Advertisement

Some Simplifications for Decision-Making

  • David W. Pearce

Abstract

Transporting nuclear fuel, spent fuel rods and nuclear waste is an integral part of the nuclear fuel cycle. To object outright to this aspect of the fuel cycle is to reject nuclear power as an energy source in the UK’s energy future. That is a position some will find wholly consistent and for them the transportation issue is simply one more aspect of the risks of nuclear power. To others, nuclear power is an essential feature of energy policy, so that the degrees of freedom in debating the transportation issue really relates to: (1) the extent to which its associated risks should dictate the choice of a particular type of fuel cycle, and (2) the mechanisms for minimising that risk. We can then look at both standpoints and ask what they imply, if anything, for the structure of decision-making in the UK.

Keywords

Public Inquiry Fuel Cycle Spend Fuel Nuclear Fuel Cycle Irradiate Fuel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Pearce, D. W. (1979) ‘Social cost-benefit analysis and nuclear futures’, Energy Economics, 1, No. 2.Google Scholar
  2. Pearce, D. W., Edwards, L. and Beuret, G. (1979) Decision-Making for Energy Futures: a Case Study of the Windscale Inquiry, London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Wynne, B. (1983) Rationality and Ritual: A Case Study of the Windscale Inquiry, London: British Society for the History of Science.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Greater London Council 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • David W. Pearce

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations