| 1. |
- Högselius, Per, 1973-, et al.
(författare)
-
The Soviet Nuclear Archipelago : A Historical Geography of Atomic-Powered Communism
- 2024
-
Bok (refereegranskat)abstract
- The history of nuclear energy in the former Soviet Union and its successor states has attracted growing scholarly attention in recent years. Building on the earlier work of Paul Josephson and others, STS-inspired scholars like Sonja Schmid have analysed the cultural and political genesis of the Soviet nuclear boom during the 1970s and 80s, seeking to come to terms with the “technological pride” and the belief in progress that inspired Soviet nuclear engineers. Klaus Gestwa, Stefan Guth and Roman Khandozhko elaborated on what they call Soviet nuclear technopolitics and technoscience. Per Högselius explored the history of spent nuclear fuel and fuel cycle activities in the USSR. Kate Brown’s influential book Plutopia also targets fuel cycle activities rather than nuclear energy as such, while adding to Schmid’s work in scrutinizing the culture of the Soviet nuclear inner circle. In her most recent work, Brown turns to the effects of Soviet nuclear disasters and, in particular, those of Chernobyl as an acceleration in the spread of radionuclides across the globe. That tragedy has also been the focus of a rapidly growing body of research by other scholars from different countries. Another interesting strand of nuclear-historical research focusses on specific nuclear power plant sites such as Shevchenko (Aktau) in Kazakhstan and the unfinished Crimean NPP. Authors such as Tatiana Kasperski, Andrei Stsiapanau, Egle Rindzevičiūtė and Anna Storm have further examined the USSR’s nuclear programme from a cultural heritage perspective.The proposed book will add to this growing literature, while also challenging some of the dominant narratives. Addressing the Soviet nuclear complex in its diversity, we suggest that its history can be fruitfully narrated by approaching it from a spatial perspective. At a macro-level, we propose to theorize the history of nuclear energy in the USSR as a Large Technical System (LTS), consisting of a variety of components in the form of nuclear power plants and various fuel cycle facilities (uranium mines, enrichment plants, reprocessing plants, nuclear waste storage facilities, etc.). These interact with and are dependent upon each other, often over vast distances, through what we will call “macro-entanglements”, in which transport routes come to the fore as an additional key theme in nuclear energy history. Individual nuclear facilities, for their parts, often take the form of sub-systems in their own right. When zooming in on these, we find a range of “micro-“ or “meso-entanglements” in the form of the nuclear facility’s dependence on – and its shaping of – local and regional geographies, landscapes and environments. For this reason, we propose to theorize these sub-systems as “envirotechnical” systems. The envirotechnical analytical lens has earlier been found useful for historical analysis of nuclear energy, as demonstrated by Sara Pritchard in the case of France and Japan, while our “entanglement” perspective takes inspiration from Gabrielle Hecht.Seen through this spatial lens, the history of nuclear energy in the Soviet Union can be thought of as an evolving “archipelago” of envirotechnical systems that interact with each other across – and beyond – the USSR. We borrow this Solzhenitsyn-inspired metaphor from the Russian anti-nuclear-weapons activist Alexander Yemelyanenkov, who used it to analyse the history of Soviet nuclear weapons. However, we propose to extend the “archipelago” analysis so that it covers not only the military, but also and above all the civilian nuclear history of the USSR, while mobilizing the metaphor as part of our LTS and envirotechnical analysis. This is in line with Robert Jacobs’ argument that both spheres, the civil and the military aspects of nuclear energy, should be thought of together as the technology is the same but the applications differ. It may also be observed that forced labour and military detachments were used to build large parts of the Soviet nuclear LTS, thus further justifying the implicit link to Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. Apart from Solzhenitsyn using the archipelago metaphor describing forced labour camps, members of the Soviet and Russian nuclear community also described the network of closed “atomic towns” as an archipelago.Our main argument will be that by putting the entanglements mentioned above at the centre of analysis, we are able to discern and understand key events and trends as they unfold at several interconnected geographical levels. This allows us to grasp the most important aspects of the long-term evolution of the Soviet nuclear archipelago, and what the historian of Soviet technology Paul Josephson has called “atomic-powered communism”.We make ample use, in a synthesizing way, of the existing literature on Soviet nuclear history, as referred to above, while also adding substantial new primary sources. We have already collected the archival documents of relevance, comprising materials from the Soviet Ministry of Energetics and Electrification (Minenergo), the Gidroproekt hydraulic (and later on nuclear) planning and design institute, Gosplan, and several Soviet Ukrainian and Soviet Lithuanian institutions. This was possible through visits to archives in Moscow, Samara, Vilnius and Kiev before the onset of Russia’s war on Ukraine. We also make use of the private archive of Dima Litvinov, campaigner from Greenpeace Russia during the 1990s. Contemporary literature, published in the form of specific monographs and scientific articles, comprise another important corpus of sources. Publications by leading nuclear actors like Dollezhal, Vorobiev, Sidorenko, Alexandrov, Koryakin, Margulis and Medvedev are to be named here. The specialized journal Atomnaya Energiya and the publisher Energoatomizdat have also been useful. Furthermore, publications on specific nuclear power plants for the occasion of anniversaries provide valuable insight into the internal discourses among scientific-technical personnel. This material is accompanied by materials from digitally available Soviet newspaper archives.
