IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/wireae/v7y2018i4ne289.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technical and social problems of nuclear waste

Author

Listed:
  • M. V. Ramana

Abstract

Despite decades of effort, the nuclear industry does not yet have a working solution for managing spent fuel and high level waste, the most radioactive products generated by nuclear power plants. Although many scientific and technical bodies have endorsed geological disposal as the preferred solution to this problem, there remain significant uncertainties about the long‐term performance of repositories and behavior of the nuclear wastes to be stored in these facilities. Apart from a minority of countries, most countries have not chosen any sites for a repository. Further concerns about the long‐term safety of repositories arise from the experiences of failures and accidents at pilot facilities. One reason for the absence of operating repositories decades after they were first proposed is widespread public opposition to such facilities. Polls have revealed that substantial majorities of people consider nuclear waste with dread and do not approve plans to dispose of radioactive wastes near them, or, often, far away either. Nuclear power advocates have typically dismissed public concerns as resulting from a lack of understanding of scientific facts but this explanation does not withstand scrutiny. Technical approaches to dealing with nuclear waste, such as reprocessing of spent fuel, mischaracterize the social concerns and therefore do not help gain public acceptance. Concern about radioactive waste has contributed to the failure of the propaganda effort by the nuclear industry to market nuclear power as a solution to climate change. The absence of a solution to waste negatively affects the future expansion of nuclear energy. This article is categorized under: Nuclear Power > Climate and Environment Nuclear Power > Economics and Policy Nuclear Power > Science and Materials

Suggested Citation

  • M. V. Ramana, 2018. "Technical and social problems of nuclear waste," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(4), July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:wireae:v:7:y:2018:i:4:n:e289
    DOI: 10.1002/wene.289
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.289
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/wene.289?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gallardo, Adrián H. & Matsuzaki, Tomose & Aoki, Hisashi, 2014. "Geological storage of nuclear wastes: Insights following the Fukushima crisis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 391-400.
    2. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    3. Gordon Mackerron & Frans Berkhout, 2009. "Learning to listen: institutional change and legitimation in UK radioactive waste policy," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(7-8), pages 989-1008, December.
    4. Robert Darst & Jane I. Dawson, 2008. ""Baptists and Bootleggers, Once Removed": The Politics of Radioactive Waste Internalization in the European Union," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 17-38, May.
    5. Juhani Vira, 2006. "Winning Citizen Trust: The Siting of a Nuclear Waste Facility in Eurajoki, Finland," Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 67-82, October.
    6. Ramana, M.V., 2013. "Shifting strategies and precarious progress: Nuclear waste management in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 196-206.
    7. George W. Hinman & Eugene A. Rosa & Randall R. Kleinhesselink & Thomas C. Lowinger, 1993. "Perceptions of Nuclear and Other Risks in Japan and the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 449-455, August.
    8. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.
    9. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    10. Robin S Gregory & Theresa A Satterfield, 2002. "Beyond Perception: The Experience of Risk and Stigma in Community Contexts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 347-358, April.
    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. Peter Stoett, 2003. "Toward Renewed Legitimacy? Nuclear Power, Global Warming, and Security," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 3(1), pages 99-116, February.
    13. Alan Marshall, 2005. "Questioning the Motivations for International Repositories for Nuclear Waste," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 5(2), pages 1-9, May.
    14. Cameron L. Tracy & Megan K. Dustin & Rodney C. Ewing, 2016. "Policy: Reassess New Mexico's nuclear-waste repository," Nature, Nature, vol. 529(7585), pages 149-151, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shawn Olson Hazboun & Hilary Schaffer Boudet, 2020. "Public Preferences in a Shifting Energy Future: Comparing Public Views of Eight Energy Sources in North America’s Pacific Northwest," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-21, April.
    2. Sven Teske & Thomas Pregger & Sonja Simon & Tobias Naegler & Johannes Pagenkopf & Özcan Deniz & Bent van den Adel & Kate Dooley & Malte Meinshausen, 2021. "It Is Still Possible to Achieve the Paris Climate Agreement: Regional, Sectoral, and Land-Use Pathways," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-25, April.
    3. Bruno Merk & Dzianis Litskevich & Anna Detkina & Omid Noori-kalkhoran & Lakshay Jain & Elfriede Derrer-Merk & Daliya Aflyatunova & Greg Cartland-Glover, 2023. "iMAGINE—Visions, Missions, and Steps for Successfully Delivering the Nuclear System of the 21st Century," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-16, March.

    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. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    2. Gupta, Kuhika & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Fox, Andrew S. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2021. "The future of nuclear energy in India: Evidence from a nationwide survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    3. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2003. "Risk communication between experts and the public: perceptions and intentions," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2003:13, Stockholm School of Economics.
    4. Barbara Miller & Janas Sinclair, 2012. "Risk Perceptions in a Resource Community and Communication Implications: Emotion, Stigma, and Identity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 483-495, March.
    5. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    6. Ramana, M.V., 2013. "Shifting strategies and precarious progress: Nuclear waste management in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 196-206.
    7. 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).
    8. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    9. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    10. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    11. Roger E. Kasperson & Jeanne X. Kasperson, 1996. "The Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 545(1), pages 95-105, May.
    12. Sean Lonnquist & Deborah Gallagher, 2021. "Use of Fracking Information Disclosure Policies to Reduce Uncertainty in Risk‐Based Decisions," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 326-346, May.
    13. Govindan, Mini & Ram Mohan, M.P., 2021. "Exploring Gender Perceptions of Nuclear Energy in India," IIMA Working Papers WP 2021-11-06, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    14. Ho, Shirley S. & Xiong, Rui & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2021. "Heuristic cues as perceptual filters: Factors influencing public support for nuclear research reactor in Singapore," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    15. Tantau Adrian & Vitioanu Greta-Marilena, 2020. "Key factors affecting disposal of radioactive waste in the sustainable development approach," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, July.
    16. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    17. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 343-353, April.
    18. Beierle, Thomas C., 1998. "Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals," Discussion Papers 10497, Resources for the Future.
    19. SarahM. Jordaan & Afreen Siddiqi & William Kakenmaster & AliceC. Hill, 2019. "The Climate Vulnerabilities of Global Nuclear Power," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 19(4), pages 3-13, November.
    20. Michael R. Greenberg & Lynda Osafo, 2000. "Neighborhood quality in environmentally stressed areas of Accra, Ghana: a comparison with US counterparts," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 93-104, June.

    More about this item

    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:bla:wireae:v:7:y:2018:i:4:n:e289. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=2041-8396 .

    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.