Discussing possible futures to neutralise nuclear energy discourse

IF 16.3 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENERGY & FUELS Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Pub Date : 2024-12-04 DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2024.115105
Gilmore N , P.A. Burr , E. Obbard , C. Stockings , J.J. Kruzic , I. Seitenzahl , S. Ata , E. Maartensson , R.K. Niven
{"title":"Discussing possible futures to neutralise nuclear energy discourse","authors":"Gilmore N ,&nbsp;P.A. Burr ,&nbsp;E. Obbard ,&nbsp;C. Stockings ,&nbsp;J.J. Kruzic ,&nbsp;I. Seitenzahl ,&nbsp;S. Ata ,&nbsp;E. Maartensson ,&nbsp;R.K. Niven","doi":"10.1016/j.rser.2024.115105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Nuclear energy discourse is deeply entrenched, with historical incidents and excessive objectivity deepening for-or-against lines that impede collaborative discussions. This research advocates for a futures thinking approach where stakeholders discuss possibilities before debating probabilities and preferences. This method is demonstrated by deriving four scenarios through an expert led review of historical events and recent research. 1) Spillover Benefits envisages the staggered deployment of small modular reactors stemming from remote power projects in a few leading nations that need continued government support and significant technological advancement. 2) Disruption Rebound envisages the ramifications of an energy security crises that that may shift public opinion, justify political actors, and fragment international partnerships. 3) Catastrophe Contraction envisages the severe setback of a major nuclear accident, stressing the challenge of enduring social apprehensions on the way to ultra reliable operation. 4) Strategic Fulcrum examines the geopolitical implication of using nuclear technology to establish long-term alliances, which could either increase or decrease technology costs and conflict risks depending on uncertain geopolitical developments. In this research, futures thinking allowed experts to openly consider scenarios they may otherwise have dismissed as unlikely or undesirable. Other stakeholders can apply this method to facilitate inclusive discussions, transforming contentious debates into constructive discourse.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":418,"journal":{"name":"Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews","volume":"210 ","pages":"Article 115105"},"PeriodicalIF":16.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032124008311","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Nuclear energy discourse is deeply entrenched, with historical incidents and excessive objectivity deepening for-or-against lines that impede collaborative discussions. This research advocates for a futures thinking approach where stakeholders discuss possibilities before debating probabilities and preferences. This method is demonstrated by deriving four scenarios through an expert led review of historical events and recent research. 1) Spillover Benefits envisages the staggered deployment of small modular reactors stemming from remote power projects in a few leading nations that need continued government support and significant technological advancement. 2) Disruption Rebound envisages the ramifications of an energy security crises that that may shift public opinion, justify political actors, and fragment international partnerships. 3) Catastrophe Contraction envisages the severe setback of a major nuclear accident, stressing the challenge of enduring social apprehensions on the way to ultra reliable operation. 4) Strategic Fulcrum examines the geopolitical implication of using nuclear technology to establish long-term alliances, which could either increase or decrease technology costs and conflict risks depending on uncertain geopolitical developments. In this research, futures thinking allowed experts to openly consider scenarios they may otherwise have dismissed as unlikely or undesirable. Other stakeholders can apply this method to facilitate inclusive discussions, transforming contentious debates into constructive discourse.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 工程技术-能源与燃料
CiteScore
31.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
1055
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: The mission of Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews is to disseminate the most compelling and pertinent critical insights in renewable and sustainable energy, fostering collaboration among the research community, private sector, and policy and decision makers. The journal aims to exchange challenges, solutions, innovative concepts, and technologies, contributing to sustainable development, the transition to a low-carbon future, and the attainment of emissions targets outlined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews publishes a diverse range of content, including review papers, original research, case studies, and analyses of new technologies, all featuring a substantial review component such as critique, comparison, or analysis. Introducing a distinctive paper type, Expert Insights, the journal presents commissioned mini-reviews authored by field leaders, addressing topics of significant interest. Case studies undergo consideration only if they showcase the work's applicability to other regions or contribute valuable insights to the broader field of renewable and sustainable energy. Notably, a bibliographic or literature review lacking critical analysis is deemed unsuitable for publication.
期刊最新文献
Recycling organic waste to biochar amended soils stabilizes Miscanthus x giganteus growth Advances in latent heat storage technology for electronic cooling Exploring green electricity certificate purchasing behavior via a laboratory experiment Satisfying clean and secured water and energy for all Africans: Quantity, efficiency, and sustainability analysis Steady-state power system analysis revisited for hybrid AC–DC grids
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1