|
|
| 2. |
- Klüppelberg, Achim, 1990-
(författare)
-
Between Energy Complexes and a Special Mining Industry : The Outstanding Role of the Urals and Siberia for the Soviet Nuclear Programme
- 2021
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This paper investigates the central role of the Urals and Siberia for the Soviet nuclear programme during the 25-year-period of 1966-1991, with a special focus on the role of water as a technological means and corresponding envirotechnical water systems.The Urals have shown their centrality for the Soviet nuclear geography in multiple ways. While most electricity was and is consumed west of the mountain ranges, crucial steps of the nuclear lifespan, such as mining, fuel element production and reprocessing are located within the Urals and in Siberia. It is this specific geographic setup that make a discussion of the relationship(s) between humans, waterways, and the environment in regard to nuclear worthwhile. Since during Soviet times a narrative prevailed that focussed on conquering nature, deeply embedded in the separation of human and nature, the limitations of this way of conceptualising nuclear energy became apparent in failures, such as the Mayak incident. The ecological crisis through which we are living right now, calls for a re-thinking of this nature-culture divide. In terms of the nuclear geography, this means that we as humans are not so separated anymore from artificial radioisotopes. The Anthropocene clearly shows, how first humankind altered the natural landscape through the establishment of large technological systems, such as the Soviet nuclear production process. Conversely, our way(s) of living and our bodies got changed by that as well. Therefore, our human embeddedness with technology and nature needs to be rethought and reevaluated. Only then can the human connection to nature be reconciled, and the challenges we are facing solved within a framework of advancing society’s prosperity and conserving nature at the same time.What can an analysis of the Soviet way of organising the nuclear geography tell us in this regard? By outlining the way it was arranged, pointing towards the idea of creating joint energy complexes and following the single steps of the nuclear lifespan encompassing the Pryagunskyi mine and the Mayak facilities, this paper tries to clearly describe and interpret the character of human-water-environment relationships during the Soviet period. The centrality of the Urals and Siberia for this process needs to be pointed out, since most research focusses on developments in the European parts of the Union and its former Warsaw-Treaty-allies.
|
|
| 3. |
- Klüppelberg, Achim, 1990-
(författare)
-
Chernobyl as a Post-Soviet Memory Space : How Ideas of Progress and Fear Shaped a Nuclear Heritage Site
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Baltic Worlds. - Stockholm. - 2000-2955 .- 2001-7308. ; XV:3-4, s. 61-65
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- What Chernobyl means to different people has dramatically changed over time. Today, its image mostly invokes fear of radiation, illness, as well as uncertainty. The ruins of the plant are regarded as a somewhat unpredictable source of danger that needs constant attention and monitoring. This is a remarkable historical change from how Chernobyl used to be seen. Before 1986, the construction of Ukraine’s first major nuclear power plant symbolized progress and the hope for a better future. In light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and recent media coverage of nuclear energy in this context, Chernobyl has truly become a memory space, serving as a place for projections of a multitude of attitudes regarding nuclear safety, catastrophe, war, maintenance and negligence.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Klüppelberg, Achim, 1990-
(författare)
-
Combining Old Hydrological And New Nuclear Tradition : Energy complexes as the solution to Soviet electricity scarcity
- 2020
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper investigates the innovative juncture of hydropower and nuclear engineering tradition in the form of joint energy complexes in the Soviet Union in the 16-year-period of 1970-1986. Essential constituents of engineering culture in the Soviet pre-Chernobyl nuclear era will be highlighted. During this period, the USSR tried to stimulate its economy with cheap electricity to counter economic stagnation. In this situation Communist politicians brought forth a grand-scheme nuclear agenda. This agenda encapsulated the civil nuclear industry as the very symbol of societal progress. Its promise of abundant cheap electricity would re-fuel the ailing economy, show the world the technological strength of the country and proof to the population that indeed further steps were being taken. Soviet nuclear decision-makers envisioned the creation of energy complexes, in which a nuclear power plant would provide the energy grid’s baseload, while accompanying hydropower plants would contribute the peak-demand-regulation. These complexes were planned to be huge (5-10 GWe) and obvious lighthouses for Soviet imaginaries of advancing towards Communism. By thus combining the older hydrological with the newer nuclear tradition, these energy complexes signified a unique Soviet approach to coping with electricity shortages. The paper makes use of new archival material to trace the ways Soviet nuclear and hydraulic engineers together created some of these complexes – and how they thereby also transformed the Soviet Union’s natural environment. Archival Planning and projecteering documents from Gidroproekt as well as central-planning material from the Ministry of Energetics and Electrification provide the basis of this presentation. Gidroproekt in particular brings together the hydraulic and the nuclear tradition and will therefore be a key source. Additionally, systems approaches and further theoretical concepts engaging human societies, material and natural environment will be discussed to reflect upon a proper analysis ofthe new-found archival material.
