Abstract
Safety has always been an important criterion for designing nuclear reactors, but in addition to safety, there are at least four other values that play a key role, namely, security (i.e., sabotage and proliferation), sustainability (i.e., environmental impacts, energy resource availability), economic viability (i.e., embarking on new technology and its continuation), as well as intergenerational justice (i.e., what we leave behind for future generations). This chapter reviews the evolution of generations of nuclear reactors (I, II, III, III, and IV) in terms of these values. We argue that the Best Achievable Nuclear Reactor would maximally satisfy all these criteria, but the safest reactor is not always the most sustainable one, while the reactor that best guarantees resource durability could easily compromise safety and security. Since we cannot meet all these criteria simultaneously, choices and trade-offs need to be made. We highlight these choices by discussing three promising future reactor types, namely, the high-temperature reactor pebble-bed module (HTR-PM), the molten salt-cooled reactor (MSR) and the gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR).
Keywords
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Each year, 500 reactor years would pass, which means that based on the probability of 10−4, the expected number of accident would be 5 × 10−2 (i.e., 500 × 10−4) or simply once in every 20 years.
- 2.
Calculation: 5,000 × 10−4 = 5 × 10−1 or once in every 2 years.
- 3.
This subsection is mainly drawn from the following publication, in which the role of intergenerational justice in nuclear waste management has been extensively discussed (Taebi 2012).
- 4.
For an elaborated discussion of the operationalization of the values in fuel cycles, see (Taebi and Kadak 2010).
- 5.
Please see for an elaborate discussion of this issue (Taebi 2011).
- 6.
This paragraph is partly based on information provided by the South African company, Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor (Pty), that built PBMR. See: http://www.pbmr.com/contenthtml/files/File/WhynoChernobyl.pdf.
- 7.
There are two remarks that need to be made. Firstly, it is the authors’ opinion that an MSR would score the best on the sustainability criterion. This is because of the natural abundance and good dispersal of thorium compared to uranium. Secondly, the economic viability is based on a rough estimation made by the authors in which assumptions have been made with regard to the required research funding for the industrialization of these three reactors. HTR-PM with a prototype reactor in China seems to be the farthest ahead in its research, which makes it score best on economic viability, while MSR presumably still requires substantial research.
References
Abram T, Ion S (2008) Generation-IV nuclear power: a review of the state of the science. Energy Policy 36(12):4323–4330
Barry B (ed) (1989) The ethics of resource depletion. In: Barry B (ed) Democracy, power and justice, essays in political theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 511–525
BBC (2011) China and Bill Gates discuss nuclear reactor plan 2011. Cited 8 Dec 2011. Available from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16085385
Clarke RH, Valentin J (2009) The history of ICRP and the evolution of its policies. In: ICRP (ed) Application of the commission’s recommendations for the protection of people in emergency exposure situations. Annals ICRP 37(5). Elsevier, Oxford, pp 75–110
De-Shalit A (1995) Why posterity matters: environmental policies and future generations. Routledge, London/New York
DOE (2002) A technology roadmap for generation IV nuclear energy systems. GIF-002-00. U.S. DOE Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and the Generation IV International Forum, Washington, DC
EC-DGXII (1994) Externalities of fuel cycles. “ExternE” project’, working documents 1–9, European Commission. Directorate Generale XII – Science, Research and Development/Joint Research Centre
Edwards DW, Lawrence D (1993) Assessing the inherent safety of chemical process routes: is there a relation between plant costs and inherent safety? Process Saf Environ Prot 71(B4):252–258
Firebaugh MW (1980) Acceptable nuclear futures: the second ERA [ORAU/IEA-80-1 1(P)]. Tennessee Institute for Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge
Friedman B (1996) Value-sensitive design. Interactions 3(6):16–23
Friedman B, Kahn PH (2003) Human values, ethics, and design. In: Jacko J, Sears A (eds) Handbook of human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 1177–1201
Goldberg SM, Rosner R (2011) Nuclear reactors: generation to generation. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA
Hansson SO (2009) Risk and safety in technology. In: Meijers A (ed) Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1069–1102
IAEA (1991) Safety related terms for advanced nuclear plants. IAEA, Vienna
IAEA (2004) Technical implications of partitioning and transmutation in radioactive waste management. IAEA, Vienna
IAEA (2007) IAEA safety glossary, terminology used in nuclear safety and radiation protection. IAEA, Vienna
ICRP (1959) Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: revised December 1954. ICRP publication 1, vol 1, Annual ICRP. Pergamon Press, Oxford
Keller W, Modarres M (2005) A historical overview of probabilistic risk assessment development and its use in the nuclear power industry: a tribute to the late Professor Norman Carl Rasmussen. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 89(3):271–285
Kletz TA (1978) What you don’t have, can’t leak. Chem Ind 6:287–292
Koster A, Matzner HD, Nicholsi DR (2003) PBMR design for the future. Nucl Eng Des 222(2):231–245
Leurs BA, Wit RCN (2003) Environmentally harmful support measures in EU member states. CE Delft, Delft. Report for DG Environment of the European Commission
Lilienthal DE (1980) Atomic energy: a new start. Harper and Row, New York
Minarick JW, Kukielka CA (1982) Precursors to potential severe core damage accidents: 1969–1979. A status report. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Oak Ridge National Laboratory
NEA-OECD (1984) Long-term radiation protection objectives for radioactive waste disposal, report of a group of experts jointly sponsored by the Radioactive Waste Management Committee and the Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health. Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris
NEA-OECD (1995) The environmental and ethical basis of geological disposal of long-lived radioactive wastes: a collective opinion of the Radioactive Waste Management Committee of the Nuclear Energy Agency. Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris
NRC (1975) In: Rasmussen NC (ed) Reactor safety study. An assessment of accident risks in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. WASH-1400-MR; NUREG-75/014-MR. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
NRC (1986) Safety goals for the operations of nuclear power plants: policy statement, republication. 51 FR 30028. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Washington, DC
NRC (1994) Final safety evaluation report related to the certification of the advance boiling water reactor design, main report, vol 1. Section 10, Steam and power conversion system, through section 22, ‘Conclusions’. NUREG-1503. Washington, DC
Scanlon TM (1998) What we owe to each other. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Schulz T (2006) Westinghouse AP1000 advanced passive plant. Nucl Eng Des 236(14–16):1547–1557
Seaborg GT (1962) The first nuclear reactor, the production of plutonium and its chemical extraction. IAEA Bull 4:15–17
Silady FA, Cunliffe JC, Walker LP (1991) The licensing experience of the modular hight-temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR). Energy 16(1–2):417–424
Spiewak I, Weinberg AM (1985) Inherently safe reactors. Annu Rev Energy 10(1):431–462
Taebi B (2011) The morally desirable option for nuclear power production. Philos Technol 24(2):169–192
Taebi B (2012) Intergenerational risks of nuclear energy. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory. Epistemology, decision theory, ethics and social implications of risk. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 295–318
Taebi B, Kadak AC (2010) Intergenerational considerations affecting the future of nuclear power: equity as a framework for assessing fuel cycles. Risk Anal 30(9):1341–1362
Taebi B, Kloosterman JL (2008) To recycle or not to recycle? An intergenerational approach to nuclear fuel cycles. Sci Eng Ethics 14(2):177–200
Taebi B, Roeser S, Van de Poel I (2012) The ethics of nuclear power: social experiments, intergenerational justice, and emotions. Energy Policy (51):202–206
Tester JW, Drake EM, Driscoll MJ, Golay MW, Peters WA (2005) Sustainable energy: choosing among options. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Valentin J (2013) Radiation risk and the ICRP. In: Oughton D, Hansson SO (eds) Social and ethical aspects of radiation risk management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 17–32
Van de Poel IR (1998) Changing technologies, a comparative study of eight processes of transformation of technological regimes. PhD dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede
Van de Poel IR (2009) Values in engineering design. In: Meijer A (ed) Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 973–1006
Van de Poel IR, Royakkers LMM (2011) Ethics, technology and engineering. An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex
WCED (1987) In: Brundtland GH, Angelli S, Al-Athel S, Chidzero B (eds) Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Oxford
Weinberg AM, Spiewak I (1984) Inherently safe reactors and a second nuclear era. Science 224:1398–1402
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank Ibo van de Poel as well as Daniela Hanea for their valuable comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
Taebi, B., Kloosterman, J.L. (2015). Design for Values in Nuclear Technology . In: van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P., van de Poel, I. (eds) Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_30
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_30
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6969-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6970-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law