Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantifying the Risks Of Nuclear Electric Energy

  • Conference paper
Social Costs and Sustainability

Abstract

The cost of electricity generation can be divided into private costs and external costs. The former are the costs borne by the generators and the latter are costs directly borne by the public at large, but not part of the generators’ direct costs. The sum of private and external costs is defined as the social cost (Markandya, 1995). An example of a private cost is the cost of capital equipment, cost of operation etc. An example of an external cost is the damage caused by non-routine radiation, for which the generator does not bear liability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Brody, Michael. Nuclear Fizzle? Costs, Risks of Atomic Power May Escalate Past Point of No Return. Barron’s, v61 n34 (Aug 24, 1981.)

    Google Scholar 

  • L. D. Brooks, R. Rhynes & R. E. D’Souza. “Electric Utility Return and Risk in Light of Three Mile Island.” Public Utilities Fortnightly, 110, 36 (November 11, 1982), 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. M. Bowen, R. P. Castanias, & L. A. Daley. “Intra-Industry Effects of the Accident at Three Mile Island.” Journal of Finance and Quantitative Analysis 17 (March 1983), 87–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, J. “Some lessons in the political economy of megapower: WPPSS and the municipal bond market. ” Journal of Urban Affairs. Vol. 8, no. 1 (winter 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, P. R. Davidson, Wallace N., III. “Nuclear Commitment by Utilities: Some Market Risk Perceptions.” Akron Business — Economic Review 19,1. (Spring 1988). p. 8–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, P. R. Karafiath, Imre. “The Effect of the WPPSS Crisis on Utility Common Stock Returns.” Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 16, 4. (Autumn 1989). p. 531–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreicer M. et al. (CEPN: Centre DEtude sur LEvaluation de la Protection dans le Domaine NuclĂ©aire) (1993). “Estimation of Physical Impacts and Monetary Valuation for Priority Pathways: Nuclear Fuel Cycle.” DG XII of the Commission of the EC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyre, N., et al. 1993b. Assessment of the External Costs of the Coal Fuel Cycle, prepared for DGXII of the Commission of the European Community.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farber, Stephen. “Nuclear Power, Systematic Risk, and the Cost of Capital.” Contemporary Policy Issues, 9, 1. (Jan 1991). p. 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R. (1992). “Environmental Costs of Energy Technologies: Accidental Radiological Impacts of Nuclear Power.” CEETES, University of Newcastle, mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., S. Watson, and C. Hope. (1984). “Defining Risk,” Policy Sciences, 17, pp. 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1989), “Risk: A Guide to Controversy,” in Improving Risk Communication, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. National Academy Press, 211–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, A. Myrick, III (1989). “Ex Ante and Ex Post Values for Changes in Risks,” Risk Analysis, vol. 9, no. 3 (September), pp. 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, Russell J. Hinman, George W. Lowinger, Thomas C. “ The Impact of Nuclear Power on the Systematic Risk and Market Value of Electric Utility Common Stock.” Energy Journal, 11, 2. (April 1990). p. 117–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goemans, T. and Scharz, J.J., et al. (1988). “Economic Damage of an Accident in a Nuclear Plant.” Project Herbezinning Kernenergie, SPH-06–13. (’s-Gravenhage, The Netherlands), in Griesmeyer, J.M., and D. Okrent. 1981. “Risk Management and Decision Rules for Light Water Reactors,” Risk Analysis, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond. (1981). “Ex Ante and Ex Post Welfare Optimality Under Uncertainty”,Economica, vol. 48, no. 191, pp. 235–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Hewlett. “Investor Perceptions of Nuclear Power.” U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, (May 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Hill & T. Schneeweis. “The Effect of Three Mile Island on Electric Utility Stock Prices: A Note.” Journal of Finance 38 (September 1983), p. 1285–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himmelberger, Jeffery, Yelena Ogneva-Himmelberger, and Mike Baughman. 1993. “Tourist Visitation Impacts of the Accident at Three Mile Island,” in High Level Radioactive Waste Management Proceedings, 4th annual international conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 26–30,1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen R. [1991]. Multiobjective Decision Support for Environmental Problems, Free University ofAmsterdam, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky, (1979), “Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk,” Econometrica, vol. 47, no. 2 (March), pp. 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, Roger E. (1992), “The Social Amplification of Risk: Progress in Developing an Integrative Framework,” in Sheldon Krimsky and Dominic Golding, eds., Social Theories of Risk (Westport, Conn., Praeger Publishers), pp. 153–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopp, Raymond J., and Mark Sagoff. (1993), “[Title uncertain at present],” Resources, no. Ill (Spring), Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Krupnick, A.J., Markandya, A. and Nickell, E. (1993), “The External Costs of Nuclear Power: Ex Ante Damages and Lay Risks”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75: 1273–1279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, Howard, Douglas Easterling, William Desvousges, and Paul Slovic. (1990), “Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada,” Risk Analysis, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 469–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, Howard, William H. Desvousges, and Paul Slovic. (1988), “Nevada’s Predicament: Public Perceptions of Risk from the Proposed Nuclear Waste Repository,” Environment, vol. 30, no. 8 (October), pp. 16–20, 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, Howard, and Douglas Easterling. (1992), “Gaining Acceptance for Noxious Facilities with Economic Incentives,” in Daniel W. Bromley and Kathleen Segerson, eds., The Social Response to Environmental Risk: Policy Formulation in an Age of Uncertainty (Norwell, Mass., Kluwer Academic Publishers), pp. 151–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. et al. (1993). Damages and Benefits of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Estimation, Impacts, and Values (DRAFT), prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Resources for the Future for the U.S. Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. K. Lester and J. J. McCabe. The Effect of Industrial Structure on Learning by Using in Nuclear Power Plant Operation. MIT Working Paper MIT-EL 88–024WP, (November 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, Michael K., and Timothy C. Earle. (1983), “How Close Is Close Enough: Public Perceptions of the Risks of Industrial Facilities,”Risk Analysis, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 245–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markandya, A. and Pearce, D.W. (1988), “Environmental Considerations and the Choice of the Discount Rate in Developing Countries.” Environment Department Working Paper No.3. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melinek, S.J., Whoolley, S.K.D. and Baldwin, R. (1973), “Analysis Questionnaire on Attitudes to Risk,” Fire Research Note No.962, Joint Fire Research Organization, Herts, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Granger. 1993. Remarks reported in “Conference Synopsis Setting National Environmental Priorities: The EPA Risk-Based Paradigm and Its Alternatives,” Center for Risk Management, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., February. Conference held November 15–17, 1992, Annapolis, Md.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. and Brealey, R. [1986]. Principles of Corporate Finance, 4th Edition, McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • ORNL/RFF (1994). Report 2: Estimating Fuel Cycle Externalities: Analytical Methods and Issues. McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • PACE (1990). “Environmental Costs of Electricity.” PACE University Center for Environmental Legal Studies. Prepared for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and United States Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Pettway. “The Effect of the Three-Mile Island Nuclear Accident Upon Risk Perceptions of Investors in Public Utility Shares.” Working Paper, University of Florida, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, Geoffrey S. “Stock Market Reaction to Nuclear Reactor Failures.” Contemporary Policy Issues 7, 3 (July 1989). p. 96–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, Kalyan K and Walz, Daniel T. “ Three Mile Island and Utility Returns: Further Evidence.” Akron Business & Economic Review 18, 1 (Spring 1987), p. 75–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simnad, M.T. “Analysis of the factors contributing to the one trillion dollars wasted on nuclear power.” Energy, 14, 9, (1989), p. 503–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, Paul, Mark Layman, and James H. Flynn. (1991), “Risk Perception, Trust, and Nuclear Waste Lessons from Yucca Mountain,”Environment, vol. 33, no. 3 (April), pp. 7–11, 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, Paul. (1987), “Perceptions of risk,” Science, 236, pp. 280–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, Paul. (1992), “Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm,” in Sheldon Krimsky and Dominic Golding (eds.), Social Theories of Risk (Westport, Conn., Praeger Publishers), pp. 117–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. Kerry, and William H. Desvousges (1986),“The Value of Avoiding a LULU: Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. LXVII, no. 2 (May), pp. 293–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. Kerry (1992), “Environmental Risk Perception and Valuation: Conventional versus Prospective Reference Theory,” in Daniel W. Bromley and Kathleen Segerson, eds., The Social Response to Environmental Risk: Policy Formulation in an Age of Uncertainty (Norwell, Mass., Kluwer Academic Publishers), pp. 23–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K. and J.T. Liu (1990), “Risk Communication and Attitude Change: Taiwan’s National Debate Over Nuclear Power.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (December)

    Google Scholar 

  • Starr, C. (1976). “General Philosophy of Risk Benefit Analysis.” In Ashley, H., Rudman, R. and Whipple, C. (eds.). Energy and the Environment: A Risk-Benefit Approach. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Suzuki and K. F. Hansen. A Comparison of Nuclear Safety Regulation Systems and Their Impacts on LWR Performance in Japan and the United States. MIT Report MIT-EL 88–019, (September 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Uselton, Gene C. Kolari, James W. Fraser, Donald R. “Long-Term Trends in the Riskiness of Electric Utility Shares.” Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 13, 3. (Autumn 1986), p. 453–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. Kip (1989), “Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2 (September), pp. 235–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W.K., Magat, W.A. and Forrest, A. (1988). “Altruistic and Private Valuations of Risk Reductions.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, v. 7, n.2, pp. 227–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weart, S (1992), “Fears, Fantasies, and Fallout,” New Scientist pp. 34–37 (November 28).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard Institute for International Development, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    Anil Markandya

Authors
  1. Anil Markandya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for European Economic Research (ZEW), Postfach 103443, D-68034, Mannheim, Germany

    Olav Hohmeyer  & Klaus Rennings  & 

  2. Center for Enivronmental Legal Studies, Pace University School of Law, 78 Broadway, White Plains, N.Y., USA

    Richard L. Ottinger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Markandya, A. (1997). Quantifying the Risks Of Nuclear Electric Energy. In: Hohmeyer, O., Rennings, K., Ottinger, R.L. (eds) Social Costs and Sustainability. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60365-5_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60365-5_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-64372-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-60365-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation