Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Summary
General 1 Introduction
Objectives and Research Questions
Overview of Chapters
Material
Introduction
Conclusion
Conclusions
Main Research Question
Further Generalizations and Limitations
Implications of the Desirability of Reversibility
References
All Topics
Political Science

Reflections on the Reversibility of Nuclear Energy Technologies

Profile image of Jan Peter BergenJan Peter Bergen

2017

https://doi.org/10.4233/UUID:03D807BF-9DCA-4FF2-A797-8521227625E2
visibility

…

description

204 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

The development of nuclear energy technologies in the second half of the 20th century came with great hopes of rebuilding nations recovering from the devasta-tion of the Second World War or recently released from colonial rule. In coun-tries like France, India, the USA, Canada, Russia, and the United Kingdom, nuclear energy became the symbol of development towards a modern and technologically advanced future. However, after more than six decades of experi-ence with nuclear energy production, and in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, it is safe to say that nuclear energy production is not without its problems. Some of these problems have their origins in the very materiality of the technolo-gies involved. For example, not only does the use of highly radioactive materials give rise to risks for the current generation (e.g., in the potential for disaster when reactors melt down) but high-level radioactive waste from nuclear energy production presents a serious intergenera...

Related papers

A Renaissance in Nuclear Power
Antonio C F Lambertini

This paper presents an analysis of the worldwide evolution of the fleet of nuclear power plants until the 1980s; the reasons why in the same era this contingent was rejected in various developed countries due to a complete lack of public acceptance, being condemned to a phaseout planned to eliminate more than half of the operating power plants by 2020; and finally, what are the reasons for this competent base load power source to silently resist for more than a quarter of a century, having been the focus of studies and improvements in the most renowned research centers in the world and the most traditional universities of the developed countries, resurging as one of the main allies of worldwide sustainable development, even with all the difficulties of deployment, ecological risks, and nuclear proliferation. However, after more than 30 years of intense debates involving a wide variety of interrelated problems, scientists have collected irrefutable proof that the actions of humankind have caused climate changes that represent an imminent threat to the survival of the human species on Earth, requiring coordinated international action that seeks to determine the economic aspects of the stabilization of levels of GHGs (greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. The transition to a worldwide low-carbon economy presents political challenges, where, the most complex political question, is the supply of energy which would depends on a change in the supply of energy from fossil fuels to renewable, hydro and nuclear. Undoubtedly the nuclear power plants are, by far, the most controversial.

View PDFchevron_right
CURRENT PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF NUCLEAR POWER
Mnh Comsan

The problem of energy production on a large scale for rapidly increasing world population is at the present of vital importance. As a consequence various ways of energy gain are now subjected to thorough and comprehensive analysis from the viewpoint of more and more rigorous and stringent criteria, the main are safe operation, commercial competition, reserves of energy sources and not devastating the earth. So, it becomes apparent that just in not distant future the energy production on a global scale should not consume oxygen and, consequently, not create carbon dioxide which accumulation in ocean waters could lead to catastrophic changes in the ecosystem of our planet the regenerative capabilities of which are constantly diminishing as a result of mankind activity. The unique way that can completely satisfies the above-mentioned conditions can be only nuclear power (NP). But the future NP should be safe, much more efficient and no producing radioactive waste. We give an outline of conceptual basis of such a nuclear power of future generation, which satisfy the criterion of energy sustainable development.

View PDFchevron_right
NEW TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Jorge Morales Pedraza

Undoubtedly, energy production and their sustained growth constitute a relevant factor for ensuring the economic and social development of any country. Considering the different available energy sources that the world can use to satisfy the foreseeable increase in energy demand in the coming years, particularly for the production of electricity, at least for the next decades there are only a few realistic options available to reduce further the CO 2 emissions, to satisfy the foreseeable demand of electricity, and to have a secure supply of energy. One of these options is the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation. If this is true, then, why the public opinion of several countries is against the use of this type of energy sources? One of the reasons is the negative impact of an accident at a nuclear power plant for the human beings and for the environment. The second reason is the possible military uses of certain nuclear installations used for the generation of electricity. The third reason is the nuclear waste generated by nuclear power plants.

View PDFchevron_right
The Uncertain Future of Nuclear Energy
Charles McCombie

2010

The other routine occupational and environmental impacts of nuclear power plantsperkWharerelativelylowincomparisontofossilpower.Butthepotential for catastrophic releases of radioactivity makes the reputation of the global nuclear industry vulnerable to unsafe practices in any country. It therefore is criticaltomaintainhighsafetyandsecuritystandardsindesign,constructionand operationeverywhere. Althoughrelativelylittlenuclearcapacityhasbeenaddedinrecentyears(Figure 2), nuclear power plants increased their average capacity factors steadily to 80 percentandthereforemaintainedtheirshareofgeneratedelectricityatabout17 percentfrom1988till2001beforedroppingtoabout14percentin2007[IAEA,

View PDFchevron_right
Nuclear energy–Any solution for sustainability and climate protection
David Gu

For the future of nuclear power it will be decisive whether or not nuclear fission technologies offer a sustainable solution to global energy problems. The impressive expansion of nuclear reactors in the 1960s and 1970 slowed down after the meltdown in Harrisburg and the nuclear explosion in Chernobyl. Since the end of the 1980s installed nuclear capacity has stagnated, and in Europe declined. However, a nuclear revival or renaissance has been predicted for 30 years. This article reviews global scenarios and national nuclear programmes and analyses problems in the nuclear industry. Special attention is given to nuclear power and global warming and the nexus between nuclear power and nuclear proliferation.

