Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology

Living Edition
| Editors: Robert A. Meyers

Nuclear Power, Economics of

  • M. R. Deinert
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2493-6_33-3

Definition of the Subject

Financial viability is an important consideration when deciding whether to proceed with any large-scale engineering project. Many studies of nuclear power economics have been undertaken in an attempt to predict its overall costs or competitiveness [1, 2, 3, 4]. While these studies tend to differ in their assumptions about construction and operating expenses, they all use similar frameworks for the analysis. In essence, the idea is to predict the total cost of producing electric power over the lifetime of a facility and compare that to the market value of the electricity produced. All other things being equal, the larger the ratio of revenue to cost, the better the project.


Economic assessments of nuclear power tend to be complicated, not just because of the number of components that have to be factored in Fig. 1. The costs of any large project also depend on how it is financed and whether this is done through the issuing of bonds by the entity...


Discount Rate Nuclear Power Plant Spend Nuclear Fuel Rankine Cycle Nuclear Power Facility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.



Special thanks to Andrew Osborne, Brady Stoll, and Geoff Recktenwald for editorial comments. Thanks to Eric Bickel and Michael Webber for useful discussions and to Nick Tsoulfanidis for editorial comments and for acting as editor for this series.


  1. 1.
    OECD/NEA (1994) The economics of the nuclear fuel cycle. OECD/NEA, Paris, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bunn M, Fetter S, Holdren JP, van der Zwaan B (2003) The economics of reprocessing vs. direct disposal of nuclear fuel. Harvard University, Boston, Technical report DE-FG26-99FT4028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anolabehere S, Deutch J, Driscoll J, Holdren PE, Joskow PL, Lester RK, Moniz EJ, Todreas NE, Beckjord ES (2003) The future of nuclear power. MIT, Boston, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tolley GS, Jones DW (2004) The economic future of nuclear power. University of Chicago, Chicago, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garwin RL, Charpak G (2002) Megawatts and Megatons – the future of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldschmidt P (2010) Multilateral nuclear fuel supply guarantees & spent fuel management: what are the priorities? Daedalus 139:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stern R (2007) The Iranian petroleum crisis and United States national security. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:377–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cochran R, Tsoulfanidis N (1990) The nuclear fuel cycle: analysis and management, 1st edn. American Nuclear Society, La grange ParkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brealey R, Myers S, Allen F (2002) Principles of corporate finance, 9th edn. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schneider EA, Deinert MR, Cady B (2009) The cost impact of delaying the US spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility. Energy Econ 31:627–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deutch J, Forsberg C, Kadak A, Kazimi M, Moniz E, Parsons J (2009) Update of the MIT 2003 future of nuclear power. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Executive Order #12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OECD/NEA (2002) Accelerator driven systems and fast burner reactors in advanced nuclear fuel cycles. OECD/NEA, Paris, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hannon B (1982) Energy discounting. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 21:281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stillwell AS, King CW, Webber ME, Duncan IJ, Hardberger A (2010) The energy-water nexus in Texas. Ecol Soci 16(1):2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art2/
  16. 16.
    Benedict M, Pigford TH, Levi HW (1981) Nuclear chemical engineering, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (1987)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    DOE (2002) Nuclear waste fund fee adequacy: an assessment. DOE/Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, DC, DEO/RW-0534Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shapiro SS (1990) Selection, fitting, and testing statistical models. In: Wadsworth HW (ed) Handbook for statistical methods for scientists and engineers. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    OECD/NEA (1987) Nuclear energy and its fuel cycle-prospects to 2025. OECD/NEA, Paris, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    OECD/NEA (1993) The cost of high-level waste disposal in geological repositories – an analysis of factors affecting cost estimates. OECD/NEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    OECD/NEA (1996) Future financial liabilities of nuclear activities. OECD/NEA, Paris, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    GAO (1990) Changes needed in DOE user-fee assessments to avoid funding shortfall. United States General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, Technical report RCED-90-65Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    DOE (1995) Analysis of the total system life cycle cost of the civilian radioactive waste management program. DOE/Office of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, Washington, DC, Technical report DOE/RW 0479Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    DOE (1998) Analysis of the total system life cycle cost for the civil radioactive waste management program. DOE/Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, Washington, DC, Technical report DOE/RW-0510Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    DOE (2001) Analysis of the total system life cycle cost of the civilian radioactive waste management program. DOE/Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, DC, Technical report DOE/RW-0533Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rabl A (1996) Discounting of long term costs: what would future generations prefer us to do? Ecol Econ 17:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Arrow K (1999) Discounting, morality, and gaming. In: Portney PR, Weyant JP (eds) Discounting and intergenerational equity. RFF Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rasmussen N, Burke T, Choppin G, Croff G, Garrick J, Grunder H, Hebel L, Hunter T, Kazimi M, Kintner E et al (1996) Nuclear wastes: technologies for separations and transmutation. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shropshire D, Williams K, Boore W, Smith J, Dixon B, Dunzik-Gougar M, Adams R, Gombert D (2007) Advanced fuel cycle cost basis. US DOE, The Idaho National Laboratory, Washington, DC, INL/EXT-07-12107CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe Colorado School of MinesGoldenUSA