Allison Macfarlane

Is It Possible To Solve
The Nuclear Waste Problem?

Innovations Case Discussion:
Siting of Eurajoki Nuclear Waste Facility

With the issuance of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report
二月里 2007 the world faces the stark reality that it must reduce greenhouse
gas emissions immediately or face dire consequences. Nuclear energy provides a
reliable source of carbon dioxide-free electricity, and a global expansion of nuclear
power could replace fossil-fuel fired plants significantly within twenty to fifty
年. One of the main impediments to the expansion of nuclear energy is the
unresolved problem of what to do with the nuclear waste. Though nuclear power
has been with us almost fifty years, to date, not one of the 30 countries with
nuclear power plants has opened a nuclear waste repository.

There is a general consensus among experts that geologic repositories are the
solution to the problem of nuclear waste, and this consensus has been in place for
50 years.1 Given that, why has no repository yet opened? 在 1998, 美国
opened a facility to dispose of transuranic waste from the nuclear weapons com-
丛 (plutonium-contaminated materials) in southern New Mexico, the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant. The unresolved issue for the nuclear power industry is the
disposition of used (“spent”) nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste from the
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

从技术上来说, it is feasible to dispose of nuclear waste. The main issues to resolve
are where to site a repository and how long such a facility can prevent the radioac-

Allison Macfarlane is an Associate Professor of Environmental Science and Policy at
George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. She is also an affiliate of the Program in
科学, Technology and Society at MIT and the Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs at Harvard University. She is currently and has served in the
past on National Academy of Sciences panels on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons
问题. She currently serves on the Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists . 她
research focuses on international security and environmental policy issues associated
with nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. She is a contributing co-editor of
Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation’s High-Level Nuclear
Waste, (与新闻界, 2006) which explores the unresolved technical issues for nuclear
waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

从http下载的://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/1/4/83/704123/itgg.2006.1.4.83.pdf by guest on 07 九月 2023

Allison MacFarlane

tivity from nuclear waste to spread into the accessible environment. 到底, 任何
site will never contain nuclear waste indefinitely. The goal is to select a site and
engineered features, such as the waste canister, that maximize the amount of time
the waste is isolated. 再次, this can be done with some degree of certainty.

One of the main roadblocks to opening a nuclear waste repository is public
opposition.2 Distrust in the institutions that run the repository program, “Not In
My Back Yard” local and regional resistance, lack of perceived fairness in siting
决定, and worries about nuclear waste transport all add up to powerful polit-
ical resistance to siting and opening nuclear waste repositories. Juhani Vira offers
an alternative perspective on public/institutional interactions and provides an
example of successful siting via a responsive nuclear waste institution, which has
overcome the majority of public opposition to developing a nuclear waste reposi-
保守党.

The focus of this article is to consider the nuclear waste disposal issue, 两个都
from technical and political perspectives. Will it be possible to open a repository?
如果不, nuclear energy may play a limited role in climate change mitigation. Vira’s
article shows that the Finnish repository siting experience offers guidelines for how
to handle the political and societal issues associated with nuclear waste disposal.
Given their experience, it may well be possible to open a nuclear waste repository.

背景

Nuclear power in 2002 accounted for 17% of electricity generation globally
(国际能源署, 2004). Thirty countries had nuclear power generat-
ing capacity amounting to 369 GWe, which was produced by 440 reactors in 2005
(OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2005). Spent nuclear fuel is produced at a rate of
关于 25-30 tonnes per GWe per year for light water reactors (World Nuclear
协会, 2003). 因此, 关于 12,000 tonnes of spent fuel are produced each
year globally. The United States, which has the most nuclear power plants, 亲-
duces about 2,000 tonnes of spent fuel per year and had accumulated 56,000
tonnes of spent fuel by 2005. 全球范围, spent fuel is located either at nuclear power
plants in cooling pools or dry cask storage, or in centralized interim storage facil-
实体.

A number of studies recently have projected a large global expansion of
nuclear power in response to the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Pacala
and Socolow (2004) envisioned 700 GWe of new power plants over the next 50
years to fulfill one of seven “wedges” of carbon dioxide reduction to stabilize emis-
sions at the current level of 25.6 Gt CO2/yr. A 2003 study by a group at MIT envi-
sioned expansion of nuclear power to 1,000–1,500 GWe by 2050 to displace 15-
25% of predicted growth of carbon dioxide emissions (Ansolabehere, 多伊奇,
德里斯科尔, Gray, Holdren, 约斯科, Lester, Moniz and Todreas, 2003). Most of this
expansion would occur in Asia, where there will be the greatest need for increased
electricity resources.