View PDFchevron_right
Resurgence of Nuclear Power
R. B Grover

2017

The first € price and the £ and $ price are net prices, subject to local VAT. Prices indicated with * include VAT for books; the €(D) includes 7% for Germany, the €(A) includes 10% for Austria. Prices indicated with ** include VAT for electronic products; 19% for Germany, 20% for Austria. All prices exclusive of carriage charges. Prices and other details are subject to change without notice. All errors and omissions excepted. N. Janardhanan, G. Pant, R.B. Grover (Eds.) Resurgence of Nuclear Power

View PDFchevron_right
"The Global Landscape of Nuclear Energy: Technology, Policy, and Sustainability,"
Htein Win

Nuclear Energy , 2025

Nuclear energy stands at a pivotal juncture in 2025, contributing 2,500 TWh (10% of global electricity) and avoiding 2.5 Gt CO₂ annually through 440 reactors (371 GW capacity). This study synthesizes its multifaceted role in the global energy landscape, exploring technological evolution, policy frameworks, sustainability imperatives, economic viability, societal perceptions, and future challenges. Current Generation II and III+ reactors offer a low-carbon footprint (12 g CO₂e/kWh), yet aging fleets (35-year average) demand $200–$400 billion in modernization to sustain output. Innovations like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), Generation IV designs, and fusion promise scalability, enhanced safety (CDF 10⁻⁸/year), and resource longevity (thorium, reprocessing), potentially tripling capacity to 1,100 GW by 2050 per COP28 goals, though $10–$20 billion/year in R&D and $4–$7 trillion in infrastructure are needed. Policy varies—China and Russia expand (57 GW and 29 GW), while Germany and Japan retract post-Fukushima—guided by IAEA oversight and NPT frameworks yet strained by funding and harmonization gaps. Sustainability balances low emissions against waste (300,000 tons) and mining impacts, with recycling and deep geological disposal advancing slowly. Economically, nuclear’s $100–$180/MWh LCOE competes with renewables ($30–$90/MWh) and fossils ($40–$140/MWh), hindered by high capital costs ($6–$10 billion/GW). Public trust, at 50% globally, reflects historical accidents’ legacy, necessitating education for acceptance. Geopolitically, nuclear fosters energy independence but ties nations to fuel (Russia’s 46% enrichment) and tech dependencies. The path forward demands balanced innovation, robust regulation, and inclusive dialogue to align nuclear with net-zero emissions (7 Gt CO₂/year avoidance by 2050) and sustainable development, leveraging fusion and advanced fission for a long-term, low-carbon future.

View PDFchevron_right
NUCLEAR ENERGY: THE DEPENDABLE OPTION
International Journal of Research Publication (IJRP)

The purpose of this paper is to address the current issue of Energy requirement and an alternative solution for it. The principle focus will be on concept of nuclear energy its need and threats. Today’s world is undoubtedly facing a danger posed by continuously depletion of non-renewable sources of energy, which may possibly get finished within few years. Such utilization is depleting the sources like coalmines, natural oil reserves; which are responsible for global warming due to increased rate of carbon dioxide and several other environmental problems related to air.

View PDFchevron_right
An Overview of the Historical Experience of Nuclear Energy and Society in 20 countries
karl-erik michelsen, HoNESt History of Nuclear Energy and Society, Robert Bud, Markku Lehtonen, Jan-Henrik Meyer

The relationship between nuclear energy and society in European countries has been fraught with controversy and mutual miscomprehension. In the majority of countries the controversy remains unresolved and the positions of those supporting nuclear power and those against it seem entrenched. A view into the history of the conflict offers the chance to learn what motivates these people, facilitate mutual comprehension and to improve societal engagement with this technology – and with modern technologies more generally. This brochure offers for the first time a comparative overview of the diverse national histories of nuclear energy and societies in 22 countries in Europe – North and South, East and West – and overseas. The short presentations assembled in this brochure are based on more substantive short country reports on the issue. This brochure presents the first results of the three year international, interdisciplinary Horizon 2020 research project "HoNESt - History of Nuclear Energy and Society" (www.honest2020.eu). It is funded by the Euratom Research and Training Programme 2014-2018 and started in September 2015. Its ambition is threefold: First, to provide an analytic overview of the rich and diverse historical experience of the relations between the nuclear energy sector and society in the past 60 years across 20 countries. Second, to draw more systematic conclusions on the mechanisms of successful public engagement between the nuclear sector and society. Finally, HoNESt’s research is not for the ivory tower. Indeed, HoNESt researchers will share and discuss their findings with the many stakeholders involved in this issue – from the nuclear sector, industry, associations, and civil society. The goal is to help learn from the experience and enhance the ways and modes of decision making about new technologies in democratic societies.

View PDFchevron_right
50 Years of Nuclear Power
Frank Wicks

Mechanical Engineering

This article highlights the Atomic Age that announced itself to the world with the destruction of two Japanese cities in 1945. After the first bomb fell, on Hiroshima in August, mankind suddenly realized that it possessed a new technology of unprecedented destructive power. In 1948, Untermyer transferred to the Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago. The lab traced its origins to Enrico Fermi, who with Leo Szilard had been first to demonstrate a nuclear chain reaction only six years earlier. Argonne was the first national laboratory with the mission of developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Untermyer left General Electric (GE) in 1964 to find the National Nuclear Equipment Corp. to design and manufacture equipment for the nuclear industry. He was awarded several more patents. GE’s Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor also makes use of passive systems. According to GE, the reactor has more than 72 hours of passive running capability, and its simplified systems make it...

View PDFchevron_right

References (225)

  1. Adler, E. (1988). State Institutions , Ideology , and Autonomous Technological Development : Computers and and Nuclear Energy in Argentina and Brazil. Latin American Research Review, 23(2), 59-90.
  2. Aparicio, L. (Ed.). (2010). Making nuclear waste governable -Deep underground disposal and the challenge of reversibility. Andra. Retrieved from http://www.andra.fr/download/andra-international- en/document/editions/381-va.pdf
  3. Araujo, L., & Harrison, D. (2002). Path Dependence , Agency and Technological Evolution. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(1), 37-41.
  4. Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116-131.
  5. Arthur, W. B. (1990). Positive Feedbacks in the Economy. Scientific American, 262, 92-99.
  6. Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  7. Arts, B., Leroy, P., & Tatenhove, J. (2006). Political Modernisation and Policy Arrangements: A Framework for Understanding Environmental Policy Change. Public Organization Review, 6(2), 93-106.
  8. Barilan, Y. M., & Brusa, M. (2011). Triangular reflective equilibrium: a conscience-based method for bioethical deliberation. Bioethics, 25(6), 304-19.
  9. Barthe, Y. (2010). Nuclear waste: The meaning of decision-making. In L. Aparacio (Ed.), Making nuclear waste governable -Deep underground disposal and the challenge of reversibility. Andra. Retrieved from http://www.andra.fr/download/andra-international- en/document/editions/381-va.pdf
  10. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  11. Bergen, J. P. (2016a). Reversibility and Nuclear Energy Production Technologies: A Framework and Three Cases. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 19(1), 37- 59.
  12. Bergen, J. P. (2016b). Reversible Experiments: Putting Geological Disposal to the Test. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(3), 707-733.
  13. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
  14. Bergmans, A. (2008). Meaningful communication among experts and affected citizens on risk: challenge or impossibility? Journal of Risk Research, 11(1-2), 175-193.
  15. Blok, V. (2014). Look who's talking: responsible innovation, the paradox of dialogue and the voice of the other in communication and negotiation processes. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(2), 171-190.
  16. Blok, V., & Lemmens, P. (2015). The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation. In B.-J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, & J. van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  17. Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. (2012). Disposal Subcommittee Report to the Full Commission. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/disposal_report_ updated _final.pdf
  18. Bonin, B. (2010). The Scientific Basis of Nuclear Waste Management. In D. Cacuci (Ed.), Handbook of Nuclear Engineering. Springer US.
  19. Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & Van Lente, H. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis Strategic Management, 18(3-4), 285-298.
  20. Bredehoeft, J. D. (2003). From Models to Performance Assessment: The Conceptualization Problem. Ground Water, 41(5), 571-577.
  21. Brook, B. W., Alonso, A., Meneley, D. A., Misak, J., Blees, T., & van Erp, J. B. (2014). Why nuclear energy is sustainable and has to be part of the energy mix. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 1, 8-16.
  22. Brown, N., & Michael, M. (2003). A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(1), 3-18.
  23. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters -Essays on power technology and domination (Vol. 38, pp. 132-161).
  24. Campo, E. (2015). Relevance as Social Matrix of Attention in Alfred Schutz. SOCIETÀ MUTAMENTO POLITICA, 6(12), 117-148.
  25. Cantner, U., & Vannuccini, S. (2016). Innovation and lock-in. Jena Economic Research Papers, (18), 1-30.
  26. Cardis, E., & Richardson, D. (2000). Health effects of radiation exposure at uranium processing facilities. Journal of Radiological Protection, 20(2), 95-97.
  27. Carter, J. (1977). Nuclear Power Policy Statement on Decisions Reached Following a Review. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7316
  28. Cecere, G., Corrocher, N., Gossart, C., & Ozman, M. (2014). Lock-in and path dependence: an evolutionary approach to eco-innovations. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24, 1037-1065.
  29. Cézanne-Bert, P., & Chateauraynaud, F. (2010). The argumentative trajectory of reversibility in radioactive wate management. In L. Aparicio (Ed.), Making nuclear waste governable -Deep underground disposal and the challenge of reversibility. Andra. Retrieved from http://www.andra.fr/download/andra-international- en/document/editions/381-va.pdf
  30. Clarfield, G. H., & Wiecek, W. M. (1984). Nuclear America: military and civilian nuclear power in the United States, 1940-1980. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. London: Frances Pinter.
  31. Collingridge, D. (1983). Technology in the policy process: controlling nuclear power. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
  32. Collingridge, D., & James, P. (1991). Inflexible energy policies in a rapidly- changing market. Long Range Planning, 24(2), 101-107.
  33. Condé, H., Andersson, T. L., Sandström, R., & Norby, S. (2004). Partitioning, transmutation-an alternative to final disposal. An Issue in Focus. In Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste (Ed.), Nuclear Waste, State- of-the-Art Report 2004. Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.government.se/content/1/c6/05/25/63/4b726e9d.pdf
  34. Correljé, A., Cuppen, E., Dignum, M., Pesch, U., & Taebi, B. (2015). Responsible Innovation in Energy Projects: Values in the Design of Technologies, Institutions and Stakeholder Interactions. In B.-J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, & J. van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  35. Costello, G. J., & Donnellan, B. (2008). Seeking the Face of Innovation with the Ethical Compass of Emmanuel Lévinas. In G. León, A. M. Bernardos, J. R. Casar, K. Kautz, & J. I. De Gross (Eds.), Open IT-Based Innovation: Moving Towards Cooperative IT Transfer and Knowledge Diffusion: IFIP TC8 WG 8.6 International Working Conference October 22--24, 2008, Madrid, Spain. Boston, MA: Springer.
  36. Cotton, M. (2009). Ethical assessment in radioactive waste management: a proposed reflective equilibrium based deliberative approach. Journal of Risk Research, 12(5), 603-618.
  37. Cowan, R. (1990). Nuclear Power Reactors: A Study in Technological Lock-in. The Journal of Economic History, 50(3), 541-567.
  38. Daniels, N. (1979). Wide reflective equilibrium and theory acceptance in ethics. The Journal of Philosophy, 76(5), 256-282.
  39. Daniels, N. (1996). Justice and justification. Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  40. David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332-337.
  41. David, P. A. (1994). Why are institutions the "carriers of history"?: Path dependence and the evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5(2), 205-220.
  42. David, P. A. (2001). Path dependence, its critics and the quest for "historical economics." In Evolution and path dependence in economic ideas: Past and present (Vol. 15, p. 40). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
  43. David, P. A. (2007). Path dependence: a foundational concept for historical social science. Cliometrica, 1(2), 91-114.
