Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 75-107

  Shrader Frechette, Kristin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

Atomic energy; Climate change; Conflicts of interest; Data trimming; Economics; Electricity; Energy; Global warming; Greenhouse gas emissions; Nuclear power; Renewable; Solar photovoltaic; Wind

Indexed keywords

EID: 79951943552     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 16605454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Aabakken, J. (2005). Power technologies energy data book: Third edition. Golden, CO: US DOE, National Renewable Energies Lab. (37, 39).
2. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). (2009). Standards of conduct. Baltimore: ABET. http://www/abet. org/code. shtml. Accessed 1 Oct 2009.
3. American Nuclear Society (ANS). (2005). The Price-Anderson Act: Background information. La Grange Park, IL: ANS. (Nov).
4. Ansolabehere, S. D., Deutsch, J., Driscoll, M., Gray, P. E., Holdren, J. P., Joskow, P. L., et al. (2003). The future of nuclear power. Cambridge: MIT Press.
5. Asian Development Bank. (2000). Bank policy initiatives for the energy sector (February, p. 10, par. 25). www. adb. org/work/policies/energy/energy. doc. Accessed 1 Nov 2008.
6. Baker Institute for Public Policy. (2000). Japanese energy security and changing global energy markets. Houston, TX: Rice University.
7. Berry, R. S. (2007). Tomorrow's nuclear power will be different than yesterday's nuclear power, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Roundtable on Nuclear Power and Climate Change. www. thebulletin. org/roundtable/nuclear-power-climate-change/. Accessed 9 Nov 2008.
8. Beutier, D. (2005). EPR [European pressurized water reactor] background and its role in continental Europe. Paris: Areva Corporate Strategy Department.
9. Bird, S. J., & Spier, R. E. (2005). The complexity of competing and conflicting interests. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 515-517.
10. Bird, S. J., & Spier, R. E. (2008). A conflict of interest disclosure policy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 149-152.
11. Blair, B. (2008). Public citizen takes on big oil, battles to reduce consumption, increase fuel economy. Public Citizen News, 10(Jan/Feb), 10.
12. Brown, P. (2008). Voodoo economics and the doomed nuclear renaissance. Cambridge/London: Wolfson College, Cambridge University/Friends of the Earth.
13. Brownstein, B. P. (1994). The Price-Anderson act. Cato Policy Analysis No. 36. Washington, DC: Cato Institute (17 Apr).
14. Bunyard, P. (2006). Ecologist: Taking the wind out of nuclear power. Pacific Ecologist, 11, 51-57. (Summer).
15. Campbell, E. G., Louis, K. S., & Blumenthal, M. D. (1998). Looking a gift horse in the mouth. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(13), 995-999.
16. Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI). (2004). Levelised unit electricity cost comparison of alternative technologies for baseload generation in Ontario, prepared for the Canadian Nuclear Association. Calgary: CERI.
17. Cravens, G. (2008). Power to save the world: The truth about nuclear energy. New York: Knopf. (365, xiv, 253).
18. Deutsch, J. M., Forsberg, C. W., et al. (2009). Update of the MIT 2003 future of nuclear power. Cambridge: MIT Energy Initiative. (6, 5, 6).
19. Diesendorf, M., & Christoff, P. (2008). Economics of nuclear power. Energy science (Nov). www. energyscience. org. au. Accessed 1 Oct 2009.
20. Direction generale de l'energie et des matieres premieres (DGEMP). (2003). Reference costs for power generation. Paris: Ministry of the Economy, Finance, and Industry.
21. Du, J., & Parsons, J. E. (2009). Update on the cost of nuclear power. Cambridge: MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
22. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (1999). Federal financialiInterventions and subsidies in energy markets. Washington, DC: Department of Energy, EIA.
23. Energy Information Administration. (2009). Electric power annual. Washington, DC: US DOE.
24. European Atomic Forum. (2006). Nuclear energy. Brussels: Foratom. www. foratom. org/index. php?option=com_content& task=view& id=219& Itemid=938. Accessed 10 Aug 2009.
25. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. (2006). Energy policy (Jul). http://www. ebrd. com/about/policies/pip/report06. pdf. Accessed 28 Jan 2009.
26. European Commission (EC). (2003). Solutions for environment, economy and technology: Report for DG Environment, environmentally harmful support measures in EU member states (p. 132). Brussels: EC. (Jan).
27. Federal Acquisition Institute. (2005). Federal acquisition regulations, subpart 9. 5-Organizational and consultant conflicts of interest. Washington, DC: General Services Administration.
28. Froggatt, A. (2001). Financing disaster-How the G8 fund the global proliferation of nuclear technology (June). www. eca-watch. org/problems/fora/documents/G8_eca-nuclear-2001. pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2009.
29. Goldberg, M. (2000). Federal energy subsidies. New York: MRG Associates.
30. Herbst, A. M., & Hopley, G. W. (2007). Nuclear energy now. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (183; 4-7; 36; 179; 4-7; 171; 174; 176; 176; 43-44, 167, 174-5).