Expansion of nuclear power to 700 GWe would result in 17,500–21,000 tonnes

创新 / fall 2006

从http下载的://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/1/4/83/704123/itgg.2006.1.4.83.pdf by guest on 07 九月 2023

Is It Possible To Solve The Nuclear Waste Problem?

of spent fuel per year. Expansion to 1,500 GWe would produce 37,500–45,000
tonnes spent fuel per year. The site for a nuclear waste repository in the United
状态, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is designed to hold 70,000 tonnes of waste. A large
expansion in nuclear power in the world could produce enough waste for a Yucca-
Mountain-size repository every two years. 因此, there is an urgent need to devel-
op a solution to the problem of nuclear waste before a large expansion of nuclear
power begins.

FUEL CYCLE IMPACT ON WASTE DISPOSAL

There are two potential ways to operate the nuclear fuel cycle: closed and open. 在
an open fuel cycle, spent fuel is treated as a waste product and placed directly in a
repository. In a closed fuel cycle, unused uranium and plutonium are extracted
from spent fuel via reprocessing technology and reused as fuel. The remaining
浪费, fission products and transuranic elements produced in the reactor are solid-
ified into glass form (now called high-level waste) and destined for a repository.
Though reprocessing is appealing because usable materials are not “thrown away,”
it is economically costly3 and poses a high risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Reprocessing technology creates separated plutonium, one of the two materials
that can be used to power nuclear bombs. Reprocessing using PUREX (plutonium-
uranium extraction) technology does not largely affect the size of a repository,
任何一个. The high-level waste, because it contains the fission products (尤其
cesium-137 and strontium-90), is still as thermally hot as spent fuel, 因此
needs the same volume as that needed for spent fuel.

Other types of closed fuel cycles have been proposed recently, including the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) 由美国. GNEP proposes
to close the fuel cycle using a different separations process called UREX (uranium
extraction) that will separate plutonium in combination with other transuranics,
in the hope that doing so will increase the barrier to using this material in a nuclear
bomb. There is skepticism that such material will prove proliferation resistant.4
The GNEP program also plans to separate cesium-137 and strontium-90 from the
remaining waste, and to store them in some form (still to be decided upon) 为了 300
years on the surface.5 GNEP proposes to further reduce the space required in a
repository by using the plutonium and other transuranics as fuel for sodium-
cooled fast reactors. All aspects of the proposal are not economically viable at this
时间, nor will they be unless there is scarce uranium (not expected for at least 100
年) in combination with very high carbon taxes.

到底, 然后, the most cost effective nuclear waste management plan is geo-
logic disposal, which will be needed anyway, whether a closed or open cycle is
受雇的. The only problem is that, 迄今为止, with almost 50 years of reactor oper-
ating experience, no geologic repository for the disposal of high-level nuclear
waste and spent fuel has opened and operated. There are two sources of issues with
opening a repository: technical and political/societal. If both can be resolved to a
reasonable degree, then a repository will open.

创新 / fall 2006

从http下载的://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/1/4/83/704123/itgg.2006.1.4.83.pdf by guest on 07 九月 2023

Allison Macfarlane

TECHNICAL ISUES

A geologic repository should operate using the principle of multi-barriers. 这
geology itself should provide a barrier to movement of radionuclides and the engi-
neered features, such as the waste form and the waste canisters should also provide
a barrier. Working in concert, the two sets of barriers should provide adequate
assurance that the waste is kept from humans and the environment for millennia.
The first step in geologic disposal of nuclear waste is site selection. 这是
step at which countries with repository plans have experienced the most trouble.
From a technical point of view, a site should display certain characteristics.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency International Atomic
Energy Agency (2003), it should:
(西德:121) exhibit geologic stability, no earthquakes, no volcanoes, low heat flow;
(西德:121) have low groundwater content and/or flow at depth; existing groundwater

should be old and stable;

(西德:121) exhibit a reducing geochemical environment at depth (no free oxygen present;
materials won’t “rust”), with stable geochemistry (no active alteration of the
local rocks or fluids; 和

(西德:121) have rocks that can withstand tunneling with drifts remaining open for

几十年.

Repository sites, 理想地, would also be far from population centers but close to
transportation routes, especially rail lines or shipping channels. They would also,
理想地, be located in communities that welcome them.

A number of different types of sites are currently under consideration. 瑞典
and Finland have chosen to use crystalline rock, granite and metamorphic gneiss
to store nuclear waste. The geology of the selected areas, Okilouto in Eurajoki,
芬兰, and Östhammar and Oskarshamn, 瑞典, is stable. All three locations
under consideration have reducing chemical environments. France is considering
a site in Bure, eastern France, in argillite, a clay-rich rock also containing carbon-
ate and quartz. 再次, it offers a reducing environment. The United States has
selected a site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, formed of tuff, a welded volcanic ash.
The Yucca Mountain site has an oxidizing environment and is located in a tecton-
ically active region with relatively young volcanic rocks (and therefore the poten-
tial for future volcanism) and earthquakes.

One of the main problems with nuclear waste disposal is that no site can ever
be guaranteed to never leak radioactivity at some point in time in the future. 作为一个
结果, it becomes imperative for each site examined to show confident you are that
the site will behave as expected for as long a time as expected. Such prediction is
not an easy task. Earth processes involved in containing the waste are complex and
not fully understood. The best we can do is to reduce uncertainties in site behav-
ior over time by selecting a good site (according to the criteria above) and using
engineered barriers to our advantage.

Predictive models of earth system processes are used extensively in nuclear
waste disposal site analysis. 很遗憾, these models cannot be validated or

创新 / fall 2006

从http下载的://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/1/4/83/704123/itgg.2006.1.4.83.pdf by guest on 07 九月 2023

Is It Possible To Solve The Nuclear Waste Problem?

verified because they model open systems, subject to change over time, to inade-
quate starting data sets, and incomplete understating of system processes
involved.6 Modeling to predict repository behavior over time, 所以, has limit-
ed value. The best way to select a site under such circumstances is to do so com-
paratively, by comparing a number of sites and deciding which one has the best
chance of keeping waste entombed.

A number of countries have employed a comparative site selection analysis.
Sweden is now characterizing two sites, Oskarshamn and Östhammar, 两者
which appear to have favorable site geology. 芬兰, though it now has selected a
final site in Okilouto, originally examined five different sites that represented five
different rock types.7 The utility of such a comparison is explained by Juhani Vira,
who said that “…without a program that included several investigation sites, 它
would not have been possible to say anything about the comparative advantages
and disadvantages of the Olkiluoto and other candidate sites.”8 Germany plans to
consider five sites and then select two for detailed analysis, after consultation with
the public.9 The United States was to have considered three sites in detail accord-
ing to the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 在 1987, 美国. 国会, 在
response to an increasing price tag for such analysis and a contentious political sit-
uation (no state wanted a nuclear waste “dump”), amended the 1982 Act and chose
the Yucca Mountain site as the sole site to be characterized.

All selected sites intend to use engineered barriers to their advantage, 到
degree possible. The Swedish and Finnish repositories plan to use copper canisters
to encase the waste. In a reducing environment, copper degrades extremely slowly,
as does the uranium dioxide that makes up spent fuel. 美国. repository at Yucca
Mountain has an oxidizing environment, 因此, the presence of water must
be well understood, because in such an environment in the presence of water, ura-
nium dioxide can degrade fairly rapidly. It is difficult to find a metal material to
form a canister that does not oxidize quickly. 美国. plans to use a man-made
alloy, C-22, a chromium, nickel, molybdenum alloy. In terms of uncertainties, 这
Swedish and Finnish plans minimize uncertainties because they have selected a
favorable natural barrier (reducing environment) and are using natural analogues
(copper and uranium dioxide) for which there is good understanding of how the
actual elemental copper deposits and urannite deposits (uranium dioxide) behave
in nature, in given geochemical conditions. 因此, the Swedish and Finnish
sites have reduced the uncertainties about site performance relative to the U.S. site.

POLITICAL ISSUES

A repository program that is technically sound can still fail if it is deemed politi-
cally or socially unacceptable. This is essentially the cause of delay in opening most
repositories. Success from a political or societal point of view is affected by three
general factors: the political system itself, the perception of fairness and justness of
those in control, and the process used in establishing the repository. I will focus on
experiences in the United States, 芬兰, and Sweden to illustrate the significance

创新 / fall 2006

从http下载的://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/1/4/83/704123/itgg.2006.1.4.83.pdf by guest on 07 九月 2023

Allison Macfarlane

of these factors.

