactive waste disposal facility, it can be highlighted that the main risk perceived is related with the decrease of the number of tourists in the region or even in the country (35.29% of respondents). Declining birth rates is the type of risk that is perceived to be ranked second (23.01% of respondents), and the damage to the vegetation and fauna with repercussions on the citizens (15.05%) is in third place. These results (Figure 4) illustrate that the respondents are more concerned about the impact on tourism and birth rate rather than the impact on the population and the environment.

Therefore, respondents consider that a radioactive waste disposal facility would affect the economy, not in an accelerated way but in a slow one, by impacting different aspects that would influence the economy.

Such aspects are quite important to be considered by the stakeholders involved in positioning a radioactive waste disposal facility.

As presented in Figure 5, the majority of the respondents (67.47%) are not confident with the stakeholder’s involvement in the process of providing real information about the nuclear energy. Stakeholders involved in such process are considered to be the national administrative authorities, regulatory agencies, ministers, government, the nuclear business environment and science. A percentage of 28.03 of respondents are interested and open, considering that in this way the acceptance of nuclear energy would become easier, unveiling that, to some extent, they trust the stakeholders and the information provided by them.

In very small percentages, there are respondents who have complete trust in the stakeholders, this being a fact which proves that there is still much to invest in this area, so that the trust will increase considerably and, thus, there can be a good way of transmitting information, and better ways of communication between the public and the stakeholders.

Regarding the vertical analysis, the following conclusions of the Spearman’s rank correlation using the SPSS package can be highlighted (see

Table 2. Correlations matrix (Spearman’s rho correlation).

			Attitude	Knowledge	Cooperation	Perceived Risks	Trust
Spearman’s rho	Attitude	Correlation Coefficient	1.000	0.714 **	0.749 **	−0.447	−0.647 **
		Sig. (2-tailed)	.	0.000	0.000	0.259	0.000
		N	578	578	578	578	578
	Knowledge	Correlation Coefficient	0.714 **	1.000	0.749 **	−0.300 *	−0.538 **
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	.	0.000	0.016	0.000
		N	578	578	578	578	578
	Cooperation	Correlation Coefficient	0.749 **	0.749 **	1.000	−0.317 **	−0.376
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000	.	0.005	0.068
		N	578	578	578	578	578
	Perceived risks	Correlation Coefficient	−0.447	−0.300 *	−0.317 **	1.000	−0.317
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.259	0.016	0.005	.	0.687
		N	578	578	578	578	578
	Trust	Correlation Coefficient	−0.647 **	−0.538 **	−0.376	−0.317	1.000
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.068	0.687	.
		N	578	578	578	578	578

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

).

Dependent variables (attitude of the population regarding nuclear energy) and independent variables (knowledge, degree of cooperation, perceived risks and trust) are included in this analysis.

Spearman’s rank correlations, as illustrated in Table 2, show that the higher the level of knowledge in terms of plans, policies and programs in the nuclear field, the more positive the attitude toward nuclear energy used for electricity production can be. Results revealed a statistically significant relationship between the level of knowledge and the attitude that respondents have regarding the nuclear field (rs [578] = 0.714, p < 0.001). This result emphasizes that informing respondents and clarifying certain aspects related to the nuclear field will lead to an increase in acceptance, a result that is consistent with other studies found in the scientific literature [42]. Considering this result, it can be concluded that Hypothesis 1 (H1) is confirmed. Therefore, it is confirmed that knowledge has a positive impact on attitudes towards nuclear energy.

Regarding the cooperation, it is noticed that a higher level of cooperation between the public and the stakeholders involved in the process of siting of a radioactive waste disposal facility is closely associated with a positive attitude towards nuclear energy used for electricity production. In this case, Spearman’s rho correlation showed a statistically significant relationship (rs [578] = 0.749, p < 0.001), as illustrated in Table 2. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 (H2) is confirmed.

The correlation between perceived risks and attitude highlighted a coefficient of −0.447, but there is insufficient statistical evidence to show that the correlation between the variables is statistically significant. That being said, Hypothesis 3 (H3) is not confirmed.

