↓ Skip to main content

To Recycle or Not to Recycle? An Intergenerational Approach to Nuclear Fuel Cycles

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
To Recycle or Not to Recycle? An Intergenerational Approach to Nuclear Fuel Cycles
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2007
DOI 10.1007/s11948-007-9049-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Behnam Taebi, Jan Leen Kloosterman

Abstract

This paper approaches the choice between the open and closed nuclear fuel cycles as a matter of intergenerational justice, by revealing the value conflicts in the production of nuclear energy. The closed fuel cycle improve sustainability in terms of the supply certainty of uranium and involves less long-term radiological risks and proliferation concerns. However, it compromises short-term public health and safety and security, due to the separation of plutonium. The trade-offs in nuclear energy are reducible to a chief trade-off between the present and the future. To what extent should we take care of our produced nuclear waste and to what extent should we accept additional risks to the present generation, in order to diminish the exposure of future generation to those risks? The advocates of the open fuel cycle should explain why they are willing to transfer all the risks for a very long period of time (200,000 years) to future generations. In addition, supporters of the closed fuel cycle should underpin their acceptance of additional risks to the present generation and make the actual reduction of risk to the future plausible.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 75 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 13 17%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Environmental Science 7 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Arts and Humanities 4 5%
Other 24 31%
Unknown 17 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2020.
All research outputs
#4,903,323
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#360
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,232
of 161,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 161,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.