Thomas Flüeler – författare

Waste management can be considered as a mirror of society. In its (our) fluctuating definition, besides conserving a supply of valuable materials and resources, it acts as a fascinating expression for our throw-away mentality. Waste is inevitable, but it nevertheless provides an opportunity, a need and an incentive for society to pursue a more careful management of it. If this is successfully carried out, society may well find it possible to manage itself in an overall more careful and universal way. The management, or governance, of radioactive waste particularly is determined by a complex constellation of individuals, social aggregates, and institutions. A wealth of interconnected parts forms a complex and volatile system that is highly technical and explosively political in nature. The problems inherent in this system must be managed so as to reach a safe, acceptable, responsible, feasible, and sustainable “solution”. It is a system with an objective long-term dimension, with a hazard potential of, in part, hundreds of thousands of years; and it has a long-term institutional dimension insofar as its implementation must last for decades. The very notion of risk extends from the long life of radionuclides, over the perception of dread to the decisional risk of whether, when and how to implement an agreed upon “solution”.

Waste management can be considered as a mirror of society. In its (our) fluctuating definition, besides conserving a supply of valuable materials and resources, it acts as a fascinating expression for our throw-away mentality. Waste is inevitable, but it nevertheless provides an opportunity, a need and an incentive for society to pursue a more careful management of it. If this is successfully carried out, society may well find it possible to manage itself in an overall more careful and universal way. The management, or governance, of radioactive waste particularly is determined by a complex constellation of individuals, social aggregates, and institutions. A wealth of interconnected parts forms a complex and volatile system that is highly technical and explosively political in nature. The problems inherent in this system must be managed so as to reach a safe, acceptable, responsible, feasible, and sustainable “solution”. It is a system with an objective long-term dimension, with a hazard potential of, in part, hundreds of thousands of years; and it has a long-term institutional dimension insofar as its implementation must last for decades. The very notion of risk extends from the long life of radionuclides, over the perception of dread to the decisional risk of whether, when and how to implement an agreed upon “solution”.

This book demonstrates that the long-term safety of nuclear waste repositories, special waste disposal and carbon storage (CCS) is highly challenging and monitoring may contribute to substantiate evidence, support decision making and legitimise the programme. Deep geological disposal is a long-term safety issue and, in parallel, requires long-term institutional involvement of the technoscientific community, waste producers, public administrators, NGOs and the public. What, where and when to monitor is determined by its goal setting: It may be operational, confirmatory (in the near field) or environmental (far field). Strategic monitoring as proposed here contributes to process, implementation or policy and institutional surveillance. It not only addresses the controversial long-lasting “problem” (of nuclear, other toxic or CO2 waste) but investigates some ways to approach for “solutions” or solution spaces – not just technical but also institutional, societal and personal. It includes the tailored transfer of knowledge, concept and system understanding, experience and documentation to specific audiences above. It is an integrative tool of targeted yet adaptive management and may be applicable to other long-term sociotechnical fields.

This book demonstrates that the long-term safety of nuclear waste repositories, special waste disposal and carbon storage (CCS) is highly challenging and monitoring may contribute to substantiate evidence, support decision making and legitimise the programme. Deep geological disposal is a long-term safety issue and, in parallel, requires long-term institutional involvement of the technoscientific community, waste producers, public administrators, NGOs and the public. What, where and when to monitor is determined by its goal setting: It may be operational, confirmatory (in the near field) or environmental (far field). Strategic monitoring as proposed here contributes to process, implementation or policy and institutional surveillance. It not only addresses the controversial long-lasting “problem” (of nuclear, other toxic or CO2 waste) but investigates some ways to approach for “solutions” or solution spaces – not just technical but also institutional, societal and personal. It includes the tailored transfer of knowledge, concept and system understanding, experience and documentation to specific audiences above. It is an integrative tool of targeted yet adaptive management and may be applicable to other long-term sociotechnical fields.

This book makes a case for a multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach to energy research—one that brings more of the social sciences to bear. Featuring eight studies from across the spectrum of the social sciences, each applying multiple disciplines to one or more energy-related problems, the book demonstrates the strong analytical and policy-making potential of such a broadened perspective. Case studies include: energy transitions of households in developing countries, the ‘curse of oil’, politics and visions for renewables, economics and ethics in emissions trading, and carbon capture and storage.

This book makes a case for a multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach to energy research—one that brings more of the social sciences to bear. Featuring eight studies from across the spectrum of the social sciences, each applying multiple disciplines to one or more energy-related problems, the book demonstrates the strong analytical and policy-making potential of such a broadened perspective. Case studies include: energy transitions of households in developing countries, the ‘curse of oil’, politics and visions for renewables, economics and ethics in emissions trading, and carbon capture and storage.

Waste management can be considered as a mirror of society. In its (our) fluctuating definition, besides conserving a supply of valuable materials and resources, it acts as a fascinating expression for our throw-away mentality. Waste is inevitable, but it nevertheless provides an opportunity, a need and an incentive for society to pursue a more careful management of it. If this is successfully carried out, society may well find it possible to manage itself in an overall more careful and universal way. The management, or governance, of radioactive waste particularly is determined by a complex constellation of individuals, social aggregates, and institutions. A wealth of interconnected parts forms a complex and volatile system that is highly technical and explosively political in nature. The problems inherent in this system must be managed so as to reach a safe, acceptable, responsible, feasible, and sustainable “solution”. It is a system with an objective long-term dimension, with a hazard potential of, in part, hundreds of thousands of years; and it has a long-term institutional dimension insofar as its implementation must last for decades. The very notion of risk extends from the long life of radionuclides, over the perception of dread to the decisional risk of whether, when and how to implement an agreed upon “solution”.