What history can teach us about the future costs of U.S. nuclear power

Environmental Science and Technology

Volumn 41, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 2088-2093

  Hultman, Nathan E ^a,b   Koomey, Jonathan G ^c,d   Kammen, Daniel M ^e  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^d Stanford University   (United States)

^e Etcheverry Hall MCI 730   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FUTURE PROSPECT; HISTORY; NUCLEAR POWER; PLANNING PROCESS;

COST; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; FINANCE; NUCLEAR ENERGY; POLLUTANT; REACTOR; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SAFETY; TECHNOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34247174072     PISSN: 0013936X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/es0725089     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Sailor, W. C.; et al. A Nuclear Solution to Climate Change. Science 2000, 288, 1177-1178.
2. Rothwell, G. A Real Options Approach to Evaluating New Nuclear Power Plants. Energy J. 2006, 27, 37-53.
3. Bokenkamp, K.; et al. Hedging Carbon Risk: Protecting Customers and Shareholders from the Financial Risk Associated with Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Electricity J. 2005, 18, 11-24.
4. 2 Emission Reductions. Energy J. 2000, 21, 61-87.
5. Reedman, L.; Graham, P.; Coombes, P. Using a Real-Options Approach to Model Technology Adoption under Carbon Price Uncertainty: An Application to the Australian Electricity Generation Sector. Econ. Rec. 2006, 82, S64-S73.
6. Bunn, M.; et al. The Economics of Reprocessing Versus Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Nucl. Technol. 2005, 150, 209-230.
7. Lovins, A. B. Mighty Mice. Nucl. Eng. Int. 2005, December 21, 44-48.
8. Kammen, D. M.; Hassenzahl, D. M. Should We Risk It?: Exploring Environmental, Health, and Technological Problem Solving; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1999.
9. Deutsch, J.; et al. The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study: Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Boston, 2003; web.mit.edu/nuclearpower.
10. The Economic Future of Nuclear Power: A Study Conducted at the University of Chicago, August 2004; www. anl.gov/Special_Reports/NuclEconSumAug04.pdf.
11. U.S. Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee. Generation IV Roadmap: Technology Goals for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems; Generation IV International Forum, 2002, http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap.
12. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Status of License Renewal Applications and Industry Activities; Washington, DC, 2006; www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ licensing/renewal/applications.html.
13. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Semiannual Update of the Status of New Reactor Licensing Activities; Washington, DC, 2006; www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ doc-collections/commission/secys/2006/secy2006-0019/2006-0019scy.html.
14. La Porte, T. Large Technical Systems, Institutional Surprises, and Challenges to Political Legitimacy. Technol. Soc. 1994, 16, 269-288.
15. Hewlett, J. G. Economic and Regulatory Factors Affecting the Maintenance of Nuclear Plants. Energy J. 1996, 17, 31.
16. Lester, R. K.; Mccabe, M. J. The Effect of Industrial-Structure on Learning by Doing in Nuclear-Power-Plant Operation. Rand J. Econ. 1993, 24, 418-438.
17. Marshall, J. M.; Navarro, P. Costs of Nuclear-Power-Plant Construction - Theory and New Evidence. Rand J. Econ. 1991, 22, 148-154.
18. Rothwell, G. Contingency in Levelized Capital Cost Estimation. ACCE Intl. Trans. 2005, 18, 1-4.
19. Leung, P.; Durning, R. F. Power System Economics: On Selection of Engineering Alternatives. J. Eng. Power-Trans. ASME 1978, 100, 333-346.
20. Electric Power Research Institute. TAG-Technical Assessment Guide: Vol. 1: Electricity Supply, Revision 7; EPRI: Palo Alto, CA, 1993.
21. Gordon, D. A.; Kammen, D. M. Uncertainty and Overconfidence in Time Series Forecasts: Application to the Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index. Appl Financ. Econ. 1996, 6, 189-198.
22. Surrey, J.; Thomas, S. Worldwide Nuclear-Plant Performance - Lessons for Technology Policy. Futures 1980, 12, 3-17.
23. Collingridge, D. Lessons of Nuclear Power: U.S. and U.K. History. Energ. Policy 1984, 12, 46-67.
24. Collingridge, D. Lessons of Nuclear Power: French Success and the Breeder. Energ. Policy 1984, 12, 189-200.
25. Kazimi, M. S.; Todreas, N. E. Nuclear Power Economic Performance: Challenges and Opportunities. Annu. Rev. Energ. Env. 1999, 24, 139-171.
26. Joskow, P. L.; Rose, N. L. The Effects of Technological Change, Experience, and Environmental Regulation on the Construction Cost of Coal-Burning Generating Units. Rand J. Econ. 1985, 16, 1-27.
27. Duke, R.; Kammen, D. M. The Economics of Energy Market Transformation Programs. Energy J. 1999, 20, 15-64.
28. Nemet, G. F. Beyond the Learning Curve: Factors Influencing Cost Reductions in Photovoltaics. Energ Policy 2006, in press; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.06.020.
29. Zimmerman, M. B. Learning Effects and the Commercialization of New Energy Technologies - The Case of Nuclear Power. Bell J. Econ. 1982, 13, 297-310.
30. Komanoff, C. Power Plant Cost Escalation: Nuclear and Coal Capital Costs, Regulation, and Economics; Van Nostrana Reinhold: New York, 1982.
31. International Atomic Energy Agency. Developing an Economic Performance System To Enhance Nuclear Power Plant Competitiveness; IAEA: Vienna, 2002.
32. Rothwell, G. Utilization and Service - Decomposing Nuclear-Reactor Capacity Factors. Resour. Energ. 1990, 12, 215-229.
33. Koutsoyiannis, D. Statistics of Extremes and Estimation of Extreme Rainfall: I. Theoretical Investigation. Hydrolog Sci. J. 2004, 49, 575-590.
34. Boni, G.; Parodi, A.; Rudari, R. Extreme Rainfall Events: Learning from Raingauge Time Series. J. Hydrol. 2006, 327, 304-314.
35. Hannachi, A. Quantifying Changes and Their Uncertainties in Probability Distribution of Climate Variables Using Robust Statistics. Clim. Dynam. 2006, 27, 301-317.
36. Perrin, O.; Rootzen, H.; Taesler, R. A Discussion of Statistical Methods Used To Estimate Extreme Wind Speeds. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2006, 85, 203-215.
37. Songchitruksa, P.; Tarko, A. P. The Extreme Value Theory Approach to Safety Estimation. Accident Anal. Prev. 2006, 38, 811-822.
38. Kunreuther, H.; Pauly, M. Neglecting Disaster: Why Don't People Insure Against Large Losses? J. Risk Uncertainty 2004, 28, 5-21.
39. Kunreuther, H.; Novemsky, N.; Kahneman, D. Making Low Probabilities Useful. J. Risk Uncertainty 2001, 23, 103-120.
40. Lucas, A. A Note on Optimal Estimation From a Risk-Management Perspective Under Possibly Misspecified Tail Behavior. J Bus. Econ. Stat. 2000, 18, 31-40.
41. Lucas, A.; Klaassen, P. Extreme Returns, Downside Risk, and Optimal Asset Allocation. J. Portfolio Manage. 1998, 25, 71-79.
42. Gettinby, G. D.; et al. An Analysis of the Distribution of Extremes in Indices of Share Returns in the U.S., U.K., and Japan from 1963 to 2000. Intl. J. Finance Econ. 2006, 11, 97-113.
43. Walls, W. D.; Zhang, W. Using Extreme Value Theory To Model Electricity Price Risk with an Application to the Alberta Power Market. Energ. Explor. Exploit. 2005, 23, 375-403.
44. Rasin, W.; Hirao, K. Economic Modeling Working Group of the Generation IV International Forum. Cost Estimat ing Guidelines for Generation IV Nuclear Systems; Generation IV International Forum: Washington, DC, 2005; http://nuclear.inl.gov/deliverables/docs/emwgguide lines_rev2.pdf.
45. David, P.A.; Rothwell, G. Measuring Standardization: An Application to the American and French Nuclear Power Industries. Eur. J Polit. Econ. 1996, 12, 291-308.
46. Dubin, J. A.; Rothwell, G. S. Subsidy to Nuclear Power through Price-Anderson Liability Limit. Contemp. Econ. Policy 1990, 8, 73-79.
47. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Information Di gest: 2005-2006 Edition; Washington, DC, 2005.
48. Rothwell, G. U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Performance: Forecasting Productivity, Availability, and Reliability. Workingpaper, Department of Economics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, 1998.