This discussion of societal and political factors rests on the assumption that we
are examining democracies. 鉴于, there are different kinds of democracies,
and some may be less inclined towards approving a repository site than others. 这
美国, for instance, is a presidential federal republic, with a plurality or
winner-takes-all voting system. It stands in contrast to Sweden, a constitutional
monarchy with proportional representation, and Finland, a parliamentary democ-
racy with proportional representation. In the United States federalism provides
significant power to states, so that their interests can override those of municipal-
实体. This power is evident in relation to nuclear waste policy decisions. 在里面
20世纪80年代中期, the government was looking for a community to accept a Monitored
Retrievable Storage facility for spent fuel. Oak Ridge, Tennessee was interested in
accepting such a facility, but the state of Tennessee, and especially the governor,
Lamar Alexander, opposed the facility on the grounds that the entire state would
suffer from the stigma attached to nuclear waste.10 State opposition to nuclear
waste facilities has been replayed with the main repository site (Nevada is strong-
ly opposed) and a proposed spent fuel storage facility on the Skull Valley Band of
the Goshutes reservation in Utah. Though in both cases local communities are
accepting, the states form powerful opponents and fight the facilities in Congress
and in the courts. 因此, the national political system can play a role in the
success or failure of repository siting.

Another important variable in the political success of a repository is the per-
ceived sense of fairness or justness of both the siting decision itself and those in
control of siting decision-making. Many countries have had a difficult time siting
a repository. 现在, only Finland and the United States actually have approved
(or semi-approved) 站点. Sweden has two sites it is considering. Many countries
turned back from original siting decisions, including France, the U.K., 瑞典, 这
我们。, 加拿大, 瑞士, and Germany, usually because of public opposition.
Some have remained in limbo (the U.K., 加拿大), others have developed potential
new locations (法国, 瑞士, the U.S., 瑞典), and others have developed
a new siting plan (德国).

In the United States, 这 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act ensured fairness by
requiring two repositories, tacitly accepted that if one were sited in the western
part of the country, the other would have to be located in the east. 而且, 它
required downselection to five sites, for which environmental assessment reports
were to be completed. Those five would be downselected to three sites, for which
in depth analysis, including underground exploration, would be done. 此外,
states that were singled out as sites were to be provided with financial aid to pro-
vide for alternative analysis and offset impacts from the site analysis.11

Much of this was abandoned when the U.S. Congress approved the 1987
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. 这 1987 Act directed the Department of
Energy to consider a single site, Yucca Mountain, Nevada and rescinded many of
the financial benefits for the state. By directing the DOE to focus solely on one site,
Congress broke the covenant with the states that the siting process would be fair

创新 / fall 2006

从http下载的://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/1/4/83/704123/itgg.2006.1.4.83.pdf by guest on 07 九月 2023

Is It Possible To Solve The Nuclear Waste Problem?

and the best site would be selected. Though Congress had asked DOE to simply
decide if Yucca Mountain were a reasonable site, by selecting just one site Congress
put enormous political pressure on the DOE to find that the site was adequate.

In the U.S., it now appears that more than 30 years after the passage of the
Amendments Act, a repository at Yucca Mountain will still not be open. The Yucca
Mountain site is technically complex and politically fraught. The state of Nevada
claims it was “screwed” by the Amendments Act, especially as it has no nuclear
power plants.12 It is a general feeling in the nuclear industry that Yucca Mountain
is the last hope for waste disposal in the U.S. and it must open to ensure the suc-
cessful continuation and expansion of the nuclear industry there. Reconsidering
the siting decision is never discussed, even in private.

Other countries have remained sensitive to the value of comparing sites, 从
both technical and political viewpoints. Sweden is in the process of comparing two
站点. Germany has plans to do surface analysis of 3-5 sites and then do detailed
underground analysis of two sites.13 Finland compared five sites before deciding on
the Olkilouoto site.14

There is a great advantage in convincing the public that a good site has been
chosen if it is selected from a suite of possibilities. As a Utah newspaper editorial
proclaimed during the 1980s U.S. siting process, “Neither Utah nor any other state
can properly refuse to bear the nuclear waste burden once it (the repository site)
has been established to the best of human conditions. 然而, the honor of mak-
ing such sacrifice for time without end must confer on the luckless lamb the satis-
faction of knowing first-hand that the duty couldn’t have been just as well assigned
elsewhere.”15

The institution that handles the siting process must also be perceived as fair
and just to open a repository site. 再次, 美国. experience offers a contrast to
that of Finland. Vira, in his article in this volume, enumerates the ways in which
the nuclear waste institution can have positive relations with the public. Posiva Oy,
the Finnish company tasked with nuclear waste disposal, learned to listen to the
public’s concerns and to be responsive to them. This approach generated trust
among the public of Posiva Oy—a situation essential for successful repository sit-
英.

The U.S. agency charged with characterizing and developing the site is the
能源部 (DOE), an agency not known for its good relations with the
民众. The DOE carries with it the baggage of nuclear weapons development,
including a culture of secrecy,16 and numerous examples of contamination of local
地区, of which the public was not informed until long after the fact. 这
Department has been suspected of being insincere and manipulative.17 Moreover,
the Office of Civilian and Radioactive Waste, the department within the DOE han-
dling the repository development, has often been subject to political influence
from upper levels of DOE management.18

The DOE has not distinguished itself in the public arena, 任何一个. Public hear-
ings are often stacked with talking heads providing information to the public but
never actually listening or responding in a meaningful way to what they have

创新 / fall 2006

从http下载的://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/1/4/83/704123/itgg.2006.1.4.83.pdf by guest on 07 九月 2023

Allison MacFarlane

heard. Most official documents attached to the repository, including the Final
Environmental Impact Assessment, among others, all require a public comment
时期. The DOE dutifully collects comments from the public and attaches them
to the document as appendices. It has never been apparent that the DOE has actu-
ally taken any of these comments seriously enough to make significant changes in
their program. 在本质上, 然后, though the public has the appearance of a voice in
the process, it is duly ignored, reinforcing the lack of trust.

最后, the last factor important from the political viewpoint is the process of
repository siting. As Vira has made clear, the Finns have followed a step-wise
过程, now advocated by a number of institutions including the U.S. 国家的
Academy of Science.19 The step-wise process always allows for the option of alter-
natives—be it on the technical side, to do with design, or on the political side, 为了
例子, the veto given to municipalities under consideration for a site. Such a
process is flexible and allows the commanding institution to respond to unforeseen
issues that arise. 再次, 美国. provides a contrast in that it downselected its sites
to one early on in the siting process. 此外, the DOE established an engi-
neered design for the repository prior to collection of all relevant scientific data. A
flexible siting process lessens the political pressure to succeed and makes it possi-
ble to address contingencies as they arise.

结论

It should be clear from the analysis above that the Finns are much better posi-
tioned to open a geologic repository for nuclear waste than the Americans. 部分
this is because they have chosen a site that is less burdened with technical uncer-
tainties than the U.S. Yucca Mountain site. 部分, this is because they have been
more successful in generating trust among their citizens to grant approval to the
项目.

Resolving the nuclear waste problem is important for the continuation of
核电, especially in light of impending climate change. Nuclear waste is
only one of a number of issues impeding the expansion of nuclear power, 尽管.
Others include high capital costs of bringing new plants online, ensuring the safe-
ty of reactors, avoiding the proliferation of nuclear weapons via nuclear fuel cycle
processes such as uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing, 和, in this day
and age of terrorism, ensuring the security of nuclear power plants against attack.
This list is not short, but as Vira has suggested, perhaps at least some countries will
solve one of these issues: that of nuclear waste. With a concerted effort to engage
the public in siting decisions, address their concerns, and make institutions honest
about the issues, the likelihood of successfully opening a nuclear waste repository
增加, especially if the site selected is technically sound.

We invite reader comments. 电子邮件 .

创新 / fall 2006

从http下载的://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/1/4/83/704123/itgg.2006.1.4.83.pdf by guest on 07 九月 2023

Is It Possible To Solve The Nuclear Waste Problem?

1. See for example, National Research Council (1957) and National Research Council (2001).
2. National Research Council (2001).
3. See for example Ansolabehere et al. (2003) and Bunn et al. (2005).
4. See for example Fetter and von Hippel (2005).
5. Office of Nuclear Energy (2007).
6. Macfarlane (2006); Oreskes and Belitz (2001); Oreskes et al. (1994).
7. Lidskog and Andersson (2002).
8. Vira (2001), p. 31.
9. AkEnd (2002).
10. Flynn et al. (1998).
11. Colglazier and Langum (1988).
12. Nevada has always termed the 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act the “Screw Nevada

Bill.”

13. AkEnd, (Arkeitskreis Auswahlverfahren Endlagerstandorte) (2002).
14. Vira (2001).
15. As quoted in Colglazier and Langum (1988), p. 352.
16. Flynn and Slovic (1995).
17. Short and Rosa (2004).
18. Carter (2006).
19. National Research Council (2003).

参考

AkEnd, (Arkeitskreis Auswahlverfahren Endlagerstandorte) (2002), Site Selection Procedure for

Repository Sites, (Committee on a Site Selection Procedure for Repository Sites, Cologne).

Ansolabehere, 斯蒂芬, John Deutch, Michael Driscoll, Paul E. Gray, John P. Holdren, Paul L.
约斯科, Richard K. Lester, Ernest J. Moniz, and Neil E. Todreas (2003), The Future of Nuclear
力量 (剑桥, 嘛: 麻省理工学院).

Bunn, M。, J.P. Holdren, S. Fetter, 和乙. van der Zwaan (2005), “The Economics of Reprocessing

Versus Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” Nuclear Technology 150, 209-230.

Carter, Luther J. (2006), “The Path to Yucca Mountain and Beyond,” in Allison Macfarlane, 和
Rodney Ewing, 编辑。, Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation’s High-Level
Nuclear Waste (剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界).

Colglazier, E.W., and R.B. Langum (1988), “Policy Conflicts in the Porcessfor Siting Nuclear Waste

Repositories,” Annual Review of Energy 13, 317-357.

Fetter, Steve, and Frank N. von Hippel (2005), “Is U.S. Reprocessing Worth the Risk?,” Arms Control

今天 35, 6-12.

Flynn, James H., C.K. Mertz, and Paul Slovic (1998), Results of a 1997 National Nuclear Waste

Transportation Survey, (Decision Research).

Flynn, James, and Paul Slovic (1995), “Yucca Mountain: A Crisis for Policy: Prospects for America’s
High-Level Nuclear Waste Program,” 能源与环境年度回顾 20, 83-118.
International Atomic Energy Agency (2003), “Scientific and Technical Basis for the Geological
Disposal of Radioactive Wastes,” Technical Report Series (维也纳, 奥地利: International Atomic
Energy Agency).

International Energy Agency (2004), World Energy Outlook (巴黎, 法国: Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development).

Lidskog, Rolf, and Ann-Catrin Andersson (2002), “The management of radioactive waste: A descrip-

tion of ten countries,” (斯德哥尔摩, 瑞典: SKB).

创新 / fall 2006

从http下载的://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/1/4/83/704123/itgg.2006.1.4.83.pdf by guest on 07 九月 2023

Allison MacFarlane

Macfarlane, A. (2006), “Uncertainty, 楷模, and the Way Forward in Nuclear Waste Disposal,“ 在
Allison Macfarlane, and Rodney Ewing, 编辑。, Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the
Nation’s High-Level Nuclear Waste (与新闻界, 剑桥, 嘛).

National Research Council (1957). The Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land (华盛顿, 直流:

Academy Press).

National Research Council (2001). Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: 这

Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges (华盛顿, 直流: National Academy Press).

National Research Council (2003). One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic

Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste (华盛顿, 直流: National Academy Press).

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (2005). Uranium 2005: 资源, Production and Demand.
Office of Nuclear Energy (2007). Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Strategic Plan (华盛顿, 直流:

能源部).

Oreskes, Naomi, and Kenneth Belitz, (2001). “Philosophical issues in model assessment,” in M.G.
安德森, and P.D. Bates, 编辑。, Model Validation: Perspectives in Hydrological Science (纽约,
纽约: John Wiley and Sons).

Oreskes, Naomi, Kristin Shrader-Frechette, and Kenneth Belitz (1994). “Verification, 验证, 和

confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences,“ 科学 263, 641-646.

Pacala, S。, 和R. Socolow (2004). “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next

50 Years with Current Technologies,“ 科学 305, 968-972.

Short, 詹姆斯·F, and Eugene Rosa (2004). “Some principles for siting controversy decisions: lessons

from the U.S. experience with high level nuclear waste,” Journal of Risk Research 7, 135-152.

Vira, Juhani (2001). “Taking it step by step: Finland’s decision-in-principle on final disposal of spent

nuclear fuel,” Radwaste Solutions September/October, 30-35.

创新 / fall 2006

从http下载的://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/1/4/83/704123/itgg.2006.1.4.83.pdf by guest on 07 九月 2023
下载pdf