Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 75–107 | Cite as

Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest

Original Paper

Abstract

Merck suppressed data on harmful effects of its drug Vioxx, and Guidant suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models. Both cases reveal how financial conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research. Such conflicts also occur in electric-utility-related research. Attempting to show that increased atomic energy can help address climate change, some industry advocates claim nuclear power is an inexpensive way to generate low-carbon electricity. Surveying 30 recent nuclear analyses, this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to fall into conflicts of interest and to illegitimately trim cost data in several main ways. They exclude costs of full-liability insurance, underestimate interest rates and construction times by using “overnight” costs, and overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes. If these trimmed costs are included, nuclear-generated electricity can be shown roughly 6 times more expensive than most studies claim. After answering four objections, the paper concludes that, although there may be reasons to use reactors to address climate change, economics does not appear to be one of them.

Keywords

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

References

  1. Aabakken, J. (2005). Power technologies energy data book: Third edition. Golden, CO: US DOE, National Renewable Energies Lab. (37, 39).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  9. Bird, S. J., & Spier, R. E. (2005). The complexity of competing and conflicting interests. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 515–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bird, S. J., & Spier, R. E. (2008). A conflict of interest disclosure policy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 149–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blair, B. (2008). Public citizen takes on big oil, battles to reduce consumption, increase fuel economy. Public Citizen News, 10(Jan/Feb), 10.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, P. (2008). Voodoo economics and the doomed nuclear renaissance. Cambridge/London: Wolfson College, Cambridge University/Friends of the Earth.Google Scholar
  13. Brownstein, B. P. (1994). The Price-Anderson act. Cato Policy Analysis No. 36. Washington, DC: Cato Institute (17 Apr).Google Scholar
  14. Bunyard, P. (2006). Ecologist: Taking the wind out of nuclear power. Pacific Ecologist, 11, 51–57. (Summer).Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  17. Cravens, G. (2008). Power to save the world: The truth about nuclear energy. New York: Knopf. (365, xiv, 253).Google Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  21. Du, J., & Parsons, J. E. (2009). Update on the cost of nuclear power. Cambridge: MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.Google Scholar
  22. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (1999). Federal financialiInterventions and subsidies in energy markets. Washington, DC: Department of Energy, EIA.Google Scholar
  23. Energy Information Administration. (2009). Electric power annual. Washington, DC: US DOE.Google Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  27. Federal Acquisition Institute. (2005). Federal acquisition regulations, subpart 9.5—Organizational and consultant conflicts of interest. Washington, DC: General Services Administration.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  31. Heyes, A. (2002). Determining the price of Price-Anderson. Regulation, 25(4–8), 26–30. (Winter).Google Scholar
  32. House of Commons Energy Select Committee. (1990). Fourth report: The costs of nuclear power. London: UK House of Commons. (June).Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  37. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2003). Renewables for power generation: Status and prospects. Paris: IEA.Google Scholar
  38. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2006). World energy outlook. Paris: IEA. Nov.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. International Energy Agency(IAE)/Nuclear Energy Agency(NEA). (2005). Projected costs of generating electricity—2005 update. Paris: IEA.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  42. Lo, B., Field, M. J., & The Institute of Medicine. (2009). Conflict of interest. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lovins, A. B., Sheikh, I., & Markevich, A. (2008). Nuclear power: Climate fix or folly?. Snomass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute.Google Scholar
  44. MacKerron, G. (2007). The economics of nuclear power—Has government got it right? [University of] Sussex Energy Group Policybriefing, 1(Dec), 1–4.Google Scholar
  45. Madsen, T., Neumann, J., & Rusch, E. (2009). The high cost of nuclear power. Baltimore: Maryland Public Interest Research Group.Google Scholar
  46. Makhijani, A. (2007). Carbon-free and nuclear-free. Takoma Park, MD: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. (192, 188,182–184; 144, 190).Google Scholar
  47. Mariotte, M., D’Arrigo, D., Olson, M., Binette, A., & Keesing, D. (2008). False promises. Takoma Park, MD: Nuclear Information and Research Services.Google Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  50. Moody’s Corporate Finance. (2009). New nuclear generation: Ratings pressure increasing. Report 117883. New York: Moody’s (June).Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  64. Royal Academy of Engineering. (2004). The costs of generating electricity. London: Royal Academy.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  67. Scully Capital Services Inc. (2002). The business case for new nuclear power plants: A report prepared for the US DOE. Washington, DC: DOE.Google Scholar
  68. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (2002). Environmental justice (p. 131). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (2007). Taking action, saving lives. New York: Oxford University Press. (42; 42, 95–96; 51, 97).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (2009). Data trimming, nuclear emissions, and climate change. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  73. Smith, B. (2007). The bulletin interview. The bulletin of the atomic scientists, 63(6), 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  75. Stoett, P. (2003). Toward renewed legitimacy: Nuclear power, global warming and security. Global Environmental Politics, 3(1), 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stokes, L. (2002). Key issues in conflict of interest. Journal of Research Administration, 33(2–3), 19–25.Google Scholar
  77. Sweet, W. (2006). Kicking the carbon habit. New York: Columbia University Press. (182, 193).Google Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  79. Thomas, S. (2005). The economics of nuclear power. Berlin: Heinrich Boll. (26, 30, 19, 5, 6, 8, 20, 20, 5–6, 26).Google Scholar
  80. Thomas, S., Bradford, P., Frogatt, A., & Milborrow, D. (2007). The economics of nuclear power (Vol. 6, p. 31). Amsterdam: Greenpeace International.Google Scholar
  81. UK Department of Trade Industry (UK DTI). (2006). Nuclear power generation cost-benefit analysis. London: HM Government.Google Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  85. University of Chicago (U Chicago). (2004). The economic future of nuclear power. Chicago: UC. (Aug).Google Scholar
  86. University of Sussex and NERA Economic Consulting (Sussex-NERA). (2006). The economics of nuclear power. London: UK Sustainable Development Commission.Google Scholar
  87. US Congress. (1999). Worker safety at DOE nuclear facilities. US House of Representatives. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  88. US Congressional Budget Office (US CBO). (2008). Nuclear power’s role in generating electricity (p. 17). Washington, DC: CBO. (May).Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  91. Van Leuwen, J. W. (2007). Nuclear power: The energy balance. The Netherlands: Ceedata Consultancy.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  93. World Nuclear Association (WNA). (2005). The new economics of nuclear power (p. 14). London: WNA.Google Scholar
  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.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations