Of Plans and Plants: How Nuclear Power Gained a Foothold in Soviet Energy Policy
Of Plans and Plants: How Nuclear Power Gained a Foothold in Soviet Energy Policy
复制标题
计划和工厂：核电如何在苏联能源政策中站稳脚跟
DOI：
10.25162/jgo-2018-0006
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Sonja D. Schmid
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sonja D. Schmid
这篇文章对比了苏联科学家和工程师在20世纪50年代和60年代的努力，他们成功地说服规划者支持昂贵的、尚未得到证实的核技术，并从零开始建立核工业，随着核能倡导者在21世纪的碳友好能源组合中至少保持一丝核能相关性的当代努力，这些努力被证明是非常具有挑战性的。核能不仅有望促进现代化，还为资源和需求分配的不平衡提供了解决办法。尽管成本高昂，但在20世纪50年代和60年代，建立核工业对许多国家来说是有意义的。今天，情况更加支离破碎，人们正在使用不同的标准来评估核能的好处，包括发生严重事故的可能性，以及仍未解决的废物管理问题。一些拥有核工业的国家已经决定逐步淘汰核能，而另一些国家则在积极进行新的建设，而大多数国家则持矛盾态度。本文以档案资料和当代政策文件为依托，对苏联的能源政策进行了全面的考察。报告审查了在苏联和后苏联背景下评价核能潜力的不断变化的标准，特别侧重于科学权威和体制惰性在应对切尔诺贝利事故和苏联解体所构成的根本挑战方面的作用。本文的结论是，可行性（技术或经济）的概念是可以谈判的，并且将永远与对更美好未来的梦想和希望联系在一起。
The article contrasts efforts by Soviet scientists and engineers in the 1950s and 1960s, who successfully persuaded planners to support expensive, still unproven nuclear technologies, and to establish a nuclear industry from scratch, with contemporary efforts by nuclear energy advocates to maintain at least a sliver of relevance for nuclear power in the carbon-friendly energy mix of the 21st century - efforts that have proven very challenging. Nuclear power not only promised to facilitate modernization, it also offered a solution to the imbalance in resource and demand distribution. Despite its cost, creating a nuclear industry made sense to many nations in the 1950s and 1960s. Today, the picture is more fragmented, and different criteria are being used to evaluate the benefits of nuclear energy, including the possibility of severe accidents, and the still unresolved waste management issue. Some countries with nuclear industries have decided to phase out nuclear, while others are engaging in aggressive new build, with most others ambivalent. Relying on archival resources and contemporary policy documents, this essay takes a big-picture view of Soviet energy policy. It examines the shifting criteria for evaluating the potential of nuclear energy in the Soviet and post-Soviet context, with a particular focus on the role of scientific authority, and of institutional inertia, for dealing with the fundamental challenges posed by the Chernobyl accident and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The essay concludes that the notion of viability (technical or economical) is negotiable, and will always remain tied up with dreams of and hopes for a better future.