|
|
| 6. |
- Klüppelberg, Achim, 1990-
(författare)
-
“Completely Original and Progressive” : Energy Complexes as Focal Points of Soviet Imaginaries of Progress
- 2022
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This paper investigates the juncture of hydropower and nuclear engineering traditions in the form of energy complexes in the Soviet Union during the 25-year-period of 1966-1991. During this period, the USSR tried to stimulate its economy with cheap electricity to counter economic stagnation. Communist politicians brought forth a grand-scheme nuclear agenda to address this issue. It encapsulated the civil nuclear industry as the symbol of societal progress. The promise of abundant and cheap electricity would re-fuel the ailing economy, demonstrate the technological strength of the country and prove to its own people that concrete steps were being taken towards the realisation of communism. Soviet engineers from the hydrotechnical institute Gidroproekt envisioned the creation of energy complexes, in which a nuclear power plant would provide the energy grid's baseload, while accompanying hydropower plants would contribute the peak-demand-regulation. By combining these two means and functions in electricity production, irrigation for agriculture and the yield of local fisheries could be improved. These complexes were planned to be large (5-10 GWe) and symbols for Soviet imaginaries of Socialist progress. By thus combining older hydraulic with newer nuclear traditions, these complexes signified a Soviet approach to coping with electricity shortages in a context of economic struggle. The article makes use of archival planning material from Gidroproekt and Minenergo. This is done to illustrate how Soviet nuclear and hydraulic engineers created plans for three energy complexes. At the Southern Ukrainian, Rozhnyatovskij and Kolskij energy complex the technocratic mixture of hydraulic and nuclear traditions manifested itself in remarkable attempts to change the natural environment – as envisioned proof of Soviet technological superiority.
|
|
| 7. |
- Klüppelberg, Achim, 1990-
(författare)
-
‘Completely Original and Progressive’ : The South-Ukraine Energy Complex as a Soviet Imaginary of Progress
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Europe-Asia Studies. - Abingdon-on-Thames : Taylor & Francis. - 0966-8136 .- 1465-3427.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article investigates the juncture of hydropower and nuclear engineering traditions at the South-Ukraine Energy Complex in the USSR from the late 1960s onwards. Engineers from the hydrotechnical institute Gidroproekt majorly contributed to the envisioning, planning and realisation of this energy complex. A nuclear power plant would provide the energy grid's baseload, while accompanying hydropower plants would contribute the peak-demand-regulation. In combination, synergies beneficial to agricultural irrigation and pisciculture could be created. A mixture of hydraulic and nuclear technocratic traditions manifested itself in a large-scale attempt to change the natural environment – as envisioned proof of Soviet technological superiority.
|
|
| 8. |
- Klüppelberg, Achim, 1990-
(författare)
-
Creating Chernobyl : Technocratic Culture and Everyday Life in Nuclear Ukraine, 1970-1982
- 2024
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Starting in 1970, this article studies how Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was built. It follows the station’s operational history until 1982. During this year, reactor block one suffered a torn reactor channel, already four years prior to the well-known catastrophe of 1986. It uncovers the genesis of these accidents by analysing everyday history at the construction site. Construction relied on long established tools and processes, tried out at large-scale and mostly non-nuclear development areas. Masons, carpenters, and welders dealt with planned quotas and deadlines, material and personnel shortages, as well as a lack in quality management. The tools they used to build this nuclear giant were rather a shock of the old (Edgerton) than futuristic.It uncovers circumstances, non-alignments, and decisions that amounted to a working environment that was characterised by a technocratic culture. This culture overemphasised the fulfilment of plans and quotas to the detriment of safety as should have been warranted by the nature of a nuclear reactor as specified in plans and regulations. By following the construction of the plant in its everyday struggles, this article shows characteristics of the working culture that evolved on-site and led to the accident of 1982. This innovative approach helps to understand, why and how the catastrophe of 1986 could have begun – beyond the two standard reasons established in the literature of a faulty reactor design and mistakes made by the operators.
|
|
| 9. |
- Klüppelberg, Achim, 1990-
(författare)
-
Energy Complexes as Moscow's Way to Develop the Soviet Periphery
- 2021
-
Ingår i: With And After Empire.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This presentation investigates the juncture of hydropower and nuclear engineering traditions in the form of energy complexes in the Soviet Union during the 25-year-period of 1966-1991. During this period, the USSR tried to stimulate its economy with cheap electricity to counter economic stagnation. Communist politicians brought forth a grand-scheme nuclear agenda to address this issue. It encapsulated the civil nuclear industry as the symbol of societal progress. The promise of abundant and cheap electricity would re-fuel the ailing economy, demonstrate the technological strength of the country and prove to its own people that concrete steps were being taken towards the realisation of communism.In fact, a nuclear-powered energy complex would also help the imperial centre to economically develop prospective areas at the periphery in the southern and western parts of Ukraine, as well as in the Arctic North. In this way, electricity supply was a means for creating interconnectedness and thus helping to shape one Soviet people out of many different nationalities.Soviet engineers from the hydrotechnical institute Gidroproekt envisioned therefore the creation of energy complexes, in which a nuclear power plant would provide the energy grid's baseload, while accompanying hydropower plants would contribute the peak-demand-regulation. By combining these two means and functions in electricity production, irrigation for agriculture and the yield of local fisheries could be improved. These complexes were planned to be large (5-10 GWe) and symbols for the magnitude of Socialist progress. By thus combining older hydraulic with newer nuclear traditions, these complexes signified a Soviet approach to coping with electricity shortages in a context of economic struggle and imperial consolidation.The article makes use of archival planning material from Gidroproekt and Minenergo. This is done to illustrate how Soviet nuclear and hydraulic engineers created plans for three energy complexes. At the Southern Ukrainian, Rozhnyatovskij and Kolskij energy complex the technocratic mixture of hydraulic and nuclear traditions manifested itself in remarkable attempts to change the natural environment – as envisioned proof of Soviet technological superiority.The Southern Ukrainian Energy Complex is still online in independent Ukraine and provides with three Soviet-era nuclear reactors and two hydro power plants a vast amount of electricity of the surrounding provinces. This case encapsulates the theme of this conference perfectly. Since it was the Ukrainian branch of Gidroproekt, which actually lobbied for its construction in 1969/1970, nuclear power plants were during the independence struggle of Ukraine seen as an imperial remnant from Moscow, which needed to be nationalised. While Ukrainian authorities took over the control of the complex after 1991, the country remained dependent upon Russian uranium lifespan services. Given the current warring confrontation between Ukraine and Russia, the Southern Ukrainian Nuclear Power Plant started a cooperation with Westinghouse, as an alternative supplier of fuel. In this way, the imperial legacy of Soviet energy complex planning overshadows the enviro-technical system of the southern Bug region even today.
|
|
| 10. |
- Klüppelberg, Achim, 1990-
(författare)
-
Hydrology meets nuclear engineering : Energy complexes as focal points of Soviet imaginaries of progress
- 2022
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- This presentation investigates the juncture of hydropower and nuclear engineering tradition in the form of energy complexes in the Soviet Union during the 25-year-periodof 1966-1991. During this period, the USSR tried to stimulate its economy with cheap electricity to counter economic stagnation. Communist politicians brought forth a grand-scheme nuclear agenda to address this issue. It encapsulated the civil nuclear industry as the symbol of societal progress. The promise of abundant and cheap electricity would re-fuel the ailing economy, demonstrate the technological strength of the country and proof to its own people that concrete steps were being taken towards the realisation of communism.Soviet engineers from Gidroproekt – the USSR’s flagship hydraulic engineering agency –envisioned the creation of energy complexes, in which a nuclear power plant would provide the electricity grid’s baseload, while accompanying hydropower plants would contribute to peak-demand regulation. By combining these two means and functions inelectricity production, irrigation for agriculture and the yield of local fisheries could at thesame time be improved. The Soviet energy complexes were planned to be large (5-10GWe) and they became powerful beacons for Soviet imaginaries of socialist progress. By thus combining older hydrological with newer nuclear traditions, the complexes signified a Soviet approach to coping with electricity shortages in a context of economic crisis.The presentation makes use of archival planning material from Gidroproekt and the Soviet Ministry of Energy. It illustrates how Soviet nuclear and hydraulic engineers created plans for three specific energy complexes. At the Southern Ukrainian, the Rozhnyatovskii and the Kolskii energy complexes the technocratic mixture of hydraulicand nuclear tradition manifested itself in remarkable attempts to change the naturalenvironment – envisioned as proof of Soviet technological superiority.
|
|
