Using socio-technical analogues as an additional experience horizon for nuclear waste management A comparison of wind farms, fracking, carbon capture and storage (CCS) with a deep-geological nuclear waste disposal (DGD)
Introduction
The criteria-based search for a deep geological nuclear waste disposal (DGD), in which high-level radioactive waste (HLRW) can be stored permanently and as safely as possible, is a unique process in the Federal Republic of Germany. The choice of the Gorleben site, which was primarily a political one, cannot be used as a model for such a process, unless it is regarded as a negative example. The possibility of applying empirical knowledge about DGD from other countries to Germany has already been explored (Brunnengräber, 2019a; Brunnengräber et al., 2018; Di Nucci et al. 2017). However, due to the different conditions of social contexts, the potential of transferring those findings are very limited. Therefore, we have chosen a different path with regards to the methodology, which enables us to gain indirect knowledge of the dynamics and designs of the search for a repository. In this way, possible problems – and possible countermeasures– can be identified early on. We are looking for socio-technical analogues, i.e. insights regarding factors that could have stabilizing or destabilizing effects on largescale infrastructure projects that we can gain from partly similar socio-technical ensembles, to then transfer them to nuclear waste management (NWM).
For this purpose, three major energy technologies2 and systemic elements within their ensembles are analysed in comparison: wind farms, carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) and hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Although these technologies are highly different, they are all deployed in the context of large infrastructure projects and are socially contested. Two of them are set underground and generate negative perceptions towards their impact on health and ecosystems (e.g. groundwater risks) as well as on the climate. As it is the case with the extension of renewable energies, also wind farms show an increasing resistance potential deriving from maldistribution of benefits and procedural unfairness (see Leiren et al., 2020; WinWind, 2020). Moreover, especially the underground technologies are difficult to monitor and therefore carry with them known and unknown risks. The insights of those analogues towards supporting or (de-)stabilizing factors on the regime level (see Section 2) is going to be applied to NWM, to appraise potential challenges and dynamics the siting for a DGD would face.
The aim of our analysis is to describe the socio-technical ensembles of the three energy technologies and their respective large-scale infrastructures based on a set of criteria. In comparison, we work out their characteristics as well as their connection to a DGD. Besides, we will examine the usefulness of the analogues approach itself. Thus, a further aim is to assess the usefulness and appropriateness of this approach for anticipating dynamics and developments of contested technologies. Our contribution is structured as follows: We start with explaining the concept of socio-technical ensembles (Section 2) as well as the analytical framework for the comparison, including the criteria that are used (Section 3). In the following section, the energy technologies are briefly presented (Section 4). The main part focuses on identifying similarities and differences of these technologies (Section 5). Finally, we will compare the empirical results with our theoretical considerations (Section 6) and explain the possible implications of our analysis for NWM (Section 7).
Section snippets
The socio-technical ensemble
Scientific knowledge is by no means neutral or apolitical. Knowledge integrates the social and is at the same time part of it. The same interaction can also be observed for technologies (Jasanoff, 2004, p. 3). The interweaving of different technical, social, political and economic dimensions leads to a co-evolutionary (Markusson et al., 2012) or co-productive (Jasanoff, 2004) process; we summarize this under the term socio-technical dimensions. There are various approaches of different
The analytical framework – using socio-technical analogues
The approach to evaluate analogous technologies to produce more evident predictions towards the dynamics and developments of a certain future technology is part of technological impact assessment and comparative analysis. Although at first glance the approach seems to be valuable, not much literature is available towards using analogues for a forecasting assessment. This paper also aims to assess the usefulness and suitability of this approach for forecasting assessments of potentially
Four energy technologies at a glance
In this section, the three analogous energy technologies as well as the DGD are briefly presented. The selection of the technologies was based on the consideration that all four technologies include large-scale infrastructure projects that involve far-reaching interventions in nature, land consumption, or even risks. Those energy technologies cause manifest social conflicts in terms of protest and therefore require early public inclusion and extensive participation measures. Fracking and CCS
Systematic comparison of the four energy technologies
In the following, the four energy technologies are compared based on the eight criteria mentioned above to determine whether problems and measures can be derived and be of significance for the site search, NWM and the construction of a DGD. The comparison of the socio-technical analogues does not only concentrate on the empirical level, but also includes a certain degree of abstraction in order to acquire more general statements. The following findings were based on a comparison of the named
Insights from the socio-technical analogues
Overall, awareness is needed that repositories differ in several ways from the other energy technologies discussed here, with one difference being central: Wind farms, CCS and fracking are optional in their use and can be affirmed or denied by social discourse. The situation is different for the storage of high-level radioactive waste. With the production of HLRW, material as well as social facts were created that are irreversible and have led to considerable path dependencies, which can be
Conclusion - implications for the DGD ensemble
Overall, the concluding evidence to buttress recommendations derived from this preliminary analysis through the analogues approach is rather limited. A reason for this is that an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the dominant networks and constellations of actors could not be carried out in this work. Their influence on the socio-technical ensembles described here need to be dealt with in greater depth in future works. Our contribution aimed to show, whether an approach based on the
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References (80)
- et al.
