838 research outputs found
Compensating for severe nuclear accidents: An expert elucidation
We present the results of a structured discussion held in London in July 2014 involving a panel of experts drawn from three communities: specialists on aspects of risk and insurance; lawyers concerned with issues of nuclear law; and safety and environmental regulators. The discussions were held on the basis of participant anonymity. The process emphasised three considerations: conceptions of loss arising from a severe nuclear accident; the specifics of the Fukushima-Daiichi accident and what it means for policy and strategy going forward; and the future of liability regimes. We observe some stoicism from those closest to implementation of policies and procedures associated with nuclear risks, but a lower level of certainty and confidence among those concerned with nuclear energy regulation
The global nuclear liability regime post Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear liability regimes are important as they ensure that potential victims will be compensated promptly and efficiently after a nuclear accident. The accident at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan in 2011 prompted a review of the global nuclear liability regime that remains on-going. Progress has been slow, but over the next few years the European Union is set to announce its new proposals. Meanwhile, in 2015, another global nuclear liability regime, the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, has entered into force. This paper aims to move the debate in the literature on nuclear liability and focuses on the four following major issues: (1) reviews third-party nuclear liability regimes currently in operation around the world; (2) analyses the international nuclear liability regime following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi; (3) comparatively assesses the liability regimes for nuclear energy and the non-nuclear energy sector; and (4) presents the future outlook for possible developments in the global nuclear liability regime
Nuclear energy policy in the united states 1990-2010: A federal or state responsibility?
This paper examines from a policy perspective nuclear energy policy in the United States (US) from 1990 to 2010 and questions whether it is or has become a Federal or State responsibility. The present study, as befits policy research, engages with many disciplines (for example, in particular, law and politics) and hence the contributions move beyond that of nuclear energy policy literature and in particular to that on nuclear new build and other assessments of large infrastructure projects. Several examples at the Federal level are identified that demonstrate that the nuclear industry has evolved to a stage where it requires a focus on the power of actions at a more localised (state) level in order to re-ignite the industry. The research concludes that there remains a misunderstanding of the issue of project management for complex construction projects, and it is highly arguable whether many of its issues have been resolved. Further, the research asserts that the economics of nuclear energy are not the most nfluential reason for no nuclear new build in the US
Lessons from the United States: For Legal Change and Delay in Energy Law in the United Kingdom
Reflects on the delays experienced by the UK in developing its nuclear energy sector, particularly in respect of new-builds, and the lessons it could learn from the US approach. Reviews the UK energy and planning provisions relating to nuclear power plants, and analyses the factors which have contributed to delays in the construction of such plants in the US despite the passage of the Energy Policy Act 2005, including: (1) a failure to implement incentive schemes sufficiently rapidly; (2) policy inaction over the management of nuclear waste; and (3) regulatory uncertainties and test cases.Legislation Cited: Energy Policy Act 2005 (United States
Recommended from our members
Scotland, Nuclear Energy Policy and Independance
This paper examines the role of nuclear energy in Scotland, and the concerns for Scotland as it votes for independence. The aim is to focus directly on current Scottish energy policy and its relationship to nuclear energy. The paper does not purport to advise on a vote for or against Scottish independence but aims to further the debate in an underexplored area of energy policy that will be of value whether Scotland secures independence or further devolution. There are four central parts to this paper: (1) consideration of the Scottish electricity mix; (2) an analysis of a statement about nuclear energy made by the Scottish energy minister; (3) examination of nuclear energy issues as presented in the Scottish Independence White Paper; and (4) the issue of nuclear waste is assessed. A recurrent theme in the analysis is that whether one is for, against, or indifferent to new nuclear energy development, it highlights a major gap in Scotland's energy and environmental policy goals. Too often, the energy policy debate from the Scottish Government perspective has been reduced to a low-carbon energy development debate between nuclear energy and renewable energy. There is little reflection on how to reduce Scottish dependency on fossil fuels. For Scotland to aspire to being a low-carbon economy, to decarbonising its electricity market, and to being a leader within the climate change community, it needs to tackle the issue of how to stop the continuation of burning fossil fuels
Recommended from our members
Third Party Nuclear Liability: The Case of a Supplier in the United Kingdom
The law surrounding third party nuclear liability is important to all parties in the nuclear supply chain whether they are providing decommissioning services, project management expertise or a new reactor. This paper examines third party nuclear liability, and in particular, in relation to a Supplier in the nuclear energy sector in the United Kingdom (UK). The term “Supplier” is used in this paper and, depending on the context, is intended to cover all parties in the supply chain providing services, equipment or technology (e.g. the EPC contractor, the reactor vender, the owner engineer, architect engineer, or the Parent Body Organisation responsible for decommissioning one the UK legacy nuclear installations). With a return to nuclear new build expected in the UK, the clarification of the position of a Supplier and their potential to be liable for nuclear damage is of vital importance for a functioning nuclear supply chain. The research explores the nuclear liability legislation in the UK and identifies the gaps and limitations in existence. The latter problems pose a risk for the Suppliers to operators in the nuclear energy industry, and consequently some approaches that can mitigate those risks are advanced and assessed. The nuclear liability regime in the UK is largely based on international conventions and hence, the risks posed to the Supplier in the UK also exist for Suppliers in other countries. There are resource shortages already in the nuclear energy industry, and currently the Supplier to the nuclear industry is over exposed. This situation needs to be resolved and a new legal definition of nuclear damage enacted. Further, the level of liability exposure for a UK Supplier involved in a nuclear project outside the UK needs to be reviewed as there remains too much ambiguity regarding liability in an international nuclear law context.nuclear damag
- …