When talking about trust, the results show a statistically significant relationship between trust and attitude towards nuclear energy used for electricity production (rs [578] = −0.647, p < 0.001), a positive relationship and of medium strength. Considering this result, a higher level of trust negatively influences the attitude towards nuclear energy used for electricity production. As a result of the above, it can be said that Hypothesis 4 (H4) is confirmed. Additionally, it is revealed that between trust and the other variables, such as knowledge, degree of cooperation and perceived risks, the relationships are negative and of a weak or medium strength. Therefore, these results show that a better level of knowledge determines a lower level of trust, while a higher level of trust negatively influences the degree of cooperation between the parties, but also the perceived risks.

According to the scientific literature, high levels of trust in the stakeholders that are involved in the dissemination of information about nuclear energy, are associated with low perceived risks. As mentioned in this study, the stakeholders could be individuals or institutions, i.e., national administrative authorities, regulatory agencies, ministers, the government, the nuclear business environment and science. This result is similar to the current findings. However, regarding the attitude towards nuclear energy and trust, results in the scientific literature show that high levels of trust are associated with a high acceptance of nuclear energy [43]. In this case, it seems that there a necessity of measuring the trust in different dimensions exists, perhaps because trust implies both emotional acceptance and affirmation of the competence of the other party.

The relationship between knowledge and the degree of cooperation (rs [578] = 0.749, p < 0.001) shows that an adequate level of information increases the possibility of cooperation and involvement of the population.

An adequate level of cooperation tends to lower the perception of risks associated with the location of a radioactive waste disposal facility (rs [578] = −0. 317, p < 0.001).

4. Conclusions

This study has investigated the attitude of the public with respect to nuclear energy in the new approach of including some nuclear power projects as green investments for the European Green Deal.

Knowledge, cooperation, perceived risks and trust were considered in this analysis as independent variables. Results of the current research suggest that the respondents’ attitude is influenced by different factors related with nuclear energy and radioactive waste disposal facilities. The Spearman rank correlation matrix showed that there are statistically significant relationships between the respondents’ attitude towards nuclear energy used for the production of electricity and the knowledge, the degree of communication and the trust given to the stakeholders. Regarding the relationship between perceived risk and attitude, there was no statistically significant relationship that could have been identified. These should be important for increasing public acceptance that some nuclear power projects will be promoted by the EU Green Deal as green investments. The degree of information that the population has, including knowledge, the degree of involvement or cooperation, or perceived benefits regarding various aspects of nuclear energy and the EU Green Deal Strategy, all intend to influence the population’s attitude.

A very important aspect of the society is represented by the understanding of the energy mix, so that a good evaluation and acceptance of nuclear energy could be met.

The subject of nuclear energy is one of the most sensitive subjects worldwide and any information reaching the public domain can determine a radical positive or negative attitude towards nuclear energy. From this study, it can be observed that the stakeholders in the nuclear field play an important role in relation to the public’s attitude towards nuclear energy. The information which they provide, the knowledge that the public acquires from them, as credible sources, the degree of their cooperation with the public and the safety that they show for the public, so that it trusts in them, clearly determines the future regarding the acceptance or rejection of various nuclear projects. Any project related to nuclear energy or radioactive waste is either carried out or not depending on the opinion of the public, and especially of the residents of the chosen area. This fact shows the importance that the public has in this case, taking into account the international cases in the past that were characterized by failure due to the public’s rejection.

At the same time, the study highlighted the fact that the public exhibits a somehow disorganized behavior considering the result between the trust granted and the attitude towards nuclear energy. Additionally, in this context, it is concluded that the level of trust granted must be analyzed from several dimensions for a clear and precise result.

A very important aspect that emerges from the results of the study refers to the fact that the respondents self-assess their level of knowledge as very good, which demonstrates their receptivity and interest in the development and improvement of the level of knowledge in the nuclear field. At the same time, it was demonstrated that an adequate level of knowledge determines a positive attitude towards nuclear energy, a fact of great interest for regulators, ministries, governments and the business and scientific environments in the nuclear field. That is why it is necessary to invest more in actions to improve the process of designing credible and safe information, to diversify the ways of communication and cooperation with the public, as well as to increase the frequency of public learning, taking into account that the results of the study show that such events would considerably improve the attitude towards nuclear energy.

In terms of the limits of this study, it can be said that these research results are limited to Romania. Future research in this field and future comparisons made between Romania and other countries may complete the main results with data based on the attitude and perception of the population regarding nuclear energy in the new context of green investments promoted by the European Green Deal in other EU states.

Nevertheless, the Russian–Ukrainian war will influence the future of the energy mix in the European Union, especially of nuclear energy which will be described by accessibility, acceptability and security aspects.