Analysing uncertainties for CCS: from historical analogues to future deployment pathways in the UK
Energy Procedia
(2013) - et al.
Understanding public perception of hydraulic fracturing: a case study in Spain
J. Environ. Manag.
(2017) - et al.
From the “right to know” to the “right to object” and “decide”. A comparative perspective on participation in siting procedures for high level radioactive waste repositories
Progress in Nuclear Energy
(2017) Television, Future Role Of
- et al.
Does it Make a Difference to the Public Where CO2 Comes from and Where it is Stored?
Energy Procedia
(2014) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study
Res. Pol.
(2002)- et al.
Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways
Res. Pol.
(2007) - et al.
Policy mixes for incumbency: Exploring the destructive recreation of renewable energy, shale gas ‘fracking,’ and nuclear power in the United Kingdom
Energy Research & Social Science
(2017) - et al.
A socio-technical framework for assessing the viability of carbon capture and storage technology
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
(2012) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review
Biol. Conserv.
(2008)
Resolving or Managing Uncertainties for Carbon Capture and Storage: Lessons from Historical Analogues
What lessons can hydraulic fracturing teach CCS about social acceptance?
Auswahlverfahren für Endlagerstandorte. Empfehlungen des AkEnd
Zwischenlager für hochradioaktive Abfälle. Sicherheit bis zur Endlagerung. Bundesamt für kerntechnische Entsorgungssicherheit
Sociohistorical technology studies
Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs. Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change
The Legacy of Nuclear Power
The legacy of nuclear power and what should be done about it. Peripheral communities and the management of the nuclear legacy
Konfliktfeldanalyse – das Beispiel „Fracking“ in Deutschland
Das wicked problem der Endlagerung. Zehn Charakteristika des komplexen Umgangs mit hochradioaktiven Reststoffen
Jahrhundertprojekt Endlagerung
GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society
Klimaskeptiker im Aufwind. Wie aus einem Rand- ein breiteres Gesellschaftsphänomen wird
Ewigkeitslasten. Die "Endlagerung" radioaktiver Abfälle als soziales, politisches und wissenschaftliches Projekt
The wicked problem of long term radioactive waste governance. Ten characteristics of a complex technical and societal challenge
Der Atommüll – eine soziotechnische Tatsache. Zur gesellschaftlichen Wahrnehmung von sozialen und technischen Belangen bei der Endlagerung hochradioaktiver Abfälle
Zahlen und Fakten. Statistische Kennziffern zur Erfolgsgeschichte Windenergie. Bundesverband WindEnergie
NIMBY oder IMBY. Akzeptanz, Freiwilligkeit und Kompensationen in der Standortsuche für die Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle
Akzeptanz von Windenergie in Regionen mit schwachem Windenergieausbau
Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfr.
In Whose Backyard? The Wicked Problem of Siting Nuclear Waste Repositories
European Policy Analysis
Hydraulic fracturing as an interpretive policy problem: lessons on energy controversies in Europe and the U.S.A
J. Environ. Pol. Plann.
Schlüsselakteure der Endlager-Governance. Entsorgungsoptionen und -strategien radioaktiver Abfälle aus Sicht regionaler Akteure.
Knowledge, Use and Effectiveness of Social Acceptance Measures for Wind Projects
Z. Energiewirtschaft
Risiko und Ungewissheit bei der Entsorgung hochradioaktiver Abfälle
Bürgerinitiativen gegen Windkraftanlagen und der Aufschwung rechtspopulistischer Bewegungen
Verantwortung für die Zukunft- Ein faires und transparentes Verfahren für die Auswahl eines nationalen Endlagerstandortes
Abschlussbericht. Ergebnisse und Leistungsbilanz. Technische Universität Clausthal
The Big Bad Fix: The Case Against Climate Geoengineering
Die Energiewende im Ländervergleich: Deutschland und das Vereinigte Königreich verfolgen eigene Transformationspfade
GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society
Cited by (4)
A comprehensive framework for feasibility of CCUS deployment: A meta-review of literature on factors impacting CCUS deployment
2023, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas ControlA social science perspective on conflicts in the energy transition: An introduction to the special issue
2022, Utilities PolicyCitation Excerpt :The authors concluded that in contributing to a just energy transition, community energy projects would need to focus on improving diversity among their members by creating the conditions necessary for equitable participation. The contribution by Dörte Themann and Achim Brunnengräber (2021) discusses an issue of the energy transition that is often ignored and underrepresented in social science research. The authors assumed that nuclear waste management, including an assessment of the possibilities of using deep geological disposal for high-level radioactive waste, could be informed by other experiences of implementing new technologies in the energy transition.