  44. Desjardins, E. (2013). Reflections on Path Dependence and Irreversibility : Lessons from Evolutionary Biology, 78(5), 724-738.
  45. Deutch, J., Moniz, E., Ansolabehere, S., Driscoll, M., Gray, P., Holdren, J., … Todreas, N. (2003). The Future of Nuclear Power. An MIT Interdisciplinary Study, Retrieved from http://web. Mit. Edu/nuclearpower.
  46. Dewey, J. (1998). The pattern of inquiry. In L. A. Hickman & T. M. Alexander (Eds.), The Essential Dewey, Volume 2: Ethics, Logic, Psychology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univeristy Press.
  47. Dobusch, L., & Schüßler. (2013). Theorizing path dependence: a review of positive feedback mechanisms in technology markets, regional clusters, and organisations. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(3), 617-647.
  48. Doorn, N. (2010). A Rawlsian approach to distribute responsibilities in networks. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(2), 221-49.
  49. Doorn, N., & Taebi, B. (2017). Rawls's Wide Reflective Equilibrium as a Method for Engaged Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Science, Technology, & Hu- man Values.
  50. Downer, J. (2015). The unknowable ceilings of safety: Three ways that nuclear accidents escape the calculus of risk assessments. In B. Taebi & S. Roeser (Eds.), The Ethics of Nuclear Energy -Risk, Justice and Democracy in the post-Fukushima Era. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  51. Downer, J. (2017). The Aviation Paradox: Why We Can "Know" Jetliners But Not Reactors. Minerva, 55(2), 229-248.
  52. Dreher, J. (2011). Alfred Schutz. In G. Ritzer & J. Stepnisky (Eds.), The Wiley- Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists. Oxford, UK: Wiley- Blackwell.
  53. Dreher, J. (2013). Reflections on a Phenomenology of Power. Schutzian Research, 5, 103-119.
  54. Dreher, J., & López, D. G. (2015). Subjectivity and Power. Human Studies, 38(2), 197-222.
  55. Eggermont, G., & Feltz, B. (Eds.). (2008). Ethics and Radiation Protection. Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia-Bruylant.
  56. Faure, M., & Fiore, K. (2008). The civil liability of European nuclear operators: which coverage for the new 2004 Protocols? Evidence from France. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8(3), 227-248.
  57. Felt, U. (forthcoming). Living a Real-World Experiment: Post-Fukushima Imaginaries and Spatial Practices of "Containing the Nuclear." In I. Van de Poel, L. Asveld, & D. C. Mehos (Eds.), New Perspectives on Technology in Society: Experimentation Beyond the Laboratory. Routledge.
  58. Felt, U., Wynne, B., Callon, M., Gonçalves, M. E., Jasanoff, S., Jepsen, M., … Tallacchini, M. (2007). TAKING EUROPEAN KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY SERIOUSLY -Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission. Brussels.
  59. Florman, S.C. (2013). The Existential Pleasures of Engineering. Ebook edition. New York, NY: Souvenir Press.
  60. Foxon, T., & Pearson, P. (2008). Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion of cleaner technologies: some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(1), S148- S161.
  61. Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2010). Towards governing infrasystem transitions: Reinforcing lock-in or facilitating change? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 1292-1301.
  62. Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., & Karnøe, P. (2010). Path Dependence or Path Creation? Journal of Management Studies, 47(4), 760-774.
  63. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative Theory of Culture. In The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York, NY: Public Books.
  64. Genus, A. (1995). Walls and bridges: towards a multi-disciplinary approach to the concept of flexibility. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 7(3), 287-306.
  65. Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
  66. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  67. Goettlich, A. (2011). Power and powerlessness -Alfred Schutz's theory of relevance and its possible impact on a sociological analysis of power. Civitas -Revista de Ciências Sociais, 11(3), 491-508.
  68. Gopalakrishnan, a. (2002). Evolution of the Indian Nuclear Power Program. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 27(1), 369-395.
  69. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
  70. Grinbaum, A., & Groves, C. (2013). What Is "Responsible" about Responsible Innovation? Understanding the Ethical Issues. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), : Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  71. Hale, B. (2011). Fukushima Daiichi, Normal Accidents, and Moral Responsi- bility: Ethical Questions about Nuclear Energy. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 14(3), 263-265.
  72. Hall, B. H., & Kahn, B. (2003). Adoption of New Technology. In D. C. Jones (Ed.), New Economy Handbook. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
  73. Hansson, S. O. (2007a). Ethics and radiation protection. Journal of Radiological Protection, 27(2), 147-156.
  74. Hansson, S. O. (2007b). Philosophical Problems in Cost-Benefit Analysis. Economics and Philosophy, 23(2), 163-183.
  75. Hansson, S. O. (2013). ALARA: What is Reasonably Achievable? In D. Oughton & S. O. Hansson (Eds.), Social and Ethical Aspects of Radiation Risk Man- agement. Oxford: Elsevier.
  76. Hecht, G. (1998). The Radiance of France: Nuclear Power and National Identity after World War II. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  77. Hecht, G. (2006). Nuclear Ontologies. Constellations, 13(3), 320-331.
  78. Hecht, G. (2007). A Cosmogram for Nuclear Things. Isis, 98(1), 100-108.
  79. Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology. In W. Lovitt (Ed.), The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York, NY: Harper.
  80. Horst, W. J. R., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
  81. Hossain, T., & Morgan, J. (2009). The Quest for QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 99(2), 435-440.
  82. Hughes, T. P. (1969). Technological Momentum in History : Hydrogenation in Germany 1898-1933. Past & Present, 44, 106-132.
  83. Hughes, T. P. (1994). Technological Momentum. In M. R. Smith & L. Marx (Eds.), Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. IAEA. (1956). The Statute of the IAEA. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from https://www.iaea.org/node/9642
  84. IAEA. (2006). Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/06- 13891_NP&SDbrochure.pdf
  85. IAEA. (2008). Estimation of Global Inventories of Radioactive Waste and Other Radioactive Materials. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www- pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1591_web.pdf IAEA. (2009). Classification of Radioactive Waste General Safety Guide. Safety Standards Series No. GSG-1. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1419_web.pdf IAEA. (2016). Nuclear Power and the Paris Agreement. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16/11/np- parisagreement.pdf
  86. Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management. (1978). Report to the President by the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management. TID-28817. Washington, D.C.
  87. ICRP. (1977). Recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP Publication 26. Annals of the ICRP 1(3).
  88. ICRP. (2007). The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Annals of the ICRP 37 (2-
  89. ICRP. (2013). Radiological protection in geological disposal of long-lived solid radioactive waste. Annals of the ICRP, 42(3).
  90. Jacobs, J. F., Van De Poel, I., & Osseweijer, P. (2010). Sunscreens with Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) Nano-Particles: A Societal Experiment. Nanoethics, 4(2), 103-113.
  91. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2009). Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119-146.
  92. Katz, B. M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75(3), 424-440.
  93. Kay, A. (2005). A critical of the use path dependency in policy studies. Public Administration, 83(3), 553-571.
  94. Kay, N. M. (2013). Rerun the tape of history and QWERTY always wins. Research Policy, 42(6-7), 1175-1185.
  95. Kneese, A. V. (2006). The Faustian Bargain -Risk, Ethics and Nuclear Energy. In W. Oates (Ed.), The RFF Reader in Environmental and Resource Policy (2 nd edition). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
  96. Koch, L., & Stemerding, D. (1994). The sociology of entrenchment: a cystic fibrosis test for everyone? Social Science & Medicine, 39(9), 1211-1220.
  97. Kojo, M., Richardson, P., Oksa, A., & Mihók, P. (2013). The Use of an Added Value Approach During a Repository Development Process : Exploring Stakeholder Views and Concerns. Retrieved from http://www.ippaproject.eu/sites/default/files/deliverables/IPPA- Deliverable-4_3-20-dec-2013.pdf
  98. Krohn, W., & Weyer, J. (1994). Society as a laboratory: The social risks of experimental research. Science and Public Policy, 21(3), 173-183.
  99. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing Things Together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  100. Latour, B. (1999). Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World. In M. Biagioli (Ed.), The Science Studies Reader. New York, NY: Routledge.
  101. Lawrence, A., Sovacool, B., & Stirling, A. (2016). Nuclear energy and path dependence in Europe's "Energy union": coherence or continued divergence? Climate Policy, 16(5), 622-641.
  102. Lenzen, M. (2008). Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review. Energy Conversion and Management, 49(8), 2178-2199.
  103. Levidow, L., & Carr, S. (2007). GM crops on trial: Technological development as a real-world experiment. Futures, 39(4), 408-431.
  104. Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
  105. Levinas, E. (1981). Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  106. Levinas, E. (1987). Collected Philosophical Papers. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
  107. Levinas, E. (1988). The Paradox of Morality: an interview with Emmanuel Levinas. In R. Bernasconi & D. Wood (Eds.), The Provocation of Levinas: Rethinking the Other. London: Routledge.
  108. Levinas, E. (1989). The Levinas Reader. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
  109. Levinas, E. (1993). The Rights of Man and the Rights of the Other. In Outside the Subject. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  110. Levinas, E. (1994). Sur l'Esprit de Genève. In Les Imprévus de l'histoire. Saint- Clément-de-Rivière: Fata Morgana.
  111. Levinas, E. (1996). Basic Philosophical Writings. (A. T. Peperzak, S. Critchley, & R. Bernasconi, Eds.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univeristy Press.
  112. Levinas, E. (1998a). Entre Nous: On Thinking of The Other. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
  113. Levinas, E. (1998b). Secularization and Hunger. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, 20/21 (2/1), 3-12.
  114. Levinas, E. (2000). God, Death, and Time. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  115. Levinas, E. (2003). On escape. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  116. Levinas, E., Bouchetoux, F. & Jones, C. (2007). Sociality and money. Business Ethics: A European Review 16, 203-207.
  117. Liebowitz, S. J., & Margolis, S. E. (1990). the Fable of the Keys. Journal of Law and Economics, 30(1), 1-26.
  118. Liebowitz, S. J., & Margolis, S. E. (1995). Path Dependence, Lock-in, and History. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 11(1), 205-226.
  119. Liebowitz, S. J., & Margolis, S. E. (2013). THE TROUBLED PATH OF THE LOCK-IN MOVEMENT. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 9(1), 125-152.
  120. Lierman, S., & Veuchelen, L. (2005). The optimisation approach of ALARA in nuclear practice: an early application of the Precautionary Principle. Sci- entific uncertainty versus legal uncertainty. Water Science and Technology, 52(6), 81-86.
  121. Lilienthal, D.E. (1947, May 4) We must grasp the the facts about the atom, The New York Times Magazine, p. 7.
  122. Macfarlane, A. M., & Ewing, R. C. (Eds.). (2006). Uncertainty Underground - Yucca Mountain and the Nation's High-Level Nuclear Waste. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  123. Macnaghten, P., Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Wynne, B., Azevedo, A., Campos, A. de, … Velho, L. (2014). Responsible innovation across borders: tensions, paradoxes and possibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(2), 191- 199.
  124. Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507-548.
  125. Manders-Huits, N. (2011). What Values in Design? The Challenge of Incorporating Moral Values into Design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(2), 271-287.
  126. Martin, R. (2010). Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography-Rethinking Regional Path Dependence: Beyond Lock-in to Evolution. Economic Geography, 86(1), 1-27.
  127. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2010). The Place of Path Dependence in an Evolutionary Perspective on the Economic Landscape. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography. Chichester: Edward Elgar.
  128. McKinley, I., Alexander, W., & Blaser, P. C. (2007). Development of geological disposal concepts. Radioactivity in the Environment, 9(6), 41-76.
  129. Metlay, D. (1985). Radioactive Waste Management Policymaking. In U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Managing the Nation's Commercial High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  130. Miller, H. S., Fahnoe, F., & Peterson, W. R. (1954). Survey of Radioactive Waste Disposal Practices. Nucleonics, 12(1), 68.
  131. Mulder, K., & Knot, M. (2001). PVC plastic: a history of systems development and entrenchment. Technology in Society, 23(2), 265-286.
  132. National Research Council. (1957). The Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Disposal-Radioactive-Waste/10294
  133. National Research Council. (1966). Review of Radioactive Waste Disposal Technology -Report to the Division of Reactor Development and Technology. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  134. National Research Council. (1970). Disposal of Solid Radioactive Wastes in Bedded Salt Deposits. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  135. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  136. Nwosu, B. C. E. (1991). Issues and Experiences Concerning Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Proliferation. In K. S. Shrader-Frechette (Ed.), Nuclear Energy and Ethics. Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications.
  137. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. (1995). The Environmental and Ethical Basis of Geological Disposal of Long-Lived Radioactive Wastes. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from https://www.oecd- nea.org/rwm/reports/1995/geodisp.html OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. (2011). Reversibility and Retrievability (R&R) for the Deep Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel. Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/rr/
