IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/poicbe/v16y2022i1p1205-1218n41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Radioactive waste management: Societal challenges in the era of green nuclear energy

Author

Listed:
  • Puşcaşu Greta-Marilena

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

Recently, there have been international debates over the idea of labeling nuclear power plants as a green investment. To be considered sustainable, to get a green investment label and to contribute to green growth, nuclear energy should be based on clear plans regarding safe disposal of radioactive waste. Final disposal of radioactive waste is witness to many disputes, one of the most important being that of public acceptance. Society represents a critical and a decisive stage in the process of radioactive waste management. Management and disposal process of radioactive waste requires community confidence and acceptance. The socio-political context must be addressed continuously through stakeholder commitment and public concerns. The final stage of radioactive waste management is especially characterized by population involvement, stakeholder availability, and mutual dialog. The objective of this study is based on finding the relationship between the location of a radioactive waste disposal facility (RWDF) and the perception of the population regarding various aspects related to nuclear energy and radioactive waste. A series of questions in the form of a questionnaire were used for data collection. A total of 200 valid questionnaires were used for this analysis. The study was focused on the Romanian population following a homogenous distribution throughout the country. Therefore, to better understand the issue, the paper investigates the correlation between the location of a radioactive waste disposal facility and a variety of factors, such as: attitude, perceived benefits, perceived risks, overall knowledge and perceived costs. Spearman rank correlation was used for data analysis. Bringing together theoretical information about nuclear energy and radioactive waste and the empirical data collected at the national level, this research study showed that the acceptance of a radioactive waste disposal facility is much stronger if the population is in favor of nuclear energy. As well, perceived risks create major concerns throughout the population and influence the location of a radioactive waste disposal facility. Cost aspects are controversial and create disagreements in relation with radioactive waste management options. That being said, this study brings value to the nuclear field by emphasizing the important societal factors which influence the location of a radioactive waste disposal facility in the green energy era.

Suggested Citation

  • Puşcaşu Greta-Marilena, 2022. "Radioactive waste management: Societal challenges in the era of green nuclear energy," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 16(1), pages 1205-1218, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:poicbe:v:16:y:2022:i:1:p:1205-1218:n:41
    DOI: 10.2478/picbe-2022-0111
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2022-0111
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/picbe-2022-0111?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weisser, Daniel, 2007. "A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1543-1559.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yi, Ji Hyun & Ko, Woong & Park, Jong-Keun & Park, Hyeongon, 2018. "Impact of carbon emission constraint on design of small scale multi-energy system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 792-808.
    2. Zhang, Ruirui & Wang, Guiling & Shen, Xiaoxu & Wang, Jinfeng & Tan, Xianfeng & Feng, Shoutao & Hong, Jinglan, 2020. "Is geothermal heating environmentally superior than coal fired heating in China?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    3. Emblemsvåg, Jan, 2022. "Wind energy is not sustainable when balanced by fossil energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    4. Kumar, Indraneel & Tyner, Wallace E. & Sinha, Kumares C., 2016. "Input–output life cycle environmental assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from utility scale wind energy in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 294-301.
    5. Kim, Dongin & Han, Jeehoon, 2020. "Comprehensive analysis of two catalytic processes to produce formic acid from carbon dioxide," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    6. Yu, Shiwei & Wei, Yi-Ming & Guo, Haixiang & Ding, Liping, 2014. "Carbon emission coefficient measurement of the coal-to-power energy chain in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 290-300.
    7. Hao, Xiaoli & Yang, Hongxing & Zhang, Guoqiang, 2008. "Trigeneration: A new way for landfill gas utilization and its feasibility in Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 3662-3673, October.
    8. Ozcan, Mustafa, 2016. "Estimation of Turkey׳s GHG emissions from electricity generation by fuel types," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 832-840.
    9. Byun, Hyunsuk & Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Chul-Yong, 2018. "Using a discrete choice experiment to predict the penetration possibility of environmentally friendly vehicles," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 312-321.
    10. Howard, B. & Waite, M. & Modi, V., 2017. "Current and near-term GHG emissions factors from electricity production for New York State and New York City," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 255-271.
    11. Avri Eitan, 2021. "Promoting Renewable Energy to Cope with Climate Change—Policy Discourse in Israel," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, March.
    12. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2008. "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2940-2953, August.
    13. repec:ces:ifodic:v:10:y:2012:i:4:p:19074526 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Elaine Aparecida Rodrigues & Maurício Lamano Ferreira & Amanda Rodrigues de Carvalho & José Oscar William Vega Bustillos & Rodrigo Antonio Braga Moraes Victor & Marcelo Gomes Sodré & Delvonei Alves de, 2022. "Land, Water, and Climate Issues in Large and Megacities under the Lens of Nuclear Science: An Approach for Achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG11)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-19, October.
    15. Paul E. Hardisty & Tom S. Clark & Robert G. Hynes, 2012. "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation: A Comparative Analysis of Australian Energy Sources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-26, March.
    16. Helge Bormann & Inge Andersen Martinez, 2014. "Towards an Indicator Based Framework Analysing the Suitability of Existing Dams for Energy Storage," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(6), pages 1613-1630, April.
    17. Kaldellis, John K. & Zafirakis, D., 2011. "The wind energy (r)evolution: A short review of a long history," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1887-1901.
    18. Langestraat, R., 2013. "Environmental policies in competitive electricity markets," Other publications TiSEM 8c1d6907-e2ab-40ea-abcc-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Jenniches, Simon & Worrell, Ernst & Fumagalli, Elena, 2019. "Regional economic and environmental impacts of wind power developments: A case study of a German region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 499-514.
    20. Zhang, Lige & Spatari, Sabrina & Sun, Ying, 2020. "Life cycle assessment of novel heat exchanger for dry cooling of power plants based on encapsulated phase change materials," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 271(C).
    21. Haase, Rachel & Bielicki, Jeffrey & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2013. "Innovation in emerging energy technologies: A case study analysis to inform the path forward for algal biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1595-1607.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:poicbe:v:16:y:2022:i:1:p:1205-1218:n:41. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.