Abstract
Finding safe and publicly acceptable routes for the management of long-lived nuclear wastes has been problematic in all countries that have used nuclear power. The dominant expectation on the part of Governments and the nuclear industry has been that the best option will be deep underground disposal. However even in Sweden, where political consensus has emerged over a site for a repository, disputes continue about long-term safety. Ethical issues, especially inter-generational equity, are relevant given continuing delays in implementing long-term management and where countries, like the UK, continue to build new reactors, achieving political acceptability is more problematic than where new-build is not an option. Failure to resolve nuclear waste issues is a major obstacle to public acceptance of nuclear technology.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference
Abbott, A., 1998. ‘UK waives nuclear waste rule for Georgia’ Nature 392: 850 (30 April 1998).
Arentsen, M.J., 2015. ‘With access to the future. Nuclear waste governance in the Netherlands’ in Brunnengraber et al., op. cit. Chapter in V, pp. 281-298.
Auffermann, B., Suomela, P., Kaivo-Oja, J. Vehmas, J. and Lukkanen, J. ‘A final solution for a big challenge. The governance of nuclear waste disposal in Finland, in Brunnenghraber et al. op. cit. Chapter in IV, pp. 227-248
Blowers, A., 2017. The Legacy of Nuclear Power Earthscan
Brunnengraber, A., di Nucci, M.R., Loada, A.M.I., Mex, L. and Schreurs, M. (eds.), 2015. Nuclear Waste Management: an International Comparison Springer
Chilvers, J and Burgess, J., 2008. ‘Power relations: the politics of risk and procedure in nuclear waste governance’ Environment and Planning A: economy and space 40:8, 1881–1900.
Cochran, T., Feiveson, H., Patterson, W., Pshakin, G., Ramana, M., Schneider, M., Suzuki, T. and von Hippel, F., 2010. Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: history and status. A research report on International Panel on Fissile Materials, (February 2010)
CoRWM (Committee on Radioactive Waste Managment ), 2006. Managing our Radioactive Waste Safely, CoRWM’s Recommendations to Government (July 2006).
Defra, BERR and the devolved administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland, 2008. Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: a framework for implementing geological disposal, Cm 7836, (1 June 2008).
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), 2003. Our energy future – creating a low carbon economy Cm 5761, February.
Gibb, F., Travis, K.P., McTaggart, N.A., Burley, D. and Hesketh, K.W., 2008. ‘Modeling temperature distribution around very deep borehole disposals of HLW’ Nuclear Technology 163: 62–73
Gowing, M., 1974. Independence and Deterrence: Britain and Atomic Energy 1945–52 (Volume 1) Macmillan.
HMG (Her Majesty’s Government), 2017. The Clean Growth Strategy – leading the way to a low carbon future (October 2017).
Hocke, P. and Kallenbach-Herbert, B., 2015. ‘Always the same old story? Nuclear Waste Governance in Germany in Brunnengraber et al., op. cit. Chapter in Part IV, pp. 177-202.
Macfarlane, A. and Ewing, R. (eds.), 2006. Uncertainty Underground: Yucca mountain and the Nation’s High-Level Nuclear Waste MIT.
MacKerron, G., 2015. ‘Multiple Challenges: Nuclear Waste Governance in the United Kingdom’ in Brunnengraber et al. op. cit. Chapter in III, pp. 101-117.
NWMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organisation), 2018. Implementing Adaptive Phased Management (March 2018).
OECD/NEA, 2013. The Economics of the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle NEA no. 7061
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1976. Nuclear Power and the Environment 6th Report, Cm 6618.
Schneider, M. and Marignac, Y., 2008. Spent Fuel Reprocessing in France International Panel on Fissile Materials Research Report 4, 8 (May 2008).
Swahn, J. and Kaberger, T., 2015. Governance and management of radioactive waste in Sweden in Brunnengraber et al. (op. cit.) Chapter in IV pp. 203-225.
World Nuclear News, 2017. ‘Further delay to completion of Rokkasho facilities’ (December 28. 2017).
Von Hippel, F and MacKerron, G., 2015. Alternatives to MOX International Panel on Fissile Materials Research Report no. 13 (April 2015).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
MacKerron, G. (2019). Future Prospects on Coping with Nuclear Waste. In: Haas, R., Mez, L., Ajanovic, A. (eds) The Technological and Economic Future of Nuclear Power. Energiepolitik und Klimaschutz. Energy Policy and Climate Protection. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25987-7_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25987-7_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-25986-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-25987-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)