  138. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. (2012). Reversibility of Decisions and Retrievability of Radioactive Waste. Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd- nea.org/rwm/reports/2012/7085-reversibility.pdf
  139. Oregon Department of Energy. (2014). Hanford Cleanup: The first 25 years. Salem, OR. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/energy/NUCSAF/docs/Hanford25YearReportA LL.pdf
  140. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.
  141. Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.
  142. Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., & Guston, D. (2013). A Framework for Responsible Innovation. In Responsible Innovation. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  143. Page, S. E. (2006). Path Dependence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1, 87- 115.
  144. Parkins, J. R., & Haluza-delay, R. (2011). Social and Ethical Considerations of Nuclear Power Development. University of Alberta, Department of Rural Economy Staff Paper. Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/103237/2/StaffPaper11-01.pdf.
  145. Parsons, R. M. (1995). History of Technology Policy -Commercial Nuclear Power. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Prac- tice, 121(2), 85-98.
  146. Pellé, S. (2016). Process, outcomes, virtues: the normative strategies of respon- sible research and innovation and the challenge of moral pluralism. Journal of Responsible Innovation 3(3), 233-254.
  147. Pellé, S., & Reber, B. (2016). From Ethical Review to Responsible Research and Innovation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  148. Perrings, C., & Brock, W. (2009). Irreversibility in Economics. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1(1), 219-238.
  149. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. The American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251-267.
  150. Pieters, W., Hadziosmanovic, D., & Dechesne, F. (2014). Cyber Security as Social Experiment. In NSPW '14 Proceedings of the 2014 workshop on New Security Paradigms. New York, NY: ACM.
  151. Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1987). The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts. In W. Bijker, T. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Tech- nological Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  152. Ramana, M. V. (2007). Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future. In H. Sokolski (Ed.), Gauging U.S.-Indian Strategic Cooperation. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.
  153. Richardson, P., Michie, E., Minhans, A., Kallenbach-Herbert, B., & Andersson, K. (2011). The IPPA Knowledge Base. Retrieved from http://www.ippaproject.eu/sites/default/files/deliverables/IPPA- Deliverable-1_1.pdf
  154. Rixen, T., & Viola, L. A. (2014). Putting path dependence in its place: toward a Taxonomy of institutional change. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 26(3), 1- 23. http://doi.org/10.1177/0951629814531667
  155. Robaey, Z. (2014). Looking for Moral Responsibility in Ownership: A Way to Deal with Hazards of GMOs. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(1), 43-56.
  156. Robaey, Z. (2016a). Gone with the Wind: Conceiving of Moral Responsibility in the Case of GMO Contamination. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(3), 889-906.
  157. Robaey, Z. (2016b). Transferring Moral Responsibility for Technological Hazards: The Case of GMOs in Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29(5), 767-786.
  158. Roeser, S. (2011). Nuclear Energy, Risk, and Emotions. Philosophy & Technology, 24(2), 197-201.
  159. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
  160. Sarkar, J. (2014). A Bullock Cart on Nuclear-Powered Wheels: Nuclear Science, Indigeneity and the National Development Narrative in India. In M. Mayer, M. Carpes, & R. Knoblich (Eds.), International Relations and the Global Politics of Science and Technology (Vol. 2, pp. 21-30). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
  161. Schneider, M. (2010). Nuclear Power Made in France: A Model? In H. D. Sokolski (Ed.), Nuclear Power's Global Expansion: Weighing Its Costs and Risks. Strategic Studies Institute.
  162. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
  163. Schutz, A. (1946). The well-informed citizen; an essay on the social distribution of knowledge. Social Research, 13(c), 463-478.
  164. Schutz, A. (1952). Santayana on Society and Government. Social Research, 19(2), 220-246.
  165. Schutz, A. (1973). Collected Papers: The Problem of Social Reality. (M. Natanson, Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=1H1bAAAAIAAJ
  166. Schutz, A. (1976). Collected Papers II: Studies in Social Theory. (A. Brodersen, Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
  167. Schutz, A. (2011). Collected Papers V. Phenomenology and the Social Sciences. (L. Embree, Ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.
  168. Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The Structures of the Life-World -Volume 1. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
  169. Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1989). The Structures of the Life-World -Volume 2. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
  170. Scrase, I., & Smith, A. (2009). The (non-)politics of managing low carbon socio- technical transitions. Environmental Politics, 18(5), 707-726.
  171. Shrader-Frechette, K. (1993). Burying Uncertainty: Risk and the Case Against Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.
  172. Shrader-Frechette, K. (2000). Duties to future generations, proxy consent, intra- and intergenerational equity: The case of nuclear waste. Risk Analysis, 20(6), 771-778.
  173. Shrader-Frechette, K., & Persson, L. (2002). Ethical, logical and scientific problems with the new ICRP proposals. Journal of Radiological Protection, 22(2), 149.
  174. Soete, L. (2013). Is innovation always good? In J. Fagerberg, B. R. Martin, & E. S. Andersen (Eds.), Innovation Studies: Evolution & Future Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  175. Sørensen, K. H. (2004). Cultural Politics of Technology: Combining Critical and Constructive Interventions. Science Technology and Human Values, 29(2), 184-190.
  176. Sovacool, B. K. (2008). Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey. Energy Policy, 36(8), 2950-2963.
  177. Sovacool, B. K., & Valentine, S. V. (2010). The socio-political economy of nuclear energy in China and India. Energy, 35(9), 3803-3813.
  178. Spruit, S. L. (2017). Choosing between precautions for nanoparticles in the workplace: complementing the precautionary principle with caring. Journal of Risk Research, 20(3), 326-346.
  179. Spruit, S. L., Hoople, G. D., & Rolfe, D. A. (2016). Just a Cog in the Machine? The Individual Responsibility of Researchers in Nanotechnology is a Duty to Collectivize. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(3), 871-887.
  180. Stewart, R. B., & Stewart, J. B. (2011). Fuel cycle to nowhere: US law and policy on nuclear waste. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
  181. Stirling, A. (2008). "Opening up" and "closing down": Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(2), 262-294.
