No document available.
Abstract :
[en] Recent years have seen a surge of attention towards the development of small modular
reactors (SMRs). A growing number of countries, across all stages of industrial development, is showing an interest in pursuing SMR technologies as part of their future energy
mix. For some countries this interest is surprising given that the future of nuclear energy
had appeared bleak for many years, especially since the Fukushima nuclear accident and the
subsequent resurgence of anti-nuclear sentiments. Despite considerable technical differences
between various SMR concepts being pursued in different countries, these ‘new’ reactors
are often ascribed the same set of potential benefits. These include, but are not limited
to: less volatile energy provision (compared to renewables), zero carbon emissions, economic
competitiveness, less radioactive waste, reduced fuel requirements and inherent safety. Considering the prominence of SMRs in current debates it should come as no surprise that they
have attracted opponents as well, criticizing what they see as false promises of an unproven
technology, impeding the realization of a true sustainable energy transition. The present
paper contends that SMR framings in current debates are not all that new. This is not
to suggest that the numerous sociotechnical challenges posed by this emerging technology
have been overlooked. On the contrary, commentators have often acknowledged the unique
aspects of SMRs and critically assessed potential benefits and drawbacks. It means, however,
that popular frames of the role of SMRs in our energy futures often buy into broader and
culturally specific ideas about how science and technology should serve the common good.
This insight has been extensively developed in STS, most notably in the sociotechnical imaginaries idiom, which holds that (dis)continuities in technological change can be accounted for
by collective, institutionalized and performed visions of desirable futures attainable through
the development of science and technology. The present paper, then, can be read as a critical engagement with the sociotechnical imaginaries framework. It does so by first analyzing
different ways in which SMR development has been framed in six Belgian newspapers in
the course of the past twenty years. Secondly, these frames are compared with the framing of traditional nuclear reactors, as identified by earlier studies. Thirdly, (dis)continuities
between these framings are considered. The paper concludes with a theoretical reflection
on the strengths and shortcomings of the imaginaries framework as a tool for the study of
technological change.
