Connelly, Stephen

Cotton, Matthew David

Molyneux-Hodgson, Susan

Watson, Matthew

White Rose Research Online

This is a repository copy of New perspectives on understanding nuclear societies.White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/118452/Conference or Workshop Item:Connelly, Stephen, Cotton, Matthew David orcid.org/0000-0002-8877-4822, Molyneux-Hodgson, Susan et al. (1 more author) (2013) New perspectives on understanding nuclearsocieties. In: The Conference on STS Perspectives on Energy, 04-05 Nov 2013, Universidade de Lisboa. eprints@whiterose.ac.ukhttps://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs (CC BY-ND) licence. This licence allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the original authors. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. Understanding ‘nuclear societies’Stephen Connelly • Matthew CottonSusan Molyneux-Hodgson • Matt WatsonUniversity of SheffieldPhoto:	World	Nuclear	AssociationUnderstanding ‘nuclear societies’Stephen Connelly • Matthew CottonSusan Molyneux-Hodgson • Matt WatsonUniversity of SheffieldPhoto:	IkiwanerPhoto:	Federal	Government	of	the	United	StatesUnderstanding ‘nuclear societies’Stephen Connelly • Matthew CottonSusan Molyneux-Hodgson • Matt WatsonUniversity of SheffieldOverview• Introduction to the ‘Nuclear Societies’  PhD programme (an experiment!)• Summary of key ideas informing the work• The individual projects• Ways of working: multi-disciplinarity and networks• Questions...The ‘Nuclear Societies’ programme• Funding from UK ESRC for 3 x PhD scholarships• to create a cohort of social science students to engage with a cohort of nuclear engineering studentsThe Visionv to create a community of researchers –regardless of disciplinary background – capable of engaging with future research agenda relating to nuclear energy in societyv to shape the ‘nuclear societies’ agenda and impact on engineering approaches to energyKey ideas 1: the policy context• Energy security and climate change mitigation increasing as a matter of concern...…with ‘nuclear’ a partial solution: the 'nuclear renaissance'  • Competing technologies; complex of advocacies; policy and funding tensions; varied historical contexts®wide range of technical, social, political challengesand... ‘nuclear power has been protected by an institutional web of social and technological practices...[which] engender a restricted scope for public discussion and democratic involvement within nuclear decision making’ (Irwin et al., 2000: 83)®need and challenges for critical social science?  Why STS?• social and political issues at every scale involve sciences and technologies (nuclear...chemistry,  engineering,  hydrology,  materials science, medicine,  meteorology,  mining,  physics,  radiation,  transport...)• nuclear a ‘blended issue’ – both a technical and a ‘morality policy’ issue (Braun and Jörgens, 2013)• technology/science shape debates, policies, responses, outcomes ... and vice versaPhoto:	World	Nuclear	AssociationOverarching questions • What are the social, political and ethical implications of current developments in nuclear energy?   • How are socio-technical systems and practices at different scales interlinked in these developments?• How are the socio-political implications enmeshed in technological processes and change – and vice-versa?  – e.g. the thorium pathway in India, the fusion  dream...?... and more?  UK	National	Nuclear	Laboratory,	2012A material framing – the nuclear fuel cycle• ‘nuclear’ is complex and extended in space and time• cycle provides a framework – forces attention to less-studied aspects• suggests a potentially large research programme Leaks,	lossesMilitary	useKey ideas 2: the academic context• Existing STS research on ‘civil nuclear’ is limited– most existing (recent) STS centres on weapons and disasters• Social science on ‘civil nuclear’ dominated by policy studies, cultural geography and social psychology -focus on risk:– legitimacy (involvement in decision-making on siting processes)– public understanding of (and engagement with) technological risk• Philosophy: principally focuses on ethics (especially future generations and long-lived nature of waste) Key ideas 3: initial conceptual toolsScales: multiple, overlapping, interlinked• constructed, contested, and ‘do work’• temporal (low-carbon transition vs. (de)construction vs. long term waste storage)• spatial (from atomic to global –and risk/policy concerned with scalar containment) • governance -local...national...supranationalImage:	Roulex_45Key ideas 3: initial conceptual tools• ‘Nuclearism’ (Irwin et al. ) and ‘nuclearity’ (Hecht)• Actor-networks• Boundary work (e.g. Gieryn) (scales again!)Image:	World	Nuclear	AssociationThe PhD projects• Marika Hietala – Decommissioning cultures– Susan Hodgson (Sociological Studies) and Neil Hyatt (Department of Materials Science and Engineering) • Florian Abraham - Nuclear futures and the politics of scale– Matt Watson (Geography) and John Provis (Materials Science and Engineering)• Caroline McCalman – New nuclear and environmentalism– Stephen Connelly (Town and Regional Planning) and Russell Hand (Materials Science and Engineeringand Matthew Cotton (Town & Regional Planning)Decommissioning Cultures: The policy and practice of waste managementMarika Hietala• Approach: compare real-time decommissioning process, policy and practice in the UK & Finland. Actor-network approaches adopted to analyse nuclear waste disposal and storage innovations as socio-technical issues.• Context:– UK: committed to deep geological disposal of nuclear wastes & to local voluntarism in the siting process – renewed process in 2014following a failure in west Cumbria– Finland : waste repository site already selected • Research questions:– do national cultural and political contexts influence attitudes and concerns regarding the technological aspects of nuclear waste disposal?– how are nuclear waste and deep geological disposal framed in the two countries, and what has shaped these framings over time?– can the policy desire to reach a broad public acceptance exist successfully with technological demands and desiresNuclear futures and the politics of scaleFlorian AbrahamContext:• The UK government is currently developing nuclear power plant projects• There is still little evidence of how commitment to nuclear power contributesto path dependencies in energy system innovation and developmentResearch questions:• Can we rely once again on a resource based technology? (Uranium depletion)• What are the social costs and benefits of nuclear energy? (For communities surrounding uranium mines, nuclear plants and disposal sites).• How is the notion of “scale” embedded in the governance? • What are the consequences of nuclear energy development for sociotechnical energy systems? What are the implications for alternative technologies?New nuclear, new environmentalismsCaroline McCalmanContext: • the longstanding precariousness of nuclear power in the public psyche (destruction vs. production) • traditional environmentalist opposition, successful in influencing public opinion – changing under impact of climate change agenda• rise of the new  ‘common sense nuclearism’ à questions about expertise, risk, and change/stability in theseResearch questions:• do environmentalists’ opinions affect the public? – to what extent are people aware of splits in environmental opinion?• are there ‘generational’ effects?   How malleable are they?• (how) has the public’s new ‘reluctant acceptance’ (Bickerstaff et al. 2008) changed, post-Fukushima?Mixed qualitative methods, with a focus on discourse analysisWays of working• Social science base - the projects will produce social science knowledgebut• Multi-disciplinary– problems conceived across sociological and technical concerns– students taking STS and engineering training modules– students form a social science cohort that will engage with a nuclear engineering cohort over the 4 years of the projects.• PhD Network structure - a kind of ‘research group’ structure: peer group meetings; individual supervisor meetings; network meetings. • Other networks: access to supervisors’ networks; industry links; other colleagues’ networks (e.g. SEAS research groups)...and more from here in Lisboa?  Currently foreseen questions:• What might collaboration actually mean as a day-to-day practice? (By students, by supervisors...) • How can (inter)disciplinarity be maintained?  (The creative experiment does not ‘fit’ with university structures)• What ethical issues may arise...?  …from STS engagements with nuclear engineering?…from critical engagement with ‘nuclearism’?…from (competing/clashing) normative/moral/political positions?• Through STS do we lose sight of (ecological) environmental issues and concerns? What are the unknown unknowns?  Photo:	Herman/VOA News

New perspectives on understanding nuclear societies

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/118452/1/Understanding_nuclear_societies_conference_paper_lisboa_final.pdf

New perspectives on understanding nuclear societies

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

White Rose Research Online