Nuclear cultural heritage as a basis for the search for a final repository?

The first article in the blog series defines nuclear cultural heritage. It also describes how it is determined in Germany and the areas in which it has already developed. Previous posts in this series have examined the development of such heritage in various contexts. Firstly, the example of uranium mining in the Wismut region is explored. Secondly, nuclear research in Garching is discussed. Thirdly, the researchers examined the decades of social protest in Gorleben, which was initially directed against the planned national waste disposal centre. So, what significance can this cultural heritage have for the current search for a final repository and beyond?

The search for a final repository site – a long process

The search for a final repository site for the high-level radioactive waste resulting from the use of nuclear energy is a huge undertaking. The Repository Site Selection Act (StandAG) prescribes how the search is to be conducted. A study published in German in 2024 examined the procedures set out in the Act and how long they will likely take. The Act sets 2031 as the target date. However, based on current knowledge, this timeframe is too short. Taking the current state of knowledge into account, the study shows that the search will not be completed until 2074. The search for a final repository site is thus a long-term societal project that will continue for many decades. This includes the construction of the repository and the disposal of high-level radioactive waste. The safe disposal of high-level radioactive waste and these long timeframes involve a number of uncertainties and imponderables. How can knowledge be preserved and safeguarded over many years? Nuclear cultural heritage can ensure that society remains attentive to this issue and thus contribute to the preservation of knowledge.

Enabling a long-term and place-sensitive approach

Nuclear cultural heritage can contribute to the long-term governance of nuclear waste. Place-sensitive long-term governance aims to facilitate forward-looking, adaptive and flexible decision-making. In this context, all relevant institutions and stakeholders should cooperate throughout the entire final disposal process. At places of nuclear cultural heritage, too, stakeholders and institutions cooperate over long periods of time; this can provide valuable insights for the site selection process for a final repository and help establish connections with stakeholders and institutions within the framework of long-term governance. This contributes to the institutionalisation of nuclear cultural heritage and strengthens the decision-making mechanisms and structures of long-term governance. In the context of site selection, nuclear cultural heritage is significant in terms of public participation, risk perception, long-term documentation and reversibility. Nuclear cultural heritage can make a contribution here because it brings together material objects such as buildings or parts of nuclear facilities, as well as memorials, documents and immaterial practices of remembrance through, for example, archival or cultural work. The site selection process can thus become more place-sensitive and therefore more socially acceptable. 

Nuclear cultural heritage helps maintain public awareness of the issue of final repositories. Stakeholders are involved across generations, ensuring the topic remains present across different groups and locations. Specifically, this means the following in relation to the four points mentioned above:

To what extent has institutionalisation already taken place?

Understanding and analysing various sites and forms of nuclear cultural heritage as institutions allows for a nuanced examination of their potential role in final repository governance. Different forms of institutionalisation potentially entail different roles and contributions.

The extent to which nuclear cultural heritage is already institutionalised in Germany varies greatly depending on the region. There are formal, informal and mixed forms of institutionalisation. These include, for example, state-run institutions such as archives or museums, recurring intangible practices such as the Gorleben walks, and hybrid forms such as archives run by associations. Engagement can take place passively through the remembrance of objects or actively through the remembrance of practices such as the mining parades in the Wismut region or prayer at the Gorleben memorial site. Institutionalisation requires a shared narrative and a common goal, which is provided by the site selection process. 77 places of potential nuclear cultural heritage have been identified across Germany. The clustering of several places of nuclear cultural heritage indicates a high degree of institutionalisation. Long-term institutionalisation requires the linking of different objects, artefacts and practices, as well as securing funding, e.g. through donations or grants. Academic and artistic engagement are beneficial in this regard. Nuclear cultural heritage is sustained by a wide range of well-connected stakeholders, including civil society, academics, and government actors.

Conclusion

The starting points for places of nuclear cultural heritage are always nuclear facilities that are the focus of public debate in various locations. These debates can take very different forms, such as in the Wismut region, where uranium mining was long viewed positively and critical discourse was not permitted, or in Gorleben, where there was significant public protest involving new forms of expression. Nuclear cultural heritage is a resource for addressing the long-term task of finding a final repository site for high-level radioactive waste and contributing to the safe disposal of high-level radioactive waste over an extended period. Through nuclear cultural heritage, knowledge can be preserved and additional perspectives brought into participatory processes. Memories, experiences, and regional practices can thus become a sustainable contribution to final repository governance. This requires spaces for continuous exchange, a wide range of and strong connections between stakeholders as well as participating institutions, and reliable funding.

Dr. Melanie Mbah is Research Coordinator for Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research at Oeko-Institut and is involved in the GTPF, the German Society for Transdisciplinary and Participatory Research.

Further information

Blog post ‘Protest as nuclear cultural heritage: the example of Gorleben in Germany‘

Blog post ‘Garching's research reactor as nuclear cultural heritage‘

Blog post ‘The nuclear cultural heritage in the Wismut region of Germany’

Blog post ‘What is nuclear cultural heritage?’

Journal article Mbah, M.; Noka, V.; Lampke, A.; Kelly, R.; Kuppler, S. (2025): 'What is Nuclear Cultural Heritage? Developing an analytical framework.' Energy Research & Social Science 124.

Study ‘Status Quo of Nuclear Cultural Heritage in Germany and its Significance for Nuclear Waste Management’ (in German)

Study ‘Relational analyses of tangible and intangible nuclear cultural heritage in Germany’ (in German)

Study: ‘Mapping of places of potential nuclear heritage in Germany’ (in German)

Annotated bibliography of literature on nuclear cultural heritage in Germany