Continuing the Nuclear Dialogue: Alvin Weinberg's Nuclear Renaissance at 30
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Continuing the Nuclear Dialogue: Alvin Weinberg's Nuclear Renaissance at 30

  • 284 views
Uploaded on

William Kinsella's Presentation at the 2014 ORAU Board Meeting

William Kinsella's Presentation at the 2014 ORAU Board Meeting

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
284
On Slideshare
284
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Continuing the Nuclear Dialogue: Alvin Weinberg's Nuclear Renaissance at 30 William J. Kinsella Department of Communication and Program in Science, Technology & Society North Carolina State University wjkinsel@ncsu.edu Annual meeting, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Council of Sponsoring Institutions, 4-6 March 2014
  • 2. Background – What Am I Doing Here? • Communication researcher, background in physics, focus on energy, environment, and science & technology studies • Research on nuclear fusion community; U.S. nuclear weapons production complex; commercial nuclear energy in U.S., Germany, Japan • Asked to speak about nuclear energy communication in U.S. and global contexts • Framing the topic with help from Alvin Weinberg 2 Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog
  • 3. A Word about Communication • Discipline has dual humanities and social science roots: rhetoric and communication • Post WWII communication models: information transfer and cybernetics => focus on transmission, reception, control • One rhetorical model: persuasion • Another rhetorical model: community & democracy 3 Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog
  • 4. Communication, Democracy, and Dialog • Quintillian: “Good man speaking well” • Update: “Good citizen speaking well” • “Good” — engaged & well-intentioned re: topics of common concern • “Speaking well” — informed, ethical, common interest at heart • Dialog and collaboration vs. one-way persuasion Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 4
  • 5. 21st Century Context • Plurality, diversity, risk of fragmentation • Complexity in tension with emphasis on specialized knowledge • Expert vs. vernacular knowledge • Technocratic vs. cultural, personal, local forms of knowledge • “The public”  multiple “publics” Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 5
  • 6. Two Relevant Perspectives • Niklas Luhmann -- science and technology as radical simplification -- paradox: maintaining simplicity demands complex support systems -- differentiation of “social subsystems”: e.g., science, politics, economics, law -- “system rationality ceases to be world rationality” -- essential factors viewed as “externalities” Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 6
  • 7. Two Relevant Perspectives • Ulrich Beck: “risk society” and “reflexive modernity” -- solutions to problems of scarcity produce problems of risk -- risk as new fundamental societal organizing principle -- reflexive risks demand collective societal reflection Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 7
  • 8. Alvin Weinberg and the Nuclear Dialogue • Weinberg (1972a). “Science and trans-science.” Minerva, 10, 209-222. • Weinberg (1972b). “Social institutions and nuclear energy.” Science, 177(4043), 27-34. • Weinberg, & Spiewak (1984). “Inherently safe reactors and a second nuclear era.” Science, 224(4656), 1398-1402. • Weinberg, Spiewak, Phung & Livingston (1985). “The second nuclear era: A nuclear renaissance.” image credit: orau.org Energy, 10(5), 661-680. • Weinberg (1985). Continuing the Nuclear Dialog (ANS) Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 8
  • 9. Essays in Continuing the Nuclear Dialogue • “Is nuclear energy acceptable?”(1977a) • “Do nuclear engineering educators have a special responsibility?” (1977b) • “The future of nuclear energy” (1981) • “Nuclear Safety and public acceptance “(1982) • “’Immortal’ energy systems and intergenerational justice” (1985) Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 9
  • 10. Key Points: Science, Technology, and Institutions • Some questions cannot be answered by science (or science alone) (1972a) • Social institutions must match the demands of technologies (1972b) • Nuclear professionals have special responsibilities (1977b) • Call for continuing public dialog Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 10
  • 11. Key Points: Future of Nuclear Energy • Early vision of a “second nuclear era” or “nuclear renaissance” (1984-1985) • Explicit link to “inherently safe reactors” (1984) • Premise: “economic breakthrough of nuclear power” (1972b) • Premise: robust institutions (regulation and governance) ensure safety and public trust Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 11
  • 12. A Dialogue with Nature • Inherently safe, or inherently risky? -- extreme physical conditions -- demand for precise control -- maintaining simplicity requires complexity -- precise control requires precise knowledge • “Limits of representation” -- risk analysis & epistemic uncertainty -- seismology and other natural hazards -- human error -- human intentions -- climate change vs. technology development timescale Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 12
  • 13. A Dialogue with Economics • “Since per unit of output a large power plant is cheaper than a small one…increase in reactor size was largely responsible for the economic breakthrough of nuclear power.” (1972b) => AP 1000, not SMR • Economic breakthrough not sustained • Cost/safety tradeoff • Emerging competitive energy sources Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 13
  • 14. A Dialogue with History • “Today the United States is committed to over 100 X 106 kilowatts [0.1 TW] of nuclear power, and the rest of the world to an equal amount. Rather plausible estimates suggest that by 2000 the United States may be generating electricity at a rate of 1000 X 106 kilowatts [1 TW] with nuclear reactors.” (1972b) • U.S. nuclear capacity, summer 2009: 0.101 Net TW(e) http://www.eia.gov/nuclear/reactors/stats_table1.html accessed 28 February 2014 Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 14
  • 15. A Dialogue with History: The Global Picture Year Global Power Reactors Global Capacity 2000 438 0.351 TW 2010 442 0.375 TW 2012 440 0.374 TW http://www.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/WorldTrendNuclearPowerCapacity.aspx Accessed 28 February 2014 vs. Prediction for U.S. 1 TW by 2000 Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 15
  • 16. Institutional Challenges “When nuclear energy was small and experimental and unimportant, the intricate moral and institutional demands…could be ignored or not taken seriously.” (1972b) • Public trust • Regulatory effectiveness • Emerging nuclear nations: technical and regulatory capacity • Technology dissemination and proliferation potential • Nuclear waste won’t go away -- cf. “’Immortal’ energy systems and intergenerational justice” (1985) Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 16
  • 17. Nuclear Dialogue: Communication Challenges • Technocratic assumption: technical knowledge is better knowledge and most important knowledge -- social completeness -- technical completeness -- “requisite variety” of knowledge to match sociotechnical complexity Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 17
  • 18. Nuclear Dialogue: Communication Challenges • “Deficit model” of public understanding -- assumes lack of public capacity -- characterizes concerns as irrational, emotional, ignorant, extreme, driven by special interests -- seeks to avoid complicating the process • Historical amnesia • Next-generation narrative (e.g., inherent safety, SMR, travelling wave, thorium) not publicly persuasive • Proprietary information and self-regulation undermine trust (compare with other industries) Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 18
  • 19. Closing Thoughts “I believe the only path available to the nuclear community is…to establish a record of safe operation, even with 500 reactors in the world, over the next two decades. Common sense must eventually prevail over…narrow sectarianism…” (1982) • Safety, sectarianism, and common sense are products of continuing dialogue wjkinsel@ncsu.edu Kinsella-ORAU2014 Continuing the Nuclear Dialog 19