The Social Compatibility of Energy Technologies — Theoretical and Empirical Approaches in West Germany

  • Helmut Jungermann
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 4)

Abstract

As in many other industrialized countries, in West Germany nuclear energy has been the object of intensive and controversial discussion since the early seventies. This societal conflict has led to a general discussion concerning energy technologies and energy policies: Which path into the future should society follow and. more specifically, which governmental action regarding energy futures should be taken? The scope and the intensity of the conflict, which characterize the public as well as the scientific debate, indicate, on the one hand, the uncertainty about the implications of available policy options and the goals that should be aimed for, and, on the other hand, the willingness of a great number of organizations and individuals to participate in a search for solutions to vital societal problems.

Keywords

Income Defend Plutonium Stake OECD 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Deutscher Bundestag, Bericht der Enquête Kommission Zukünftiqe Kernenerqiepolitik: Drucksache 8/4341 ( Bonn, Presse- und Informationszentrum. 1980 ).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meyer-Abich, K.-M. and Dickler, R.A., Energy issues and policies in the Federal Republic of Germany, Annual Review of Energy, 7, 221–259 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weinberg, A., Social institutions and nuclear energy, Science, 177, 27–34 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meyer-Abich, K.-M., Schefold, B. and Weizsäcker, C.F., Zwischenbericht über den Stand der Arbeiten im Forschungspro iekt “Die Sozialverträglichkeit verschiedener Energiesysteme in der industriegesellschaftlichen Entwickling: (Essen, Frankfurt, Starnberg, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meyer-Abich, K.-M. and Schefold, B., Wie möchten wir in Zukunft leben? Der ‘harte’ und der ‘safte’ Weg ( München, C.H. Beck, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bauerschmidt, R., Erste Fortschreibung der Referenzfälle K(ernenergie) und S(onnenenergie) (Essen, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roβnagel, A., Bedroht die Kernenergie unsere Freiheit. München: C.H. Beck, 1983.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Held, M., Die Verträglichkeit der Energieszenarien K(ernenergie) und S(onnenenergie) mit den Wertentwicklungen (Essen, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schefold, B., in K.-M. Meyer-Abich and B. Schefold, Wie mochten wir in Zukunft leben?-Der ‘harte’ und der ‘sanfte’ Weg, 105–194 (München, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Häfele, W., Münch. E. and Renn. O., Analyse von Energieversorgungs-systemen nach Kriterien der Sozialverträglichkeit. Unpublished manuscript (Jülich, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Renn, O., The Jülich social compatibility study. Paper presented at the TIMS/ORSA Joint National Meeting (Chicago, 1983 ).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Renn, O., Albrecht, G. and Kotte, U., The empirical investigation of citizens’ preferences with respect to four energy scenarios. Paper presented at the Advanced Study Institute “Technology Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment, and Risk Analysis: Contributions from the Psychological and Decision Sciences,” Les Arcs/France, 1983.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keeney, R.L. and von Winterfeldt, D., Value tree analysis for alternative energy systems. Report (Jülich, 1983 ).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dienel, P.C., Die Planungszelle (Opladen, 1978 ).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    von Winterfeldt, D. and Edwards, W., Decision Analysis and Behavioral Decision Theory, to appear (1983).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives ( New York, Wiley, 1976 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helmut Jungermann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für PsychologieTechnische Universität BerlinBerlin 10Germany

Personalised recommendations