The political economy of nuclear energy

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 397-411

  Hultman, Nathan E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; ECONOMICS; ENERGY SECURITY; GAS EMISSIONS; GREENHOUSE GASES; HYBRID VEHICLES; NUCLEAR INDUSTRY; PLUG-IN HYBRID VEHICLES;

ELECTRICITY SOURCE; GLOBAL ELECTRICITY DEMANDS; INTERNATIONAL POLICIES; NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE; NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY; POLITICAL ECONOMY; POTENTIAL CHANGE; RAPID EXPANSION;

NUCLEAR ENERGY;

EID: 79961216676     PISSN: 17577780     EISSN: 17577799     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcc.113     Document Type: Review

References (137)

1. Kammen DM, Pacca S. Assessing the costs of electricity. Ann Rev Environ Resour 2004, 29:301-344.
2. Bickerstaffe J, Pearce D. Can there be a consensus on nuclear power? Social Stud Sci (Sage) 1980, 10: 309-344.
3. Ferguson CD, Smith MM. The nuclear option. Foreign Policy 2009, 170:40-41.
4. Wolfe B. Why environmentalists should promote nuclear energy. Iss Sci Technol 1996, 12:55-60.
5. Sailor WC, Bodansky D, Braun C, Steve F, van der Zwaan R. A nuclear solution to climate change. Science 2000, 288:1177-1178.
6. Johnson C. Alternatives to OPEC oil: investment costs and financing prospects. Energy Policy 1981, 9:85.
7. Adamantiades A, Kessides I. Nuclear power for sustainable development: current status and future prospects. Energy Policy 2009, 37:5149-5166.
8. Charpak G, Garwin RL. Megawatts and Megatons: A Turning Point in the Nuclear Age? 1st American ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf: Distributed by Random House; 2001.
9. Garwin RL. Can the world do without nuclear power? Can the world live with nuclear power? Interdiscip Sci Rev 2001, 26:265-271.
10. Pool R. Beyond Engineering: How Society Shapes Technology, The Sloan Technology Series. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.
11. IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). Database of Nuclear Reactor Capacity and Capacity Factors, 1981 to 2004. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2005.
12. Bunn M, Holdren JP, Steve F, van der Zwaan B. The economics of reprocessing versus direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Nucl Technol 2005, 150:209-230.
13. Bupp IC, Derian J-C. The Failed Promise of Nuclear Power: The Story of Light Water. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.; 1981.
14. Cowan R. Nuclear power reactors: a study in technological lock-in. J Econ Hist 1990, 50:541-567.
15. La Porte T. Large technical systems, institutional surprises, and challenges to political legitimacy. Technol Soc 1994, 16:269-288.
16. Abu-Khader MM. Recent advances in nuclear power: a review. Prog Nucl Energy 2009, 51:225-235.
17. Matzie RA. AP1000 will meet the challenges of near-term deployment. Nucl Eng Des 2008, 238: 1856-1862.
18. US NRC. Advanced Reactors. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Available at: (Accessed July 09, 2009).
19. US NRC. Combined License Applications For New Reactors. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Available at: (Accessed July 09, 2009).
20. Ingersoll DT. Deliberately small reactors and the second nuclear era. Prog Nucl Energy 2009, 51:589-603.
21. Ishekov A, Klinov D, Smirnova L, Subbotin S, Shchepetina T. Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of low-capacity nuclear power plants. Atomic Energy 2007, 102:409-415.
22. Lewis D. Hydrogen and its relationship with nuclear energy. Prog Nucl Energy 2008, 50:394-401.
23. Sakurai M, Ueno S. Preliminary analysis of transportation cost of nuclear off-peak power for hydrogen production based on water electrolysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2006, 31:2378-2385.
24. Greyvenstein R, Correia M, Kriel W. South Africa's opportunity to maximise the role of nuclear power in a global hydrogen economy. Nucl Eng Des 2008, 238:3031-3040.
25. Taijan G, Cañizares C, Fowler M, Verbic G. The feasibility of hydrogen storage for mixed wind-nuclear power plants. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2008, 23:1507-1518.
26. Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee. Generation IV Roadmap: Technology Goals for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems. Generation IV International Forum; 2002.
27. Van Goethem G, Hugon M, Bhatnagar V, Manolatos P, Deffrennes M. Euratom innovation in nuclear fission: community research in reactor systems and fuel cycles. Nucl Eng Des 2007, 237:1486-1502.
28. Hyde R, Ishikawa M, Myhrvold N, Nuckolls J, Wood L. Nuclear fission power for 21st century needs: enabling technologies for large-scale, low-risk, affordable nuclear electricity. Prog Nucl Energy 2008, 50:82-91.
29. Williams RH, Feiveson HA. How to expand nuclear power without proliferation. Bull Atom Scient 1990, 46:40-45.
30. Sokolski HD. Towards an NPT-restrained world that makes economic sense. Int Aff 2007, 83:531-548.
31. Farrell AE, Zerriffi H, Dowlatabadi H. Energy infrastructure and security. Ann Rev Environ Res 2004, 29:421-469.
32. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. Lay foibles and expert fables in judgments about risk. Am Stat 1982, 36:240-255.
33. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Perceived risk and quantitative safety goals for nuclear-power. Trans Am Nucl Soc 1980, 35:400-401.
34. Fischhoff B. Acceptable risk-the case of nuclear-power. J Policy Anal Manage 1983, 2:559-575.
35. Fischhoff B, Watson SR, Hope C. Defining risk. Policy Sci 1984, 17:123-139.
36. Burgherr P, Hirschberg S. A comparative analysis of accident risks in fossil, hydro, and nuclear energy chains. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 2008, 14:947-973.
37. Mudd GM, Mark D. Sustainability of uranium mining and milling: toward quantifying resources and eco-efficiency. Environ Sci Technol 2008, 42:2624-2630.
38. Kuletz V. The Tainted Desert: Environmental Ruin in the American West. New York: Routledge; 1998.
39. Rechard RP. Historical relationship between performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal and other types of risk assessment. Risk Anal 1999, 19:763-807.
40. Langley KF, Williams J. Decontamination and waste minimisation techniques in nuclear decommissioning. Nucl Energy-J Brit Nucl Energy Soc 2001, 40:189-195.
41. Riddel M, Shaw WD. Option wealth and bequest values: the value of protecting future generations from the health risks of nuclear waste storage. Land Econ 2003, 79:537-548.
42. Ahearne JF. Intergenerational issues regarding nuclear power, nuclear waste, and nuclear weapons. Risk Anal 2000, 20:763-770.
43. Högselius P. Spent nuclear fuel policies in historical perspective: an international comparison. Energy Policy 2009, 37:254-263.
44. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 1991, 254:1603-1607.
45. Segelod E. The cost of the Swedish nuclear waste program. Prog Nucl Energy 2006, 48:314-324.
46. Lough WT, White KP, Jr. A critical review of nuclear power plant decommissioning planning studies. Energy Policy 1990, 18:471-479.
47. Bond A, Palerm J, Haigh P. Public participation in EIA of nuclear power plant decommissioning projects: a case study analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2004, 24:617-641.
48. Pasqualetti MJ, Pijawka KD. Unsiting nuclear power plants: decommissioning risks and their land use context. Prof Geograph 1996, 4857-4869.
49. Pasqualetti MJ, Rothwell GS, eds. Nuclear Decommissioning Economics: Estimates, Regulation, Experience, and Uncertainties, Special issue of the Energy Journal; 1991.
50. World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Power in the World Today, 2010.
51. Herring JS. Uranium and thorium resource assessment. In: Cutler JC, ed. Encyclopedia of Energy. New York: Elsevier; 2004.
52. Rogner HH. Part I: uranium. In: Judy T, Alan C, eds. Survey of Energy Resources. 12th ed. Oxford: Elsevier Science; 2004.
53. Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD), and International Atomic Energy Agency. Uranium Resources, Production and Demand, 2008.
54. World Nuclear Association, WNA Market Report. London: World Nuclear Association; 2009.
55. Zhou Y. Why is China going nuclear? Energy Policy 2010, 38:3755-3762.
56. Wang Q. China needing a cautious approach to nuclear power strategy. Energy Policy 2009, 37: 2487-2491.
57. Guang Y, Wenjie H. The status quo of China's nuclear power and the uranium gap solution. Energy Policy 2009, 38:966-975.
58. Hadjilambrinos C. Understanding technology choice in electricity industries: a comparative study of France and Denmark. Energy Policy 2000, 28:1111-1126.
59. Delmas M, Heiman B. Government credible commitment to the French and American nuclear power industries. J Policy Anal Manage 2001, 20:433-456.
60. Grübler A. The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: a case of negative learning by doing. Energy Policy 2010, 38:5174-5188.
61. Laird FN, Stefes C. The diverging paths of German and United States policies for renewable energy: sources of difference. Energy Policy 2009, 37:2619-2629.
62. Jacobsson S, Lauber V. The politics and policy of energy system transformation-explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy 2006, 34:256-276.
63. Wüstenhagen R, Bilharz M. Green energy market development in Germany: effective public policy and emerging customer demand. Energy Policy 2006, 34:1681-1696.
64. Duffield JS. Germany and energy security in the 2000s: rise and fall of a policy issue? Energy Policy 2009, 37:4284-4292.
65. Grover RB, Subhash C. Scenario for growth of electricity in India. Energy Policy 2006, 34:2834-2847.
66. Mallah S, Bansal NK. Allocation of energy resources for power generation in India: business as usual and energy efficiency. Energy Policy 2009, 38:1059-1066.
67. International Energy Agency. IEA Energy Technology Essentials: Nuclear Power. Paris: OECD; 2007.
68. Ramana MV, Suchitra JY. Slow and stunted: plutonium accounting and the growth of fast breeder reactors in India. Energy Policy 2009, 37:5028-5036.
69. Pickett SE. Japan's nuclear energy policy: from firm commitment to difficult dilemma addressing growing stocks of plutonium, program delays, domestic opposition and international pressure. Energy Policy 2002, 30:1337-1355.
70. Choi S, Jun E, Hwang I, Starz A, Mazour T, Chang SH, Burkart AR. Fourteen lessons learned from the successful nuclear power program of the Republic of Korea. Energy Policy 2009, 37:5494-5508.
71. Thomas S. Economic and safety pressures on nuclear power: a comparison of Russia and Ukraine since the break-up of the Soviet Union. Energy Policy 1999, 27:745-767.
72. Kennedy D. New nuclear power generation in the UK: cost benefit analysis. Energy Policy 2007, 35: 3701-3716.
73. Watson J, Scott A. New nuclear power in the UK: a strategy for energy security? Energy Policy 2009, 37:5094-5104.
74. Thomas S. Competitive energy markets and nuclear power: can we have both, do we want either? Energy Policy 2010, 38:4903-4908.
75. MacKerron G. Nuclear power and the characteristics of [']ordinariness'-the case of UK energy policy. Energy Policy 32:1957-1965.
76. Joskow PL. The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States: Economic and Regulatory Challenges. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 2006.
77. US NRC. Status of License Renewal Applications and Industry Activities. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2009. Available at: (Accessed November 09, 2009).
78. University of Chicago. In: Tolley GS, Jones DW, eds. The Economic Future of Nuclear Power. Chicago: University of Chicago for Argonne National Laboratory; 2004.
79. Jeffery JW. Communication on energy: who pays for the long-term costs of nuclear power? Energy Policy 1987, 15:376.
80. Bupp IC, Derian JC, Donsimoni MP, Treitel R. Trends in Light Water Reactor Capital Costs in the United States: Causes and Consequences. Cambridge, MA: Center for Policy Alternatives, MIT; 1974.
81. Komanoff C. Power Plant Cost Escalation: Nuclear and Coal Capital Costs, Regulation and Economics. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Publ. Co.; 1981.
82. Marshall JM, Navarro P. Costs of nuclear power plant construction: theory and new evidence. RAND J Econ 1991, 22:148-154.
83. Krause F, Koomey JG, Olivier D, Radanne R, Schneider M. Nuclear Power: The Cost and Potential of Low-Carbon Resource Options in Western Europe. Volume II, Part 3E, Energy Policy in the Greenhouse. El Cerrito, CA: International Project for Sustainable Energy Paths; 1994.
84. Koomey JG, Hultman NE. A reactor-level analysis of busbar costs for US nuclear power plants. Energy Policy 2007, 35:5630-5642.
85. Hultman NE, Koomey JG, Kammen D. What history can teach us about the future costs of nuclear power. Environ Sci Technol 2007, 41:2088-2093.
86. Hultman NE, Koomey JG. The risk of surprise in energy technology costs. Environ Res Lett 2007, 2:1-6.
87. Feretic D, Tomsic Z. Probabilistic analysis of electrical energy costs comparing: production costs for gas, coal and nuclear power plants. Energy Policy 2005, 33:5-13.
88. Joskow PL, Rozanksi GA. The effects of learning by doing on nuclear plant operating reliability. Rev Econ Stat 1979, 61:161-168.
89. David PA, Maude-Griffin R, Rothwell G. Learning by accident? Reductions in the risk of unplanned outages in US nuclear power plants after Three Mile Island. J Risk Uncertain 1996, 13:175-198.
90. Hewlett JG. The operating costs and longevity of nuclear power plants: evidence from the USA. Energy J 1992, 20:608-622.
91. Lester RK, McCabe MJ. The effect of industrial structure on learning by doing in nuclear power plant operation. RAND J Econ 1993, 24:418-438.
92. Sunder S, Stephenson JR, Hochman D. Statistical factors affecting the success of nuclear operations. Elect J 1999, 12:62-68.
93. Rothwell G. Nuclear power plant operating costs: what's next? Paper read at Nuclear Nonoperating Owners' Group Fall 2001 Conference, Albuquerque, NM, October 17-19, 2001.
94. Zimmerman MB. Learning effects and the commercialization of new energy technologies-the case of nuclear-power. Bell J Econ 1982, 13:297-310.
95. Rothwell G. Organizational structure and expected output at nuclear power plants. Rev Econ Stat 1996, 78:482-488.
96. Hewlett JG. Economic and Regulatory factors affecting the maintenance of nuclear plants. Energy J 1996, 17:31.
97. Rust J, Rothwell G. Optimal response to a shift in regulatory regime: the case of the US nuclear power industry. J Appl Econ 1995, 10:S75-S118.
98. Pandey MD, Nathwani JS. A conceptual approach to the estimation of societal willingness-to-pay for nuclear safety programs. Nucl Eng Des 2003, 224: 65-77.
99. Jensen JB, Rothwell GS. Transaction costs, regulation, and subcontracting at nuclear power plants. J Econ Behav Organ 1998, 36:369.
100. Kadak AC, Matsuo T. The nuclear industry's transition to risk-informed regulation and operation in the United States. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2007, 92:609-618.
101. Vaurio JK. Human factors, human reliability and risk assessment in license renewal of a nuclear power plant. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2009, 94:1818-1826.
102. Bredimas A, Nuttall WJ. An international comparison of regulatory organizations and licensing procedures for new nuclear power plants. Energy Policy 2008, 36:1344-1354.
103. Kazimi MS, Todreas NE. Nuclear power economic performance: challenges and opportunities. Ann Rev Energy Environ 1999, 24:139-171.
104. Surrey J, ed. The British Electricity Experiment: The Record, The Issues, The Lessons. London: Earthscan; 1996.
105. Dubin JA, Rothwell GS. Safety at nuclear-power plants-economic incentives under the Price-Anderson Act and State Regulatory Commissions. Social Sci J 1989, 26:303-311.
106. Dubin JA, Rothwell GS. Subsidy to nuclear-power through Price-Anderson liability limit. Contemp Policy Iss 1990, 8:73-79.
107. Wolfson R. Nuclear Choices: A Citizen's Guide to Nuclear Technology. Rev. ed, New Liberal Arts Series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1995.
108. MIT. The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2003.
109. MIT. Update to The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2009.
110. Keystone Center. Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding. Keystone CO: Keystone Center; 2007.
111. Harding J. Economics of nuclear power and proliferation risks in a carbon-constrained world. Electr J 2007, 20:65-76.
112. Rosa EA, Tuler SP, Fischhoff B, Webler T, Friedman SM, Sclove RE, Kristin S-F, English MR, Kasperson RE, Goble RL, et al. Nuclear Waste: Knowledge Waste? Science 2010, 329:762-763.
113. Radetzki M. Coal or nuclear in new power stations: the political economy of an undesirable but necessary choice. Energy J 2000, 21:135.
114. Sovacool B. Coal and nuclear technologies: creating a false dichotomy for American energy policy. Policy Sci 2007, 40:101-122.
115. Felder F, Haut R. Balancing alternatives and avoiding false dichotomies to make informed U.S. electricity policy. Policy Sci 2008, 41:165-180.
116. Greenberg M. Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy 2009, 37:3242-3249.
117. Liao S-Y, Tseng W-C, Chen C-C. Eliciting public preference for nuclear energy against the backdrop of global warming. Energy Policy 2010, 38:7054-7069.
118. Bohringer C, Hoffmann T, Vogele S. The cost of phasing out nuclear power: a quantitative assessment of alternative scenarios for Germany. Energy Econ 2002, 24:469-490.
119. Nash RS, Woollam PB. The potential benefits and drawbacks of deferring the decommissioning and dismantling of nuclear facilities. Nucl Energy-J Brit Nucl Energy Soc 2002, 41:325-331.
120. Rothwell GS. The risk of early retirement of US nuclear power plants under electricity deregulation and CO2 emission reductions. Energy J 2000, 21:61-87.
121. Nelson P. Reassessing the nuclear renaissance. Bull Atomic Scient 2010, 66:11-22.
122. Flavin C. The demise of nuclear power: what comes next? Challenge 1984, 27:38.
123. Kaygusuz K. The future of nuclear power and renewable energy sources in the European Union. Energy Sources Part B: Econ Plan Policy 2008, 3:348-361.
124. Tashimo M, Matsui K. Role of nuclear energy in environment, economy, and energy issues of the 21st century, growing energy demand in Asia and role of nuclear. Prog Nucl Energy 2008, 50:103-108.
125. Ekins P. Step changes for decarbonising the energy system: research needs for renewables, energy efficiency and nuclear power. Energy Policy 2004, 32:1891-1904.
126. Lee TJ, Lee KH, Oh KB. Strategic environments for nuclear energy innovation in the next half century. Prog Nucl Energy 2007, 49:397-408.
127. Lovins AB. Mighty mice. Nucl Eng Int 2005, 12:44-48.
128. Trancik JE. Scale and innovation in the energy sector: a focus on photovoltaics and nuclear fission. Environ Res Lett 2006, 1:7.
129. Sovacool B. The problem with the "portfolio approach" in American energy policy. Policy Sci 2008, 41:245-261.
130. Severance CA. Business risks to utilities as new nuclear power costs escalate. Elect J 2009, 22:112-120.
131. Holt L, Kury TJ. Florida's plans to finance new nuclear plants. Bull Atomic Scient 2009, 65:31-40.
132. Rubin ES, Yeh S, Antes M, Berkenpas M, Davison J. Use of experience curves to estimate the future cost of power plants with {CO2} capture. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2007, 1:188-197.
133. Busby JT. Economic benefits of advanced materials in nuclear power systems. J Nucl Mater 2009, 392:301-306.
134. David PA, Rothwell G. Measuring standardization: an application to the American and French nuclear power industries. Eur J Polit Econ 1996, 12:291-308.
135. Kiriyama E, Suzuki A. Use of real options in nuclear power plant valuation in the presence of uncertainty with CO2 emission credit. J Nucl Sci Technol 2004, 41:756-764.
136. Rothwell G. A real options approach to evaluating new nuclear power plants. Energy J 2006, 27:37.
137. 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.