IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v210y2026ics0301421525005142.html

Unpacking public support for nuclear energy: A twin conjoint experiment on innovative nuclear fusion and next-generation fission technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Biten Butorac, Merve
  • Nicoli, Francesco
  • Lalli, Roberto

Abstract

The transition to sustainable energy systems is a critical priority for European countries. Among the most debated solutions are nuclear technologies, including innovative fusion and next-generation fission power plants. However, public support for these technologies is complex and influenced by a range of factors, including economic considerations, environmental concerns, and perceived social impacts; yet the majority of the studies conducted on these technologies are observational and mono-dimensional. To address this gap, we conduct the first-ever twin conjoint experiment designed to assess public support for both fission and fusion nuclear energy development plans. The conjoint fielded among a highly representative sample of the French, German, Italian, British, Spanish and Polish populations in May 2025. Our results reveal that public preferences for nuclear energy development plans, whether for innovative fusion or next-generation fission technologies, are shaped by place (topos), governance (nomos) and effectiveness (logos) oriented considerations. Respondents slightly favored fusion rather than fission development plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Biten Butorac, Merve & Nicoli, Francesco & Lalli, Roberto, 2026. "Unpacking public support for nuclear energy: A twin conjoint experiment on innovative nuclear fusion and next-generation fission technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:210:y:2026:i:c:s0301421525005142
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2025.115007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421525005142
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2025.115007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mullinix, Kevin J. & Leeper, Thomas J. & Druckman, James N. & Freese, Jeremy, 2015. "The Generalizability of Survey Experiments," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 109-138, January.
    2. Lindley, Ben & Roulstone, Tony & Locatelli, Giorgio & Rooney, Matt, 2023. "Can fusion energy be cost-competitive and commercially viable? An analysis of magnetically confined reactors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    3. Carayannis, Elias G. & Vincenzi, Marco & Draper, John, 2024. "The economic logic of open science in fusion energy research: A policy perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    4. Bansak, Kirk & Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2023. "Using Conjoint Experiments to Analyze Election Outcomes: The Essential Role of the Average Marginal Component Effect," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 500-518, October.
    5. Bohdanowicz, Zbigniew & Łopaciuk-Gonczaryk, Beata & Kowalski, Jarosław, 2025. "Europe becomes pro-nuclear? Drivers of public support for nuclear energy in six EU countries after the energy crisis of 2022," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    6. Latré, Edwin & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter, 2017. "Public opinion change after the Fukushima nuclear accident: The role of national context revisited," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 124-133.
    7. Rubio-Domingo, G. & Linares, P., 2021. "The future investment costs of offshore wind: An estimation based on auction results," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    8. Michal Onderco & Michal Smetana & Tom W. Etienne, 2023. "Hawks in the making? European public views on nuclear weapons post‐Ukraine," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(2), pages 305-317, May.
    9. Hooghe, Liesbet & Marks, Gary, 2009. "A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 1-23, January.
    10. Roel Beetsma & Brian Burgoon & Francesco Nicoli & Anniek de Ruijter & Frank Vandenbroucke, 2022. "What kind of EU fiscal capacity? Evidence from a randomized survey experiment in five European countries in times of corona," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 37(111), pages 411-459.
    11. Bird, Deanne K. & Haynes, Katharine & van den Honert, Rob & McAneney, John & Poortinga, Wouter, 2014. "Nuclear power in Australia: A comparative analysis of public opinion regarding climate change and the Fukushima disaster," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 644-653.
    12. Leah C. Stokes & Christopher Warshaw, 2017. "Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(8), pages 1-6, August.
    13. Brian Burgoon & Theresa Kuhn & Francesco Nicoli & Frank Vandenbroucke, 2022. "Unemployment risk-sharing in the EU: How policy design influences citizen support for European unemployment policy," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 282-308, June.
    14. Uji, Azusa & Prakash, Aseem & Song, Jaehyun, 2021. "Does the “NIMBY syndrome” undermine public support for nuclear power in Japan?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PA).
    15. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    16. Nicoli, Francesco & van der Duin, David & Burgoon, Brian, 2023. "Which Energy Security Union? An experiment on public preferences for energy union alternatives in 5 western European countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    17. Mustakimah Mohamed & Nur Diyana Zakuan & Tengku Nur Adibah Tengku Hassan & Serene Sow Mun Lock & Azmi Mohd Shariff, 2024. "Global Development and Readiness of Nuclear Fusion Technology as the Alternative Source for Clean Energy Supply," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-37, May.
    18. Guo, Yue & Ren, Tao, 2017. "When it is unfamiliar to me: Local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-fukushima era," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 113-125.
    19. Stoutenborough, James W. & Sturgess, Shelbi G. & Vedlitz, Arnold, 2013. "Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 176-184.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Catherine E De Vries & Simon Hix & Miriam Sorace, 2025. "Reforming supranational institutions: Insights from a conjoint experiment in 16 countries," European Union Politics, , vol. 26(4), pages 649-666, December.
    2. Soni, Anmol, 2018. "Out of sight, out of mind? Investigating the longitudinal impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on public opinion in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 169-175.
    3. Wang, Jing & Li, Yazhou & Wu, Jianlin & Gu, Jibao & Xu, Shuo, 2020. "Environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy in China: A moderated mediation analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    4. Lisanne de Blok & Max Heermann & Julian Schuessler & Dirk Leuffen & Catherine E. de Vries, 2024. "All on board? The role of institutional design for public support for differentiated integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(3), pages 593-604, September.
    5. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    6. Xia, Dongqin & Li, Yazhou & He, Yanling & Zhang, Tingting & Wang, Yongliang & Gu, Jibao, 2019. "Exploring the role of cultural individualism and collectivism on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 208-215.
    7. Salil Benegal & Jon Green, 2024. "Cost sensitivity, partisan cues, and support for the Green New Deal," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 14(4), pages 763-775, December.
    8. Avidit Acharya & Jens Hainmueller & Yiqing Xu, 2026. "Learning Preferences from Conjoint Data: A Hybrid Structural Deep Learning Approach," Papers 2604.10845, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2026.
    9. Beetsma, Roel & Burgoon, Brian & Nicoli, Francesco, 2023. "Is european attachment sufficiently strong to support an EU fiscal capacity: Evidence from a conjoint experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    10. Nicoli, Francesco & van der Duin, David & Burgoon, Brian, 2023. "Which Energy Security Union? An experiment on public preferences for energy union alternatives in 5 western European countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    11. Beata Woźniak-Jęchorek, 2023. "Experiments in Modern Economics – Expansion and Technological and Institutional Innovations in the U.S," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 1, pages 78-101.
    12. repec:osf:osfxxx:837ws_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Ioana-Elena Oana & Alexandru D Moise & Zbigniew Truchlewski, 2025. "Demand-side constraints on European solidarity for energy sanctions: Experimental evidence from seven EU countries," European Union Politics, , vol. 26(2), pages 344-368, June.
    14. Christina J. Schneider, 2019. "Euroscepticism and government accountability in the European Union," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 217-238, June.
    15. Roman Hlatky, 2023. "The politicization of European integration and support for restrictive migration policies," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 684-707, December.
    16. Sokolov, Boris, 2025. "Causal Estimands for Policy Evaluation and Beyond," SocArXiv 4vtpk_v1, Center for Open Science.
    17. Irina Ciornei, 2025. "Supranational redistribution and support for European integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 26(3), pages 526-551, September.
    18. repec:osf:osfxxx:h967e_v2 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Ediger, Volkan Ş. & Kirkil, Gokhan & Çelebi, Emre & Ucal, Meltem & Kentmen-Çin, Çiğdem, 2018. "Turkish public preferences for energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 492-502.
    20. Alexandru D Moise & Ioana-Elena Oana & Zbigniew Truchlewski & Chendi Wang, 2025. "Two functionalist logics of European Union polity formation under external threat: Evidence from a conjoint experiment," European Union Politics, , vol. 26(2), pages 369-392, June.
    21. Patrick Clasen, 2024. "Solidarity on a divided continent: Perceptions of ‘centre’ and ‘periphery’ determine European citizens’ willingness to help other EU countries," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(3), pages 569-592, September.
    22. Lala Muradova & Ross James Gildea, 2021. "Oil wealth and US public support for war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(1), pages 3-19, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:210:y:2026:i:c:s0301421525005142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.