31. Heyes, A. (2002). Determining the price of Price-Anderson. Regulation, 25(4-8), 26-30. (Winter).
32. House of Commons Energy Select Committee. (1990). Fourth report: The costs of nuclear power. London: UK House of Commons. (June).
33. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. (2009). Funders. Takoma Park, MD: IEER. www. ieer. org/ieerinfo. html ww. ieer. org/ieerinfo. html. Accessed 12 Oct 2009.
34. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2005). Global public opinion on nuclear issues. Vienna: IAEA.
35. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2007). PRIS database. Vienna: IAEA. http://www. iaea. org/programmes/a2/index. html. Accessed 15 Jan 2009.
36. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2001). Energy policies in IEA countries, country review-Czech Republic. Paris: UN Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
37. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2003). Renewables for power generation: Status and prospects. Paris: IEA.
38. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2006). World energy outlook. Paris: IEA. Nov.
39. International Energy Agency(IAE)/Nuclear Energy Agency(NEA). (2005). Projected costs of generating electricity-2005 update. Paris: IEA.
40. Kennedy, J., Zsiga, A., Conheady, L., & Lund, P. (2006). Credit aspects of North American and European nuclear power. Standard and Poor's, Jan 9. New York: Standard and Poor's.
41. Lippiatt, B. C. (2007). BEES 4. 0: Building for environmental and economic sustainability, NSTIR 6916. Washington, DC: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Office of Applied Economics.
42. Lo, B., Field, M. J., & The Institute of Medicine. (2009). Conflict of interest. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
43. Lovins, A. B., Sheikh, I., & Markevich, A. (2008). Nuclear power: Climate fix or folly?. Snomass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute.
44. MacKerron, G. (2007). The economics of nuclear power-Has government got it right? [University of] Sussex Energy Group Policybriefing, 1(Dec), 1-4.
45. Madsen, T., Neumann, J., & Rusch, E. (2009). The high cost of nuclear power. Baltimore: Maryland Public Interest Research Group.
46. Makhijani, A. (2007). Carbon-free and nuclear-free. Takoma Park, MD: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. (192, 188, 182-184; 144, 190).
47. Mariotte, M., D'Arrigo, D., Olson, M., Binette, A., & Keesing, D. (2008). False promises. Takoma Park, MD: Nuclear Information and Research Services.
48. MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (LEE). (2003). MIT reports to the president 2001-2002. Cambridge: MIT LEE. http://web. mit. edu/annualreports/pres02/03. 03. html. Accessed 12 Oct 2009.
49. Moody's Corporate Finance. (2008). New nuclear generating capacity. New York: Moody's. (May).
50. Moody's Corporate Finance. (2009). New nuclear generation: Ratings pressure increasing. Report 117883. New York: Moody's (June).
51. Morris, M. (2008). The next US challenge, Address by CEO, American Electric Power, to Detroit Economic Club, June 23, 2008. Vital Speeches of the Day, 74(9), 420-422.
52. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). (2006). Near term practical and ultimate technical potential for renewable resources. Golden, CO: Energy Analysis Office, NREL of US DOE.
53. National Research Council. (2001). Sustainable federal facilities: A guide to integrating value engineering, life-cycle costing, and sustainable development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
54. Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). (2009). About NIRS. Takoma Park, MD: NIRS. www. nirs. orgn/about/nirs. htm. Accessed 12 Oct 2009.
55. Nucleonics Week Editors. (2008). Olkiluoto-3 costs weigh on Areva 2008 profits. Nucleonics Week, (25 Dec), 9.
56. Oppenheimer, J. R. (1963). International control of atomic energy. In M. Grodzins & E. Rabinowitch (Eds.), The atomic age: Scientists in national and world affairs (p. 55). New York: Basic Books.
57. OXERA. (2005). Financing the nuclear option: Modeling the cost of new build. Oxford, UK: OXERA. www. oxera. com/cmsDocuments/Agenda_June%2005/Financing%20the%20nuclear%20option. pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2009.
58. PB Power. (2006). Powering the nation: A review of the costs of generating electricity. Newcastle, UK: PB Power.
59. Porritt, J., Chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission. (2006). Quoted in House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee, New nuclear? Examining the issues, Fourth Report of Session 2005-2006, Vol. 1. London: House of Commons.
60. Roberts, J. K., Beard, F. W., Haefeli, R. J., James, P. E., Jarvis, R. W., Polk et al. (2001). National Society of Professional Engineers' board of ethical review cases. Denton: Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism at Texas Tech University. www. 88/case85-86. htm. Accessed 1 Oct 2009.
61. Rochon, P. A., Gurwitz, J. H., Simms, R. W., Fortin, P. R., Felson, D. T., Minaker, K. L., et al. (1994). A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Archives of Internal Medicine, 154(2), 157-163.
62. Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). (2009). Helping businesses/organizations. Snowmass, CO: RMI. www. rmi. org/www. rmi. org. Accessed 12 Oct 2009.
63. Rothwell, G. S. (2002). Does the US subsidize nuclear poweriInsurance?. Palo Alto: Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. (Jan).
64. Royal Academy of Engineering. (2004). The costs of generating electricity. London: Royal Academy.
65. Schneider, M. (2008). 2008 World nuclear industry status report. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (16 Sept). www. thebulletin. org/web-edition/reports/2008-world-nuclear-industry-status-report/. Accessed 20 May 2009.
66. Schwartz, J. (2006). International nuclear third party liability law. In Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), and International Atomic Energy Agency. International nuclear law in the post-Chernobyl period (pp. 37-72). Paris: NEA.
67. Scully Capital Services Inc. (2002). The business case for new nuclear power plants: A report prepared for the US DOE. Washington, DC: DOE.
68. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (2002). Environmental justice (p. 131). New York: Oxford University Press.
69. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (2007). Taking action, saving lives. New York: Oxford University Press. (42; 42, 95-96; 51, 97).
70. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (2009). Data trimming, nuclear emissions, and climate change. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 19-23.
71. Slocum, T. (2008). Nuclear's power play: Give us subsidies or give us death. Multinational Monitor, 29(2) (Sept-Oct). http://www. multinationalmonitor. org/mm2008/092008/slocum. html. Accessed 19 May 2009.
72. Smith, B. (2006). Insurmountable risks: The dangers of using nuclear power to combat global climate change. Takoma Park: IEER Press. (194; 44-51, 204, 70, 68, 414).
73. Smith, B. (2007). The bulletin interview. The bulletin of the atomic scientists, 63(6), 22-27.
74. Spurgeon, D. (2008). Nuclear energy: We must increase its role in our future. Address by US Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at the Second Annual Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle-Monitoring Global Nuclear-Renaissance Summit, Alexandria, Virginia. Vital Speeches of the Day, 74(9), (July 23), 422-425.
75. Stoett, P. (2003). Toward renewed legitimacy: Nuclear power, global warming and security. Global Environmental Politics, 3(1), 99-116.
76. Stokes, L. (2002). Key issues in conflict of interest. Journal of Research Administration, 33(2-3), 19-25.
77. Sweet, W. (2006). Kicking the carbon habit. New York: Columbia University Press. (182, 193).
78. Tarjanne, R., & Luostarinen, K. (2002). Economics of nuclear power in Finland. In ANS (Ed.), International Congress on Advanced Nuclear Power Plants. Hollywood, Florida: American Nuclear Society (ANS).
79. Thomas, S. (2005). The economics of nuclear power. Berlin: Heinrich Boll. (26, 30, 19, 5, 6, 8, 20, 20, 5-6, 26).
80. Thomas, S., Bradford, P., Frogatt, A., & Milborrow, D. (2007). The economics of nuclear power (Vol. 6, p. 31). Amsterdam: Greenpeace International.
81. UK Department of Trade Industry (UK DTI). (2006). Nuclear power generation cost-benefit analysis. London: HM Government.
82. UK Department of Trade and Industry (UK DTI). (2007). Meeting the energy challenge. CM 7124. London: UK DTI. www. commodities-now. com/content/research/includes/assets/UKWPenergy. pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2009.
83. UK Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU). (2002). The economics of nuclear power. London: UK Cabinet Office. www. strategy. gov. uk/downloads/files/Pii. pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2009.
84. UK Sustainable Development Commission (UK SDC). (2006). The role of nuclear power in a low-carbon economy. London: UK SDC. (1, 4, 17, 1).
85. University of Chicago (U Chicago). (2004). The economic future of nuclear power. Chicago: UC. (Aug).
86. University of Sussex and NERA Economic Consulting (Sussex-NERA). (2006). The economics of nuclear power. London: UK Sustainable Development Commission.
87. US Congress. (1999). Worker safety at DOE nuclear facilities. US House of Representatives. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
88. US Congressional Budget Office (US CBO). (2008). Nuclear power's role in generating electricity (p. 17). Washington, DC: CBO. (May).
89. US Department of Energy. (2007). DOE selects 13 solar energy projects, Mar 8. http://www. energy. gov. news. 4855. htm. Accessed 9 Jun 2009.
90. US National Research Council. (1996). Building an effective environmental management science program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
91. van Leuwen, J. W. (2007). Nuclear power: The energy balance. The Netherlands: Ceedata Consultancy.
92. World Bank. (1991). Environmental assessment sourcebook, vol. III, Guidelines for environmental assessment of energy and industry projects. Technical report 154. Washington, DC: World Bank Environmental Department.
93. World Nuclear Association (WNA). (2005). The new economics of nuclear power (p. 14). London: WNA.
94. World Nuclear Association (WNA). (2008). The economics of nuclear power. London: WNA. http://www. world-nuclear. org/info/inf02. html. Accessed 9 Sept 2008.
95. World Nuclear Association (WNA). (2008). Civil liability for nuclear damages. London: WNA. http://www. world-nuclear. org/info/inf67. html. Accessed 13 May 2009.
96. World Nuclear Association (WNA). (2009). The new economics of nuclear power. London: WNA. http://www. world-nuclear. org/reference/pdf/economics. pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2009.