  182. Strauss, L.L. (1954, September 17) In: Abundant power from atom seen; It will be too cheap for our children to meter. New York Times, p.5.
  183. Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste. (2010). Nuclear Waste State-of-the- Art Report 2010 -challenges for the final repository programme. Stockholm.
  184. Swierstra, T., & te Molder, H. (2012). Risk and Soft Impacts. In S. Roeser (Ed.), Handbook of Risk Theory. Dordrecht: Springer Academic Publishers.
  185. Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational Path Dependence. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689-709.
  186. Taebi, B. (2012). Multinational Nuclear Waste Repositories and Their Complex Issues of Justice. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 15(1), 57-62.
  187. Taebi, B. (2016). Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability. Risk Analysis. doi: 10.1111/risa.12734
  188. Taebi, B., Correljé, A., Cuppen, E., Dignum, M., & Pesch, U. (2014). Responsible innovation as an endorsement of public values: the need for interdisciplinary research. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 118- 124.
  189. Taebi, B., & Kadak, A. C. (2010). Intergenerational considerations affecting the future of nuclear power: Equity as a framework for assessing fuel cycles. Risk Analysis, 30(9), 1341-1362.
  190. Taebi, B., & Kloosterman, J. L. (2008). To Recycle or Not to Recycle? An Intergenerational Approach to Nuclear Fuel Cycles. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(2), 177-200.
  191. Taebi, B., & Kloosterman, J. L. (2015). Design for Values in Nuclear Technology. In J. van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas, & I. van de Poel (Eds.), Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains. Dordrecht: Springer.
  192. Teräväinen, T., Lehtonen, M., & Martiskainen, M. (2011). Climate change, energy security, and risk-debating nuclear new build in Finland, France and the UK. Energy Policy, 39(6), 3434-3442.
  193. Thorstensen, E. & Forsberg, E.-M. (2016). Social Life Cycle Assessment as a resource for Responsible Research and Innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 3(1), 50-72.
  194. Tomar, R. (1980). THE INDIAN NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAM : MYTHS AND MIRAGES. Asian Survey, 20(5), 517-531.
  195. U.K. Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. (2008). National policies on the long- term management of higher activity wastes. Retrieved from http://www.nda.gov.uk/publication/national-policies-on-the-long-term- management-of-higher-activity-wastes-april-2008/
  196. U.K. Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. (2013). Geological Disposal -How the world is dealing with its radioactive wastes. Retrieved from http://www.nda.gov.uk/publication/how-the-world-is-dealing-with-its- radioactive-wastes/
  197. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. (1962). Civilian Nuclear Power: A Report to the President, 1962. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  198. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. (1974). High-level radioactive waste management alternatives. In WASH-1297. Washington D.C.
  199. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. (1985). Managing the Nation †TM s Commercial High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington D.C.: DIANE Publishing.
  200. U.S. Department of Energy. (1991). A Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility: Technical Background Information. Washington, D.C.
  201. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1975). Reactor Safety Study -An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. Washington D.C.
  202. Valentine, S. V., & Sovacool, B. K. (2010). The socio-political economy of nuclear power development in Japan and South Korea. Energy Policy, 38(12), 7971-7979.
  203. van de Poel, I. (2011). Nuclear Energy as a Social Experiment. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 14(3), 285-290.
  204. van de Poel, I. (2013). Why new technologies should be conceived as social experiments. Ethics, Policy & Environment. Taylor & Francis.
  205. van de Poel, I. (2015). Morally experimenting with nuclear energy. In B. Taebi & S. Roeser (Eds.), The Ethics of Nuclear Energy -Risk, Justice and Democracy in the post-Fukushima Era. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  206. van de Poel, I. (2016). An Ethical Framework for Evaluating Experimental Technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(3), 667-686.
  207. van de Poel, I., & Zwart, S. D. (2010). Reflective Equilibrium in R & D Networks. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(2), 174-199.
  208. van Merkerk, R., & Van Lente, H. (2005). Tracing emerging irreversibilities in emerging technologies: The case of nanotubes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(9), 1094-1111.
  209. van Oudheusden, M. (2014). Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 67-86.
  210. Vandenbosch, R., & Vandenbosch, S. E. (2007). Nuclear waste stalemate: Political and scientific controversies. University of Utah Press Salt Lake City, UT.
  211. Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What Things Do -Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency and Design. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  212. Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  213. Vergne, J. P. (2013). QWERTY is dead; long live path dependence. Research Policy, 42.
  214. Vergne, J. P., & Durand, R. (2010). The Missing Link Between the Theory and Empirics of Path Dependence: Conceptual Clarification, Testability Issue, and Methodological Implications. Journal of Management Studies, 47(4), 736-759.
  215. Vergne, J. P., & Durand, R. (2011). The Path of Most Persistence: An Evolutionary Perspective on Path Dependence and Dynamic Capabilities. Organization Studies, 32(3), 365-382.
  216. von Schomberg, R. (2011). Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. In Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  217. von Schomberg, R. (2013). A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. In Responsible Innovation. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  218. Walker, J. S. (1992). Containing the Atom: Nuclear Regulation in a Changing Environment, 1963-1971. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  219. Walker, J. S. (2009). The road to Yucca Mountain: the development of radioactive waste policy in the United States. University of California Press Berkeley, CA. Walker, W. (1999). Nuclear Entrapment: THORP and the politics of commitment. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
  220. Walker, W. (2000). Entrapment in large technology systems: institutional commitment and power relations. Research Policy, 29(7-8), 833-846.
  221. Wattal, P. (2013). Indian programme on radioactive waste management. Sadhana, 38(October), 849-857.
  222. Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus (Boston), 109(1), 19-39.
  223. World Nuclear Association. (2012a). Nuclear power in India. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html
  224. World Nuclear Association. (2012b). Nuclear power in France. Retrieved July 14, 2012, from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/info40.html
  225. World Nuclear Association. (2013). Nuclear power in the USA. Retrieved March 9, 2013, from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country- Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA-Nuclear-Power/#.UVqowWfYF8E

Related papers

The Future of the Civilian Use of Nuclear Technology
Hans De Keulenaer
View PDFchevron_right
Nuclear energy: Production and problems
Evan Koslow

Environmental Management, 1980

View PDFchevron_right
Nuclear Power Technology: A Mandate for Change
George Hazelrigg

Nuclear Technology, 1989

States has been in a very difficult period. No new power plant orders have been placed, orders have been cancelled, construction has been delayed, costs have escalated, and concern for safety has impeded development. Yet, the need for nuclear power in the future appears to be growing. For the United States to play a major role in the nuclear industry of the 21st century, the problems of the past must be identified and corrected. This may include the development of "inherently" or "demonstrably" safe reactors that are not based on current light water reactor technologies. The 20th century has been a period of technological revolution; aviation, electronics, automobiles, computers, and space flight are but a few of the technologies that have emerged and blossomed into integral components of everyday life. Nuclear power emerged midway through the century, with great promise for service to society. But unhke the other technologies, nuclear power has encountered serious difficulties, at least in the United States. During the past 10 yr, nuclear power has been in a very difficult period in the United States: 1. No new orders for nuclear power plants have been placed since 1977.

View PDFchevron_right
Nuclear Energy in the Twentieth Century: New International Approaches
Elisabetta Bini

Nuclear energy represents one of the most controversial issues in contemporary history and politics, and raises either vehement opposition or unconditional support. On the one hand, the use of nuclear technology in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War shaped postwar discussions about the use of nuclear power, while at the same time influencing the balance of power between the two superpowers and relations inside the Atlantic bloc and with Third World countries. On the other hand, the same technology that raised fears of a potential nuclear conflict -and therefore of a Third World War and of a total annihilation of mankind -also became the object of widespread beliefs in the possibility of producing an unlimited, clean and effi-cient source of energy. This apparent contradiction between the hopes and fears of nuclear power was declined differently in different national contexts, but characterized most countries in the post-World War II period. For many, including Italy, the «nuclear euforia» of the 1950s and 1960s was strongly linked to the lack of energy resources. For others, such as Third World countries, access to nuclear power became a way of overcoming the technological gap with the developed world, and establishing their place in the international arena. In all cases, debates about nuclear policies intersected in complex ways with wider discussions about modernization and international relations 1 . Over the last twenty years, scholars have devoted an increased attention to the study

View PDFchevron_right
Revisiting the Nuclear Enterprise
Gary M Sandquist

2002

It is asserted that the abundant sources and many applications offered by nuclear fission within the nuclear enterprize must be seriously reexamined and implemented if the world is to achieve a sustainable future for all of its inhabitants. No other developed and demonstrated primary energy source can provide virtually unlimited electrical power for all nations, reduce greenhouse gases and control global warming, replace the present petroleum dependence by a hydrogen economy, produce inexpensive process heat for material and foodstuff processing, provide an economical and technically feasible means for production of large quantities of fresh and potable water and treatment of solid and liquid waste, permanently reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons, and provide for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel through the recycle of reprocessed fuel and the complete burnup of transuranics.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Political Science
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved