Next Article in Journal
Improving Torque Analysis and Design Using the Air-Gap Field Modulation Principle for Permanent-Magnet Hub Machines
Previous Article in Journal
Characteristics and Key Controlling Factors of the Interbedded-Type Shale-Oil Sweet Spots of Qingshankou Formation in Changling Depression
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 16
Issue 17
10.3390/en16176215
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Global Review of International Nuclear Waste Management

by
Pablo Fernández-Arias
*,
Diego Vergara
and
Álvaro Antón-Sancho
Technology, Instruction and Design in Engineering and Education Research Group, Catholic University of Ávila, 05005 Ávila, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2023, 16(17), 6215; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176215
Submission received: 2 August 2023 / Revised: 18 August 2023 / Accepted: 25 August 2023 / Published: 27 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Section B: Energy and Environment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the current situation of global energy transition, nuclear energy maintains its reputation as a stable power generation technology, without dependence on other resources and without CO2 emissions. However, one of the main problems with its use is the management of the radioactive waste it generates, which has given rise to different international strategies: (i) reprocessing; (ii) storage; and (iii) disposal. Given the interest generated by nuclear energy in recent times and the need to manage the waste generated, this paper presents a global review of the different international nuclear waste management strategies, using a scientific method based on (i) a bibliometric review of the scientific publications related to nuclear waste management and (ii) an analysis of the technical aspects of the different international management strategies. The effective and safe management of nuclear waste will contribute to the advancement of international nuclear energy development strategies that encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants and the lifetime extension of existing ones.

1. Introduction

Waste is a consequence of the consumerist society in which we live [1]. The way waste is managed traditionally generates a great deal of social controversy [2,3,4]. In the specific case of radioactive waste, its management raises doubts about the social distribution of the benefits and disadvantages of nuclear energy [5,6,7].
Nuclear energy is considered the evolution of electricity generation technology based on thermodynamic cycles, which consumes increasingly scarce energy resources, such as oil and coal, and generates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [8]. However, although nuclear power plants do not generate GHG emissions, their operation remains controversial due to the nuclear waste generated, which is not only dangerous for living beings but also difficult to dispose of [8,9].
The production of radioactive waste is increasing day by day worldwide [10]. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conventionally divides radionuclides depending on half-lives of the decay into (a) short-lived (with a half-life less than 31 years) [11] and (b) long-lived (with a half-life of more than 31 years) [12]. Five different classes of radioactive waste (Figure 1) are used as the basis of classification [13]: (i) very-short-lived waste (VSLW), which can be stored for decay over a limited period, of up to a few years; (ii) very-low-level waste (VLLW), which does not need a high level of containment and isolation and, therefore, is suitable for disposal in near-surface landfill-type facilities; (iii) low-level waste (LLW), with above-clearance levels but with limited amounts of long-lived radionuclides; (iv) intermediate-level waste (ILW), which contains long-lived radionuclides, which require a greater degree of containment and isolation than that provided by near-surface disposal; (v) high-level waste (HLW), with levels of activity concentration high enough to generate significant quantities of heat from the radioactive decay process [14].
In view of the high levels of activity and the half-life, the present research focuses on the bibliometric review of published works on different HLW management technologies. HLWs are radioactive wastes containing appreciable concentrations of long-lived alpha-emitting and/or beta-gamma-emitting radionuclides with half-lives longer than 30 years, which can generate heat due to radioactive decay, given their high specific activity, as well as be active for thousands or tens of thousands of years [15,16].
The HLWs are sufficiently radioactive that their decay heat (>2 kW/m3) significantly increases their temperature and that of their surroundings. HLW results from the consumption of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor, called Spent Fuel (SF). HLW contains the fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. HLW represents only 3% of the total volume of the nuclear waste generated, but accounts for 95% of the total radioactivity of the waste produced [17,18].
Given the current global challenge of achieving climate neutrality and the inability of renewable energies to provide sufficient energy as the only technologies for electricity generation, nuclear energy is positioned as a base technology capable of supporting renewable energies to achieve these objectives [19]. There are currently 410 nuclear reactors in operation in the world, representing about 360 GWe of installed power [20]. Of these nuclear power plants (NPPs) in operation, the PWR design stands out, accounting for more than 50% of the total [21]. There are also 57 reactors under construction that will account for an additional 59 GWe [20].
Considering that radioactive waste is produced regularly, for the safe use of nuclear energy in the future and to avoid permanent damage to the environment, the safe and efficient management of HLW is necessary. There are several HLW management strategies (Table 1), which can be classified into (i) reprocessing; (ii) uranium and plutonium reuse; (iii) transport of spent fuel; (iv) storage: wet, dry, temporary, and deep geological repository.
If nuclear energy is positioned as an energy technology of the future, there should also be a greater tendency on the part of the scientific community to investigate the management of HLW. Different authors have carried out scientific reviews of the development of HLW management technologies [43,44,45], as well as of the possible modifications that different strategies and political decisions may cause [46,47], or of the different patents [48] that these technologies generate. There are also reviews on new management technologies, such as membrane purification [49] and Molten Salt Oxidation for Radioactive Waste Treatment [50]. Research has even been carried out on the generation of nuclear waste from future nuclear fusion facilities [51]. Few are the references that perform a bibliometric review on waste management research, and those that have been found [52,53] do not use software to analyze the data. As far as we have been able to determine, no studies have been found that combine bibliometric analysis of the different nuclear waste management technologies and study their implementation at the international level.
Given this scenario, the research objective of the present paper is to analyze the state of the specialized literature on the use of different HLW management technologies and their implementation at the international level. For this purpose, this paper develops a bibliometric and technical review of the different nuclear waste management technologies. The motivation for combining the bibliometric review and the technical review is to help the scientific community to identify interest in the subject, as well as to assist in the technical analysis of the different international nuclear waste management strategies.

2. Methodology

To achieve the research objective, a combined methodology is developed (Figure 2), in which first a bibliometric review of the scientific publications related to the different radioactive waste management strategies is performed, followed by an analysis of the different international HLW management strategies. The formulation of objectives (Phase I, Figure 2) is developed in the introduction. Regarding the data retrieval (Phase I, Figure 2), the bibliographic database selected is Scopus, since (i) it is a database of international relevance; (ii) in addition to collecting bibliographic information, it analyzes the behavior of citations received by the journals and, based on these data, allows the generation of a large number of bibliometric indicators, including the h-index [54,55,56]; (iii) it has earned its place as a comprehensive bibliographic data source, and it has proven itself to have a similar level of reliability as WoS [57].
This study examines the English documents found. The data were collected in June 2023 from the Scopus database, one of the most important and widely used bibliographic databases. Table 2 contains the 14 keywords used in the Scopus search engine (Phase I, Figure 2). These keywords were selected based on three criteria [58]: (i) nuclear waste type; (ii) approach; and (iii) radioactive waste class.
Scopus searches were performed by constructing complex keyword search strings. Thus, the complex keyword string was searched in the article record—Title, abstract, and keywords—not in the full text. A search string is the combination of text, numbers, and special characters, if any, that a user enters to find certain results. To ensure an exhaustive search and find more relevant results in Scopus (Phase I, Figure 2), we included a series of keywords, as well as a combination of Boolean operators (AND and OR). Table 3 shows the search string used in the Scopus search engine.
After applying the search criteria, the results were processed using a VOSviewer® 1.6.16 (developed by Leiden University, Netherlands) similarity visualization program to graphically present some of the possible results (Phase II, Figure 2). The bibliometric review methodology provides a categorized view of the documents published in the field, thereby being a resource increasingly employed in reviews [59]. The use of VOSviewer® 1.6.16 software, in turn, offers the possibility of presenting the data graphically, by means of category maps [60]. As in previous bibliometric reviews [61,62], the present study analyzes different aspects: (i) simultaneous productivity of publications per year; (ii) sources; (iii) subject areas; (iv) co-citation between authors; (v) production between countries; and (vi) keyword trends and co-citation. The results determined the state of development and the main trends from the point of view of influence, main journals, articles, topics, authors, institutions, and countries.

3. Results

This section shows the results obtained in the bibliometric analysis (Phase II, Figure 2). The pioneering study related to nuclear waste identified in the SCOPUS database is from 1956 [63]. This article, on the United Kingdom atomic energy authority and its functions, already identified the need to develop appropriate facilities for the treatment of SF. Figure 3 illustrates the annual trends in publications on this topic, generated from the sample of 6242 articles.
In terms of annual productivity, less than two articles per year were published between 1956 and 1972. Between 1973 and 2002, an average of more than 76 articles per year were published, reaching a maximum relative value in 1986 with 149 articles related to the search. From 2003 onwards, the number of articles published has grown considerably, with an average of close to 200 results per year. In 2009, the maximum search result was reached, with 298 results. In 2011, 263 results were obtained, while in 2013, 277 results were obtained.
Of the 6242 results obtained, 3106 were published in journals (Table 4), while 2507 were published in conference proceedings, and 251 in books. Therefore, 94% of the results obtained in the search used these three source types.
In Scopus, it can be seen that among the most-used sources, “Proceedings of the international conference on radioactive waste management and environmental remediation ICEM”, a reference specializing in nuclear waste management, “Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings”, “Nuclear Technology”, and “High level radioactive waste management” stand out. Of the 6242 results obtained, Table 5 below shows the results obtained by the most relevant sources.
Figure 4 presents the co-citation map of the sources in which scientific articles related to the subject are published. There are different relevant clusters: Cluster I (light blue), led by “Proceedings of the international conference on radioactive waste management and environmental remediation ICEM”, with 342 results; Cluster II (dark blue), led by “Nuclear Engineering and Design”, with 117 results and an impact factor of 1.9; Cluster III (purple), led by “Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings”, with 237 results.
On the other hand, the 6242 articles are divided into 26 areas, with the top 5 specified in Table 6. The category “Engineering” is the main category, with 2802 associated results, equivalent to 44.88% of the total. The category with the second-most associated results is “Environmental Science”, with 2040 results; third place goes to “Energy”, with 1940 results. It is worth noting that the same article can be classified in more than one area, which can affect the partial and total statistics.
Figure 5 below shows the author co-citation network. The aim of co-citation is to determine which authors, based on the co-citations of others, are the most representative in terms of HLW management research, to the extent that these authors can be substitutes for the ideas they represent. Of the 5811 authors identified, 176 had more than five publications. Among the most relevant authors were (i) Armand, G. (Cluster I, purple), with 25 documents and 72 total link strength; (ii) Shao, H. and Rutqvist, J. (Cluster II, yellow), with 11 and 16 documents and 51 and 48 total link strength, respectively; (iii) Wang, J., with 27 documents and 41 total link strength (Cluster III, red). From the author co-citation analysis, we can also extract the data that the vast majority of authors appearing in the network have gained relevance from 2016 onwards.
The most cited article is “Global synthesis of groundwater recharge in semiarid and arid regions” [64], which has more than 770 citations in Scopus. The second-most cited article among the results of this search is “Environmental impact and management of phosphogypsum” [65], with 580 citations. Finally, the third-most cited article is “Radiaction effects in nuclear waste forms or high-level radioactive waste” [66], with 571 citations. The three most cited articles among the results of this search are prior to 2010, and none of their authors are among the most influential in terms of co-citations (Figure 5). It is worth noting that the top two most cited articles do not specifically address HLW technology management in their titles.
As for the analysis of keywords through co-occurrence (Figure 6), the most frequently used keywords were identified and analyzed to classify the 6242 articles in the sample. From this analysis, the most frequently occurring themes in the area analyzed stand out. Of the 6242 results found, 13,162 keywords were identified. Of these, 1306 words appeared more than five times, equivalent to approximately 10%.
Analyzing the author’s affiliation by country (Figure 7), it is observed that this research topic is global, since the 6242 articles that are part of the sample are distributed in more than 50 countries. Table 7 lists the ranking of the 10 countries with the highest number of academic articles in the field of research. Together, these countries have generated about 78% of the results obtained in the Scopus database. According to the data obtained, the United States is the country with the highest number of results generated, with a total of 1794 (approximately 28% of the results obtained), followed by countries such as France and the United Kingdom, with more than 500 results, as well as other countries such as Japan, Germany, and China, with a range of results obtained between 300 and 500.

4. Discussion

There are currently 410 nuclear reactors in operation in the world, with an electrical capacity of more than 360 GW. The 10 nuclear energy-development countries are the United States, France, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Canada, the Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and Germany [19]. As for nuclear reactors under construction, there are currently 57 reactors under construction that will add 59 GWe. The main countries building nuclear reactors are China, India, Turkey, the Republic of Korea, Egypt, and the United Kingdom. Also currently building nuclear power plants are the United States, France, and other countries like Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, and Russia [67].
If the results obtained from the bibliometric analysis are analyzed in terms of connections between countries, the different connections between the countries of origin of the research results obtained (Figure 7) allow identification of both the importance, in terms of results obtained, and the influence of each of the countries among the rest. In terms of research results obtained, it is worth highlighting the primary influence of the United States. Secondly, there is a set of more influential countries, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Thirdly, there are notable countries such as Canada, China, Japan, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland. Finally, in terms of influence, it is possible to observe that the countries with the highest number of lines of influence are the United States, France, and the United Kingdom.
In view of these results, the following is an analysis of the international HLW management strategies (Phase III, Figure 2) of the five most influential countries: (i) the United States; (ii) Germany; (iii) France; (iv) the United Kingdom; and (v) China. Additional reasons for the choice of these countries would also include the influence they have had on the nuclear industry throughout its history, as well as the future outlook. In order to carry out the analysis of international strategies for HLW, the following additional reasons for the choice of these countries are presented.
First, the United States is the country with the largest number of operating nuclear reactors, 93, amounting to almost 65 GWe of installed power. Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, the country was able to establish its entire nuclear industry in its national territory and export its technologies to the rest of the world [19]. Regarding the future of the nuclear industry, the United States currently has the Vogtle-4 nuclear power plant under construction, which will have a Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor and will add an additional 1250 MWe to the installed nuclear power capacity in the country [68].
In terms of future directions, in the case of the United States, it is necessary to talk about the life extension of its different NPPs in operation. Although the first technical studies estimated a design life of 40 years for nuclear power plants, the passage of time and the different technical studies carried out have shown that it is possible to extend the life of NPPs [69]. Faced with this scenario, the United States has begun to extend the life of its NPPs to 80 years [20]. In addition, the United States is committed to the development and construction of the new technology of Small Modular Reactor (SMR) nuclear reactors, small reactors with a generating capacity of less than 300 MWe, which are characterized by their modular construction and a lower need for economic resources in their development as compared to large nuclear reactor designs [18].
In the case of Germany, its nuclear energy strategy changed after the incident at the Fukushima Daiichi NPP in Japan in 2011 [70]. Over the last 10 years, the European economic power has developed an energy transition strategy that has led to the closure of its nuclear power plants and an increase in the installed capacity of renewable technologies [71]. The former world power in nuclear energy, with more than 30 NPPs and an exporter of nuclear technology, has faced the closure of its NPPs and is now undergoing the progressive dismantling of its different NPPs [72].
With 56 NPPs in operation and 1 NPP under construction [19], France, the United Kingdom, and Finland represent the countries in Europe that are building NPPs on their territories. In France, the nuclear industry is a national reference and exports its technology to the rest of the world [73]. Likewise, nuclear energy in the country accounts for 70% of the energy generated; therefore, it will continue to bet on the long-term operation of its NPPs in operation [74].
The United Kingdom has been one of the great nuclear powers throughout the last century [75]. With the Second World War, the United Kingdom developed its own nuclear reactor technology, the Gas Cooled Reactor (GCR), and was able to build more than 40 reactors. Currently only nine remain in operation [19]. However, Brexit, rising global inflation, and the scarcity of energy resources [76,77] have accelerated the development of a strategy in favor of building new reactors in the country. The United Kingdom is currently building two NPPs at the Hinkley Point C, whose design will be, as in the French and Finnish case, the European-designed PWR reactor known as EPR [78], with a generating capacity of 1630 MWe [79]. The United Kingdom, like the United States, is also committed to the development and construction of the new SMR technology [18].
Finally, China’s commitment to nuclear energy is clear. The Asian giant currently has 55 reactors in operation, representing around 53 GWe of installed power. At the same time, it is currently building 21 additional reactors [19]. In the coming years, it will continue to build more nuclear reactors until it becomes the country with the largest number of nuclear reactors in the world, surpassing the United States and France. It has different nuclear reactor technologies, mainly of PWR design, which it also exports to the rest of the world [80]. Figure 8 below summarizes the nuclear energy strategies of these countries.
Regarding the management of HLW, it is necessary to take into account that there are two global management practices for these wastes: (i) open cycle, in which the used nuclear fuel is considered a waste, and (ii) closed cycle, in which the used fuel is treated in order to reuse it again for different purposes [81]. The open cycle includes the following storage technologies (Table 1): dry storage; temporary storage, and deep geological repository. The closed cycle includes the following technologies (Table 1): reprocessing and uranium and plutonium reuse.
To date, the United States has been managing its HLW in an open cycle, storing its SF in dry cask storage at nuclear power plants (NPPs) while awaiting a centralized dry storage site [82].
Germany was initially committed to the development of reprocessing technology but abandoned it definitively in 1989. Currently, Germany is aiming at the construction of a deep geological repository to store all SF from recently shutdown NPPs [83]. In the meantime, SF is expected to be stored in dry storage at specially designed sites at the various nuclear power plants and a wet storage facility at the Obrigheim NPP [82].
In the case of France, as it initially opted for the closed fuel cycle, nuclear fuel is not characterized as waste and is reprocessed [84,85], similar to other international powers, such as India, Japan, and Russia [86]. The generation of a new fuel called Metal Oxide (MOX) makes it possible to supply 5% of the nuclear fuel used in France [25]. It also has both wet and dry storage facilities. In recent years, the debate on the construction of a Deep Geological Storage (DGR) facility, in which the high- and medium-level waste from the 58 reactors that currently supply more than 70% of the country’s electricity consumption, would be stored, has been revived [87]. Contrary to other countries, research is also being undertaken in the field of partitioning and transmutation as well as long-term surface storage of wastes following conditioning [83].
The United Kingdom is another country that bet on SF reprocessing at the beginning of the development of the nuclear industry. It currently maintains active reprocessing technology and has a wet storage at a centralized storage are awaiting a DGR.
Like France and the United Kingdom, China has opted for reprocessing technology for the treatment of SF in its nuclear power plants [88]. China’s SF disposal policy consists of reprocessing first and then vitrifying the waste resulting from this process (Table 1), finally storing it geologically [82]. China expects to have DGR to store its HLW from 2050 onwards [89]. In Figure 9 below, a comparative study of the technology selection for HLW management in these countries is shown.
Having presented the analysis of different international HLW strategies, we will now present a comparison of this analysis with the results obtained in the bibliometric review. After carrying out three new searches in Scopus (Table 8), the results reaffirm the reality observed previously. In view of the results obtained, the scientific community focuses its interest on deep geological repository technology and on the different storage technologies, while showing very little interest in reprocessing technology.
If the analysis is made according to the different countries analyzed (Figure 10), the reality is even more evident. In view of the results obtained, globally, it is possible to state that Germany is the country that generates the least interest in research into the different HLW management technologies. However, the United States is the leader in terms of research into the various technologies. If the evolution of the research results obtained for the different technologies in the period 1995–2022 is analyzed globally, it is possible to affirm once again that the DGR technology is the one that generates the most interest in the scientific community of these five nuclear powers in the 20th century.
Judging by the rate of generation of scientific results in the period 1995–2022, it is possible to affirm that the storage technology, regardless of whether it is geological or temporary wet or dry, generates the most interest from the scientific community. The rate of generation of scientific results for this technology during the period 1995–2022 is continuously increasing. It is possible to affirm that in 1995 the scientific community of these five countries had no interest in the DGR, in view of the results obtained; however, over less than 30 years, the growth of scientific results has been exponential, even surpassing the results obtained for the different storage technologies.
To conclude, we compared the following variables jointly (Figure 11): (i) “nuclear energy” Scopus results; (ii) NPPs in operation [19]; (iii) NPPs under construction [19]; (iv) NPPs undergoing permanent shutdown [19]; and (v) nuclear waste management results (obtained in Table 7). We found that it is possible to state that in countries where there is a greater interest in nuclear energy research, regardless of its application, there is also a high interest in research in different nuclear waste management technologies, as is the case in the United States and China. Moreover, this interest in nuclear energy research and HLW management is translated into effort by the different actors involved in nuclear energy decision making (government, industry, regulatory bodies, society, etc.) invested in its operation and development, in view of the results obtained from NPPs in operation and under construction. Unlike China, where there are NPPs in a permanent shutdown situation, the United States will have to deal with the management of HLW soon, in view of the high number of NPPs facing permanent shutdown.
To a lesser extent, similar scenarios to those of the United States and China are observed in France and United Kingdom, where there is interest on the part of the scientific community and stakeholders involved in nuclear energy for its exploitation and development as a future source of electricity generation. Therefore, the great world powers of the United States, China, France, and United Kingdom have HLW management strategies that are supported by different technologies (reprocessing, storage, and DGR) and are optimistic about the future possibilities of nuclear technology.
The paradigmatic case is Germany, in view of the NPPs in operation, under construction, and facing permanent shutdown, as well as the results of research on nuclear waste management. In this European power, nuclear energy is not presented as a source of electricity generation to be considered in the current energy transition process and in view of the challenge of achieving climate neutrality by 2050. However, Germany is, together with the USA and China, a world power in nuclear energy research and its various applications. Germany will therefore have to address the management of the HLW generated in all its recently shut down and decommissioned NPPs in the coming years, even though there is no interest from the scientific community in research on such management, as the country is focused on a long-term HLW management strategy oriented towards the DGR.

5. Conclusions

Nuclear energy is presented as a real option in the current energy transition process and in the face of the challenge of achieving climate neutrality by 2050. Efficient and safe management of nuclear waste will contribute to the development of international nuclear energy development strategies that encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants and the lifetime extension of existing ones.
Given the interest generated by nuclear energy in recent times and the need to manage the waste generated, this paper presents a global review of the different international nuclear waste management strategies, using a scientific method based on (i) a bibliometric review of the scientific publications related to nuclear waste management and (ii) an analysis of the technical aspects of the different international management strategies. The bibliographic database selected to develop this review is Scopus. This database is a comprehensive bibliographic data source, and it has often proven to be better than WoS. Among the different radioactive wastes, HLW is the result of the consumption of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor. HLW contains the fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core and has a half-life of more than 30 years.
Currently, there are different technologies for HLW management: (i) reprocessing; (ii) storage; and (iii) disposal. In view of the results obtained in this research analyzing the situation of the main nuclear powers in the world, it is possible to affirm that the technology that generates the greatest interest among the scientific community is the Deep Geological Repository (DGR). The remaining technologies generate little interest among the scientific community, in view of the results obtained from the Scopus database. In the period 1995–2022, China showed high growth in terms of the results obtained for the different HLW management technologies. If the pace of development of the nuclear industry in the Asian giant continues as it has been, in the coming years it is possible that the research results for the different HLW management technologies and especially in DGR will continue to increase. Only the United States seems to be pursuing a HLW management strategy similar to China, and it shows more interest from the scientific community in view of the results obtained.
Other nuclear powers in the 20th century, such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, show nowadays a reduced interest in these technologies, being somewhat higher in the case of DGR. France and the United Kingdom will continue to focus on reprocessing in the coming years, while their scientific community will continue research on DGR. Germany, with a nuclear industry that has been totally paralyzed in recent years, seems to have only a low interest in repository and storage technologies.
As future lines of research, through bibliometric review, the following can be included: (i) investigating the different variables around nuclear waste management in other 21st century nuclear powers, such as Russia, South Korea, and Japan; (ii) identifying the different external factors that influence the international decision making on HLW management; (iii) analyzing the effectiveness of DGR technology in countries that are committed to nuclear energy as a source of electricity generation in the future.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.F.-A. and D.V.; methodology, P.F.-A. and D.V.; validation P.F.-A., D.V. and Á.A.-S.; formal analysis, P.F.-A., D.V. and Á.A.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, P.F.-A.; writing—review and editing, P.F.-A., D.V. and Á.A.-S.; supervision, D.V. and Á.A.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Harbiankova, A.; Kalinowski, S. MSW Management to Zero Waste: Challenges and Perspectives in Belarus. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Walsh, E.J. New dimensions of social movements: The high-level waste-siting controversy. Sociol. Forum 1988, 3, 586–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hamilton, J.T. Politics and Social Costs: Estimating the Impact of Collective Action on Hazardous Waste Facilities. RAND J. Econ. 1993, 24, 101–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Behrsin, I. Controversies of justice, scale, and siting: The uneven discourse of renewability in Austrian waste-to-energy development. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 59, 101252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mazur, A.; Conant, B. Controversy over a Local Nuclear Waste Repository. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1978, 8, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Solomon, B.D.; Andrén, M.; Strandberg, U. Three Decades of Social Science Research on High-Level Nuclear Waste: Achievements and Future Challenges. Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy 2010, 1, 13–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kharecha, P.A.; Hansen, J.E. Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 4889–4895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Schneider, M.; Froggatt, A. 2012–2013 world nuclear industry status report. Bull. At. Sci. 2014, 70, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Michael, E.K.; Eugene, A.R.; Dunlap, R.E. Public Opinion and Nuclear Waste Policymaking. In Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting; Dunlap, R.E., Kraft, M.E., Rosa, E.A., Eds.; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 1993; pp. 3–31. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hosan, M.I. Radioactive Waste Classification, Management and Environment. Eng. Int. 2017, 5, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. An, N.; Cui, Y.J.; Conil, N.; Talandier, J.; Conil, S. Soil–atmosphere interaction in the overburden of a short-lived low and intermediate level nuclear waste (LLW/ILW) disposal facility. Comput. Geotech. 2020, 124, 103610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ojovan, M.I.; Steinmetz, H.J. Approaches to Disposal of Nuclear Waste. Energies 2022, 15, 7804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Classification of Radioactive Waste, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSG-1, IAEA, Vienna. 2009. Available online: https://www.iaea.org/publications/8154/classification-of-radioactive-waste (accessed on 22 May 2023).
  14. Oettingen, M. Assessment of the Radiotoxicity of Spent Nuclear Fuel from a Fleet of PWR Reactors. Energies 2021, 14, 3094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Raj, K.; Prasad, K.K.; Bansal, N.K. Radioactive waste management practices in India. Nucl. Eng. Des 2006, 236, 914–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Vienna, J.D. Nuclear Waste Vitrification in the United States: Recent Developments and Future Options. Int. J. Appl. Glass Sci. 2010, 1, 309–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Federovich, E.D. Technical Issues of Wet and Dry Storage Facilities for Spent Nuclear Fuel. In Safety Related Issues of Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage; Lambert, J.D.B., Kadyrzhanov, K.K., Eds.; NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, L.; Liang, T. Ceramics for high level radioactive waste solidification. J. Adv. Ceram. 2012, 1, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fernández-Arias, P.; Vergara, D.; Antón-Sancho, Á. Bibliometric Review and Technical Summary of PWR Small Modular Reactors. Energies 2023, 16, 5168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Power Reactor Information System (PRIS). Available online: https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  21. Fernández-Arias, P.; Vergara, D.; Orosa, J.A. A Global Review of PWR Nuclear Power Plants. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dey, P.K.; Bansal, N.K. Spent fuel reprocessing: A vital link in Indian nuclear power program. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2006, 236, 723–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Luykx, F.; Fraser, G. Tritium Releases from Nuclear Power Plants and Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plants. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 1986, 16, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Natarajan, R. Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in India: Present challenges and future programme. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2017, 101, 118–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Alwaeli, M.; Mannheim, V. Investigation into the Current State of Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Waste Management—A State-of-the-Art Review. Energies 2022, 15, 4275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hyatt, N.C. Plutonium management policy in the United Kingdom: The need for a dual track strategy. Energy Policy 2017, 101, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yue, Q.; He, J.; Stamford, L.; Azapagic, A. Nuclear power in China: An analysis of the current and near-future uranium flows. Energy Technol. 2017, 5, 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhongyang, L.; Chunhua, C.; Shengpeng, Y.; Bin, W.; Lijuan, H.; Jin, W.; Yican, W. Safety evaluation of spent fuel road transportation based on weighted nearest neighbor method. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2019, 127, 412–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Qi, Z.; Yang, Z.; Li, J.; Guo, Y.; Yang, G.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, J. The Advancement of Neutron-Shielding Materials for the Transportation and Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Materials 2022, 15, 3255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fu, W.; Li, X.; Wu, X.; Zhang, Z. Investigation of a long term passive cooling system using two-phase thermosyphon loops for the nuclear reactor spent fuel pool. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2015, 85, 346–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jeong, J.; Cho, D.K.; Choi, H.J.; Choi, J.W. Comparison of the transportation risks for the spent fuel in Korea for different transportation scenarios. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2011, 38, 535–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Perrotta, J.A.; Terremoto, L.A.A.; Zeituni, C.A. Experience on wet storage spent fuel sipping at IEA-R1 Brazilian research reactor. Ann. Nucl. Energy 1998, 25, 237–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cho, C.-H.; Kim, T.-M.; Seong, K.Y.; Kim, H.-J.; Yoon, J.-H. Cost comparisons of wet and dry interim storage facilities for PWR spent nuclear fuel in Korea. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2011, 38, 976–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kook, D.; Choi, J.; Kim, J.; Kim, Y. Review of spent fuel integrity evaluation for dry storage. Nucl. Eng. Tech. 2013, 45, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. El-Samrah, M.G.; Tawfic, A.F.; Chidiac, S.E. Spent nuclear fuel interim dry storage; Design requirements, most common methods, and evolution: A review. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2021, 160, 108408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wegel, S.; Czempinski, V.; Oei, P.-Y.; Wealer, B. Transporting and Storing High-Level Nuclear Waste in the U.S.—Insights from a Mathematical Model. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rodríguez-Penalonga, L.; Moratilla Soria, B.Y. A Review of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Strategies and the Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Technologies. Energies 2017, 10, 1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Xu, Y.; Kang, J.; Yuan, J. The Prospective of Nuclear Power in China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fernández-Arias, P.; Vergara, D. Nuclear waste management in Spain: Analysis of the current situation and alternative strategies. Dyna 2021, 96, 355–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Hall, D.S.; Behazin, M.; Binns, W.J.; Keech, P.G. An evaluation of corrosion processes affecting copper-coated nuclear waste containers in a deep geological repository. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2021, 118, 100766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. King, F.; Hall, D.S.; Keech, P.G. Nature of the near-field environment in a deep geological repository and the implications for the corrosion behaviour of the container. Corros. Eng. Sci. Tech. 2017, 52, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Johnson, B.; Newman, A.; King, J. Optimizing high-level nuclear waste disposal within a deep geologic repository. Ann. Oper. Res. 2017, 253, 733–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tochaikul, G.; Phattanasub, A.; Khemkham, P.; Saengthamthawee, K.; Danthanavat, N.; Moonkum, N. Radioactive waste treatment technology: A review. Kerntechnik 2022, 87, 208–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kurniawan, T.A.; Othman, M.H.D.; Singh, D.; Avtar, R.; Hwang, G.H.; Setiadi, T.; Lo, W.-H. Technological solutions for long-term storage of partially used nuclear waste: A critical review. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2022, 166, 108736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sant’ana, L.P.; Cordeiro, T. Management of radioactive waste: A review. Proc. Int. Acad. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2016, 6, 38. [Google Scholar]
  46. Drace, Z.; Ojovan, M.I.; Samanta, S.K. Challenges in Planning of Integrated Nuclear Waste Management. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Maringer, F.J.; Šuráň, J.; Kovář, P.; Chauvenet, B.; Peyres, V.; García-Toraño, E.; Cozzella, M.L.; De Felice, P.; Vodenik, B.; Hult, M.; et al. Radioactive waste management: Review on clearance levels and acceptance criteria legislation, requirements and standards. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2013, 81, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Suh, J.W.; Sohn, S.Y.; Lee, B.K. Patent clustering and network analyses to explore nuclear waste management technologies. Energy Policy 2020, 146, 111794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ambashta, R.D.; Sillanpää, M.E.T. Membrane purification in radioactive waste management: A short review. J. Environ. Radioact. 2012, 105, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Kovarik, P.; Navratil, J.D.; John, J. Scientific and Engineering Literature Mini Review of Molten Salt Oxidation for Radioactive Waste Treatment and Organic Compound Gasification as well as Spent Salt Treatment. Sci. Tech. Nucl. Install. 2015, 2015, 407842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sandri, S.; Contessa, G.M.; D’Arienzo, M.; Guardati, M.; Guarracino, M.; Poggi, C.; Villari, R. A Review of Radioactive Wastes Production and Potential Environmental Releases at Experimental Nuclear Fusion Facilities. Environments 2020, 7, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chen, H.; Jiang, W.; Yang, Y.; Man, X.; Tang, M. A bibliometric analysis of waste management research during the period 1997–2014. Scientometrics 2015, 105, 1005–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Diaz-Maurin, F.; Sun, H.; Yu, J.; Ewing, R. Evolution and Structure of the Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management. MRS Advances 2019, 4, 959–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Falagas, M.E.; Pitsouni, E.I.; Malietzis, G.A.; Pappas, G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008, 22, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Burnham, J.F. Scopus database: A review. Biomed. Digit. Libr. 2006, 3, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y. Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 2008, 59, 1711–1726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pranckutė, R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications 2021, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Aguilar, S.; Telles, G.R.; Medina, P.; Quaresma, B.; Cyrino, F.L.; Castro, R. Wind power generation: A review and a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 218, 850–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cavalcante, W.Q.d.F.; Coelho, A.; Bairrada, C.M. Sustainability and Tourism Marketing: A Bibliometric Analysis of Publications between 1997 and 2020 Using VOSviewer Software. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Cruz-Cárdenas, J.; Zabelina, E.; Guadalupe-Lanas, J.; Palacio-Fierro, A.; Ramos-Galarza, C. COVID-19, consumer behavior, technology, and society: A literature review and bibliometric analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 173, 121179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tamala, J.K.; Maramag, E.I.; Simeon, K.A.; Ignacio, J.J. A bibliometric analysis of sustainable oil and gas production research using VOSviewer. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2022, 7, 100437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cockcroft, J. The United Kingdom atomic energy authority and its functions. Br. J. Appl. Phys. 1956, 7, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Scanlon, B.R.; Keese, K.E.; Flint, A.L.; Flint, L.E.; Gaye, C.B.; Edmunds, W.M.; Simmers, I. Global synthesis of groundwater recharge in semiarid and arid regions. Hydrol. Process. 2006, 20, 3335–3370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tayibi, H.; Choura, M.; López, F.A.; Alguacil, F.J.; López-Delgado, A. Environmental impact and management of phosphogypsum. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2377–2386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ewing, R.C.; Weber, W.J.; Clinard, F.W. Radiation effects in nuclear waste forms for high-level radioactive waste. Prog. Nucl. Energy 1995, 29, 63–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Nuclear Power Reactors in the World, Reference Data Series No. 2; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  68. Eash-Gates, P.; Klemun, M.M.; Kavlak, G.; McNerney, J.; Buongiorno, J.; Trancik, J.E. Sources of Cost Overrun in Nuclear Power Plant Construction Call for a New Approach to Engineering Design. Joule 2020, 4, 2348–2373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kim, S.H.; Taiwo, T.A.; Dixon, B.W. The Carbon Value of Nuclear Power Plant Lifetime Extensions in the United States. Nucl. Technol. 2022, 208, 775–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wittneben, B.B.F. The impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on European energy policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 15, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lechtenböhmer, S.; Samadi, S. Blown by the wind. Replacing nuclear power in German electricity generation. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 25, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Meyer, T. Relational territoriality and the spatial embeddedness of nuclear energy: A comparison of two nuclear power plants in Germany and France. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 71, 101823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Grubler, A. The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 5174–5188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pata, U.K.; Samour, A. Do renewable and nuclear energy enhance environmental quality in France? A new EKC approach with the load capacity factor. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2022, 149, 104249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Oberloskamp, E. Ambiguities of transnationalism: Social opposition to the civil use of nuclear power in the United Kingdom and in West Germany during the 1970s. Eur. Rev. Hist./Rev. Eur. 2022, 29, 417–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Rafindadi, A.A.; Mika’Ilu, A.S. Sustainable energy consumption and capital formation: Empirical evidence from the developed financial market of the United Kingdom. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2019, 35, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kaiser, W. Destined to Brexit? British Pathways to Membership in the European Communities 1945–73. Glob. Policy 2022, 13, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Oettingen, M. Modelling of the reactor cycle cost for thorium-fuelled PWR and environmental aspects of a nuclear fuel cycle. Geology Geophys. Environ. 2019, 45, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Černoch, F.; Zapletalová, V. Hinkley point C: A new chance for nuclear power plant construction in central Europe? Energy Policy 2015, 83, 165–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Xu, Y.C. Nuclear energy in China: Contested regimes. Energy 2008, 33, 1197–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Taebi, B.; Kloosterman, J.L. To Recycle or Not to Recycle? An Intergenerational Approach to Nuclear Fuel Cycles. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2008, 14, 177–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Status and Trends in Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-T-1.14 (Rev. 1), IAEA, Vienna. 2022. Available online: https://www.iaea.org/publications/14739/status-and-trends-in-spent-fuel-and-radioactive-waste-management (accessed on 25 May 2023).
  83. Wealer, B.; Seidel, J.P.; Hirschhausen, C. Decommissioning of nuclear power plants and storage of nuclear waste: Experiences from Germany, France, and the UK. In Technological and Economic Future of Nuclear Power; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 261–286. [Google Scholar]
  84. Richardson, S.; Danel, P.; Boutard, P.; Barrelier, P.; Viel, J.-F.; Malet, M.; Reman, O.; Carré, A. Childhood leukemia incidence in the vicinity of La Hague nuclear-waste reprocessing facility (France). Cancer Causes Control. 1993, 4, 341–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lefevre, J.F. Nuclear Waste Management Policy in France. Nucl. Tech. 2017, 61, 455–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Raj, B.; Vasudeva, P.R. Plutonium reprocessing, breeder reactors, and decades of debate. Bull. At. Sci. 2015, 71, 14–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lehtonen, M.; Kojo, M.; Jartti, T.; Litmanen, T.; Kari, M. The roles of the state and social licence to operate? Lessons from nuclear waste management in Finland, France, and Sweden. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 61, 101353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Chen, J.; Wei, M.; Liu, X.; Wang, J. Back-end of nuclear fuel cycle in China. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2012, 54, 46–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wang, J. High-level radioactive waste disposal in China: Update 2010. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Engin. 2010, 2, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
Energies 16 06215 g001
Figure 1. Radioactive waste classification.
Figure 1. Radioactive waste classification.
Energies 16 06215 g001
Energies 16 06215 g002
Figure 2. Scientific methodology outline.
Figure 2. Scientific methodology outline.
Energies 16 06215 g002
Energies 16 06215 g003
Figure 3. Publications by year (1956–2022) (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
Figure 3. Publications by year (1956–2022) (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
Energies 16 06215 g003
Energies 16 06215 g004
Figure 4. Co-citation and bibliographic matching (1956–2023) (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
Figure 4. Co-citation and bibliographic matching (1956–2023) (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
Energies 16 06215 g004
Energies 16 06215 g005
Figure 5. Authors with the highest number of co-citations (1956–2023). Source: developed by the authors in VOS Viewer software 1.6.16.
Figure 5. Authors with the highest number of co-citations (1956–2023). Source: developed by the authors in VOS Viewer software 1.6.16.
Energies 16 06215 g005
Energies 16 06215 g006
Figure 6. Keyword trends and cluster structure (1956–2023). Source: developed by the authors in VOS Viewer software 1.6.16.
Figure 6. Keyword trends and cluster structure (1956–2023). Source: developed by the authors in VOS Viewer software 1.6.16.
Energies 16 06215 g006
Energies 16 06215 g007
Figure 7. Bibliographic analysis of countries (1956–2023). Source: developed by the authors in VOS Viewer software 1.6.16.
Figure 7. Bibliographic analysis of countries (1956–2023). Source: developed by the authors in VOS Viewer software 1.6.16.
Energies 16 06215 g007
Energies 16 06215 g008
Figure 8. International strategies on nuclear power plants.
Figure 8. International strategies on nuclear power plants.
Energies 16 06215 g008
Energies 16 06215 g009
Figure 9. International strategies on the management of HLW.
Figure 9. International strategies on the management of HLW.
Energies 16 06215 g009
Energies 16 06215 g010
Figure 10. Evolution of the research results for the different technologies of HLW management (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
Figure 10. Evolution of the research results for the different technologies of HLW management (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
Energies 16 06215 g010
Energies 16 06215 g011
Figure 11. International comparison of different variables around nuclear waste management (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
Figure 11. International comparison of different variables around nuclear waste management (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
Energies 16 06215 g011
Table 1. Technologies for spent fuel management.
Table 1. Technologies for spent fuel management.
TechnologyDescriptionRelevant References
ReprocessingSF undergoing reprocessing can be separated into three main components: uranium, plutonium, and other wastes. The uranium and plutonium can be reused as nuclear fuel for reactors, while the fission and activation products are wastes, which are vitrified and stored for later handling and disposal. [22,23,24]
Uranium and plutonium reuseUranium separated in the previous reprocessing stage can be reused as fuel in reactors. Plutonium can be converted into MOX fuel, in which uranium and plutonium oxides are combined.[25,26,27]
Transport of spent fuelThe management of SL involves several transport steps between different facilities. Transportation activities are used by housing the SF in specially designed containers to ensure its refrigeration, safety, and the protection of workers and the general public.[28,29]
Wet StorageMost nuclear reactor designs have some form of spent fuel storage pools as an intermediate step.[30,31,32]
Dry StorageAfter a period of at least 5 to 10 years, nuclear fuel can be transferred into dry interim storage.[33,34,35]
Temporary StorageThe dry storage facilities are designed for long-term waste. The site should house all HLW and SF.[36,37,38,39]
Deep Geological RepositoryAn Underground facility is used for disposal of the HLW. It is based on the so-called multibarrier principle. Long-term protection of people and the environment is guaranteed.[40,41,42]
Table 2. Keywords selected.
Table 2. Keywords selected.
Nuclear Waste–Related KeywordsApproach-Related KeywordsRadioactive Waste Class Keywords
Nuclear waste, spent fuel, spent nuclear fuel, and radioactive wasteManagement, prediction, predicting, forecasting, program, practices, and technologiesHigh level, high-level, long term, long-range
Table 3. Search string for Scopus database.
Table 3. Search string for Scopus database.
Search String
TITLE-ABS-KEY (“nuclear waste” OR “spent fuel” OR “spent nuclear fuel”
        OR “radioactive waste”)
      AND (“management” OR “prediction” OR “predicting” OR “forecasting”
        OR “program” OR “practices” OR “technologies”)
      AND (“high level” OR “high-level” OR “long term” OR “long-term”
        OR “long range” OR “long-range”)
Table 4. Distribution source type (1956–2023) (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
Table 4. Distribution source type (1956–2023) (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
Source TypeNumberPercentage
Journal310649.76%
Conference Proceeding250740.16%
Book2514.02%
Trade Journal1662.66%
Book Series1632.61%
Other490.79%
Total6242100%
Table 5. Distribution source title (1956–2023) (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
Table 5. Distribution source title (1956–2023) (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
RankingSource TitleNumberPercentage
1Proceedings of the international conference on radioactive waste management and environmental remediation ICEM3425.48%
2Materials research society symposium proceedings2373.79%
3Nuclear technology1171.87%
4High level radioactive waste management1001.60%
5High level radioactive waste management proceedings of the annual international conference861.37%
6Nuclear engineering and design721.15%
Table 6. Number of publications by area (1956–2023) (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
Table 6. Number of publications by area (1956–2023) (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
RAreaResultsPercentage
1Engineering280244.88%
2Environmental Science204032.68%
3Energy194031.07%
4Physics and Astronomy101616.27%
5Earth and Planetary Sciences95315.27%
Table 7. Ranking of countries (1996–2022).
Table 7. Ranking of countries (1996–2022).
RCountryResults% of 6242
1United States179428.74%
2France5498.79%
3United Kingdom5118.18%
4Japan4667.46%
5Germany3976.36%
6China3195.11%
7Canada2714.34%
8Russian Federation2183.49%
9Belgium2013.22%
10Sweden1933.09%
Table 8. Search string and results (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
Table 8. Search string and results (data collected from Scopus database in June 2023).
Search StringResults
TITLE-KEY-ABASTRACT (“Nuclear waste” AND “reprocessing”);936
TITLE-KEY-ABSTRACT ((“Nuclear waste”) AND (“storage” OR “wet” OR “dry” OR “temporary”))3971
TITLE-KEY-ABSTRACT ((“Nuclear waste”) AND (“deep” OR “geological” OR “repository”))6434
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fernández-Arias, P.; Vergara, D.; Antón-Sancho, Á. Global Review of International Nuclear Waste Management. Energies 2023, 16, 6215. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176215

AMA Style

Fernández-Arias P, Vergara D, Antón-Sancho Á. Global Review of International Nuclear Waste Management. Energies. 2023; 16(17):6215. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176215

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fernández-Arias, Pablo, Diego Vergara, and Álvaro Antón-Sancho. 2023. "Global Review of International Nuclear Waste Management" Energies 16, no. 17: 6215. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176215

APA Style

Fernández-Arias, P., Vergara, D., & Antón-Sancho, Á. (2023). Global Review of International Nuclear Waste Management. Energies, 16(17), 6215. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176215

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop