Critically weighing the costs and benefits of a nuclear renaissance

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 105-123

  Sovacool, Benjamin K ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Atomic energy; Nuclear energy; Nuclear power; Nuclear renaissance

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958271328     PISSN: 1943815X     EISSN: 19438168     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1943815X.2010.485618     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Adato M, et al. 1987. Safety second: the nuclear regulatory commission and America's nuclear power plants. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.
2. Beckjord ES, Ansolabehere S, Deutch J, Driscoll M, Gray PE, Holdren JP. 2003. The future of nuclear power: an interdisciplinary MIT study. Cambridge (MA): MIT. p. 22, 48.
3. Blix H. 2001. Nuclear energy in the 21st century. Nuclear News. September:34-48.
4. Bradford PA. 2009. Three mile island: thirty years of lessons learned. Testimony before the senate committee on environment and public works (March 24, 2009).
5. Byrne J, Hoffman SM. 1996. The ideology of progress and the globalisation of nuclear power. In: Byrne J, Hoffman SM, editors. Governing the atom: the politics of risk. London: Transaction Publishers. p. 11-46.
6. Cadwallader LC. 2005. Occupational safety review of high technology facilities. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, January, 2005, INEEL/EXT-05-02616.
7. Caldicott H. 1994. Nuclear madness. New York: Norton and Norton.
8. Carlin A. 2008. Why a new approach is required if global climate change is to be controlled efficiently, or even at all. William & Mary Law and Policy Review Annual Symposium, Williamsburg, Virginia. p. 1-42.
9. Cohen BL. 1998. Perspectives on the high level waste disposal problem. Interdiscipl Sci Rev. 23:193-203.
10. Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration. 2009. Strategies for the commercialization and deployment of greenhouse gas intensity-reducing technologies and practices. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Energy, January, 2009. DOE/ PI-0007, p. 65.
11. Constance P. 1998. Operating as experimenting: synthesizing engineering and scientific values in nuclear power production. Sci Technol Human Values 23(1) (Winter 1998), 98-128.
12. Cook E. The role of history in the acceptance of nuclear power. Soc Sci Quart. 63:10.
13. Cook E. 1982. The role of history in the acceptance of nuclear power. Soc Sci Quart. 63:3-15.
14. Cooper M. 2009a. The economics of nuclear reactors: renaissance or relapse? Montpellier (VT): Institute for Energy and the Environment.
15. Cooper M. 2009b. All risk, no reward for taxpayers and ratepayers: the economics of subsidizing the nuclear renaissance. Montpelier (VT): Vermont Law School.
16. Dittmar M. The future of nuclear energy: facts and fiction. Institute of Particle Physics of ETH Zurich/CERN, August 2009).
17. Echavarri. 2008. Is nuclear energy at a turning point? Electricity J. 20(9):89-97.
18. Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W. 2003. Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Gagnon L. 2008. Civilization and energy payback. Energ Pol. 36:3317-3320.
20. Greenberg PA. 1996. Safety, accidents, and public acceptance. In: Byrne J, Hoffman SM, editors. Governing the atom: the politics of risk. London: Transaction Publishers. p. 127-175.
21. Greenpeace. 2008. France's nuclear failures: the great illusion of nuclear energy. Amsterdam: Greenpeace International. p. 10.
22. Hao D. 2003. Lianyungang nuclear power plant and Jiangsu nuclear power station; [cited 2003 Oct 29]. Available from: http://www.nti.org/db/china/jiangsu.htm.
23. Hatch MT. 1996. Nuclear power and postindustrial politics in the west. In: Byrne J, Hoffman SM, editors. Governing the atom: the politics of risk. London: Transaction Publishers. p. 238.
24. Hirschberg S, Burgherr P, Spiekerman G, Dones R. Severe accidents in the energy sector: comparative perspective. J Hazard Mater. 111:57-65.
25. Hirschberg S, Spiekerman G, Dones R. 1998. Severe accidents in the energy sector. 1st ed. PSI Report No. 98-16. Villigen, Switzerland: Paul Scherrer Institute.
26. Hirschberg S, Strupczewski A. 1999. Comparison of accident risks in different energy systems: how acceptable? IAEA Bull. 41:25-30.
27. International Atomic Energy Agency. 2001. Analysis of uranium supply to 2050. Vienna: IAEA.
28. Jim H. 2007. Economics of nuclear power and proliferation risks in a carbon-constrained world. Electricity J. 20(10):65-76.
29. John B, Hoffman SM. 1996. The ideology of progress and the globalisation of nuclear power. In: Byrne J, Hoffman SM, editors. Governing the atom: the politics of risk. London: Transaction Publishers, p. 11-46.
30. Kennedy D. 2007. New nuclear power generation in the UK: cost benefit analysis. Energ Pol. 35:3701-3716.
31. Lee R. Externalities and electric power: an integrated assessment approach. Oak Ridge National Laboratory CONF-9507-206-2, 2-4.
32. Linda G, Gunter P, Cullen S, Burton N. Licensed to kill: how the nuclear power industry destroys endangered marine wildlife and ocean habitat to save money. Grace Foundation and Norcross Foundation, February.
33. Lovins AB, Sheikh I, Markevich A. 2008. Forget nuclear. Rocky Mountain Institute Solutions 24(1) (Spring, 2008):23.
34. Lovins AB, Sheikh I, Markevich A. 2008. Forget nuclear. Rocky Mountain Inst Sol. 24(1):23-27.
35. Mudd GM, Disendorf M. 2008. Sustainability of uranium mining and milling: toward quantifying resources and eco-efficiency. Environ Sci Technol. 42:2624-2629.
36. Nordell B, Gervet B Global warming is global energy storage. Proceedings of the Global Conference on Global Warming-2008 (GCGW-08); 6-10 July 2008, Istanbul, Turkey, Paper No. 454.
37. Pacala S, Socolow R. 2004. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science. 305:968-972.
38. Perin C. 1998. Operating as experimenting: synthesizing engineering and scientific values in nuclear power production. Sci Technol Humn Values. 23(1):98-128.
39. Perrow C. 1984. Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic Books. p. 198.
40. Raffensperger C. 1996. Waste disposal and decommissioning. In: Byrne J, Hoffman SM, editors. Governing the atom: the politics of risk. London: Transaction Publishers, p. 177-200.
41. Ramana MV. 2009. Nuclear power: economic, safety, health, and environmental issues of near-term technologies. Ann Rev Environ Resour. 34:127-152.
42. Schiermeier Q, Tollefson J, Scully T, Witze A, Morton O. 2008. Electricity without carbon. Nature. 454:816-823.
43. Smil V. 2000. Energy in the twentieth century: resources, conversions, costs, uses, and consequences. Ann Rev Energ Environ. 25:46.
44. Soderholm P. 1998. Fuel choice in West European power generation since the 1960s. OPEC Rev. 22(3):213.
45. Sovacool BK. 2008a. The costs of failure: a preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907 to 2007. Energy Pol. 36(5):1802-1820.
46. Sovacool BK. 2008b. Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: a critical survey. Energ Pol. 36(8):2940-2953.
47. Sovacool BK. 2009. Is the nuclear option the right one for Malaysia? New Straits Times (Malaysia), August 12, p. 17.
48. Sovacool BK, Sovacool KE. 2009. Preventing national electricity-water crisis areas in the United States. Columbia J Environ Law. 34(2):333-393.
49. Steve T. 2005. The economics of nuclear power: analysis of recent studies. London: Public Services International Research Unit, July, 2005.
50. Sundqvist T, Soderholm P. 2002. Valuing the environmental impacts of electricity generation: a critical survey. J Energ Lit. 8(2):1-18.
51. Sundqvist T. 2004. What causes the disparity of electricity externality estimates? Energy Pol. 32:1753-1766.
52. The Keystone Center. Nuclear power joint fact-finding (July, 2007).
53. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission of Occupational Safety. 1975. Operational accidents and radiation exposure experience within the United States atomic energy commission, 1943-1975. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, WASH-1192, January 1, 1975.
54. U.S. Congressional Budget Office. 2008. Nuclear power's role in generating electricity. Washington (DC): CBO, May, 2008.
55. U.S. Department of Energy and the Commission of the European Communities. U.S.-EC fuel cycle study: background document to the approach and issues. External costs and benefits of fuel cycles, ORNL/M-2500 (November 1992).
56. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2009. Weighted-average price of U.S. and foreignorigin uranium purchased by owners and operators of U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors. Uranium Marketing Annual Report. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Energy.
57. U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2007. Nuclear and worker safety: actions needed to determine the effectiveness of safety improvement efforts at nnsa's weapons laboratories. Washington (DC): U.S. GAO, October 2007, GAO-08-73.
58. U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2006. Nuclear regulatory commission: oversight of nuclear power plant safety has improved, but refinements are needed. Washington (DC): U.S. GAO, September 2006, GAO-06-1029.
59. U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2008. Nuclear safety: department of energy needs to strengthen its independent oversight of nuclear facilities and operations. Washington (DC): U.S. GAO, October 2008, GAO-09-61.
60. von Hippel F. 2008. Managing spent fuel in the United States: the illogic of reprocessing. In: Henry D, Sokolski, editor. Falling behind: international scrutiny of the peaceful atom. Washington (DC): Nonproliferation Education Center, p. 159-219.
61. Wald ML. 2009. New nuclear plant for Ohio pondered. New York Times, June 18.
62. World Nuclear Association. 2008. Nuclear desalination; [cited 2008 Nov]. Available from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf71.html
63. World Nuclear Association. 2009. Nuclear power in the USA; [cited 2009 Nov 12]. Available from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html