IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v57y2013icp575-584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

External costs of nuclear: Greater or less than the alternatives?

Author

Listed:
  • Rabl, Ari
  • Rabl, Veronika A.

Abstract

Since Fukushima many are calling for a shutdown of nuclear power plants. To see whether such a shutdown would reduce the risks for health and environment, the external costs of nuclear electricity are compared with alternatives that could replace it. The frequency of catastrophic nuclear accidents is based on the historical record, about one in 25 years for the plants built to date, an order of magnitude higher than the safety goals of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Impacts similar to Chernobyl and Fukushima are assumed to estimate the cost. A detailed comparison is presented with wind as alternative with the lowest external cost. The variability of wind necessitates augmentation by other sources, primarily fossil fuels, because storage at the required scale is in most regions too expensive. The external costs of natural gas combined cycle are taken as 0.6 €cent/kWh due to health effects of air pollution and 1.25 €cent/kWh due to greenhouse gases (at 25€/tCO2eq) for the central estimate, but a wide range of different parameters is also considered, both for nuclear and for the alternatives. Although the central estimate of external costs of the wind-based alternative is higher than that of nuclear, the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Suggested Citation

  • Rabl, Ari & Rabl, Veronika A., 2013. "External costs of nuclear: Greater or less than the alternatives?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 575-584.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:57:y:2013:i:c:p:575-584
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513001134
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tol, Richard S. J., 2005. "The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(16), pages 2064-2074, November.
    2. Anil Markandya & Andrea Bigano & Roberto Porchia (ed.), 2010. "The Social Cost of Electricity," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13446.
    3. Esteban, Miguel & Zhang, Qi & Utama, Agya, 2012. "Estimation of the energy storage requirement of a future 100% renewable energy system in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 22-31.
    4. Rabl, Ari, 1996. "Discounting of long-term costs: What would future generations prefer us to do?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 137-145, June.
    5. Boccard, Nicolas, 2009. "Capacity factor of wind power realized values vs. estimates," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2679-2688, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shariat Torbaghan, Shahab & Müller, Hannah K. & Gibescu, Madeleine & van der Meijden, Mart & Roggenkamp, Martha, 2015. "The legal and economic impacts of implementing a joint feed-in premium support scheme on the development of an offshore grid," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 263-277.
    2. Kosugi, Takanobu, 2016. "Endogenizing the probability of nuclear exit in an optimal power-generation mix model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 102-114.
    3. Ahn, Joongha & Woo, JongRoul & Lee, Jongsu, 2015. "Optimal allocation of energy sources for sustainable development in South Korea: Focus on the electric power generation industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 78-90.
    4. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    5. Spada, Matteo & Paraschiv, Florentina & Burgherr, Peter, 2018. "A comparison of risk measures for accidents in the energy sector and their implications on decision-making strategies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 277-288.
    6. Alexis Louaas and Pierre Picard, 2022. "Optimal Nuclear Liability Insurance," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    7. Sungjoo Lee & Byungun Yoon & Juneseuk Shin, 2016. "Effects of Nuclear Energy on Sustainable Development and Energy Security: Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, September.
    8. Sascha Samadi, 2017. "The Social Costs of Electricity Generation—Categorising Different Types of Costs and Evaluating Their Respective Relevance," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-37, March.
    9. Taesik Yun & Younggook Kim & Jang-yeop Kim, 2017. "Feasibility Study of the Post-2020 Commitment to the Power Generation Sector in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, February.
    10. Carlo Andrea Bollino & Francesco Asdrubali & Paolo Polinori & Simona Bigerna & Silvia Micheli & Claudia Guattari & Antonella Rotili, 2017. "A Note on Medium- and Long-Term Global Energy Prospects and Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-25, May.
    11. Stanley, Conrad, 2020. "Living to Spend Another Day: Exploring Resilience as a New Fourth Goal of Ecological Economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    12. Burgherr, Peter & Hirschberg, Stefan, 2014. "Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(S1), pages 45-56.
    13. Lee, Sang Hun & Kang, Hyun Gook, 2016. "Integrated framework for the external cost assessment of nuclear power plant accident considering risk aversion: The Korean case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 111-123.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chernyavs'ka, Liliya & Gullì, Francesco, 2010. "Measuring the environmental benefits of hydrogen transportation fuel cycles under uncertainty about external costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5335-5345, October.
    2. McCubbin, Donald & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2013. "Quantifying the health and environmental benefits of wind power to natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 429-441.
    3. Gulli, Francesco, 2006. "Social choice, uncertainty about external costs and trade-off between intergenerational environmental impacts: The emblematic case of gas-based energy supply decentralization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 282-305, May.
    4. Luke Brander & El Hadji Fall & Rainer Friedrich & Onno Kuik & Kristin Magnussen & Stefan Hirschberg, 2010. "External Costs," Chapters, in: Anil Markandya & Andrea Bigano & Roberto Porchia (ed.), The Social Cost of Electricity, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Pycroft, Jonathan & Vergano, Lucia & Hope, Chris & Paci, Daniele & Ciscar, Juan Carlos, 2011. "A tale of tails: Uncertainty and the social cost of carbon dioxide," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 5, pages 1-29.
    6. Liu, Xuewei & Yuan, Zengwei & Xu, Yuan & Jiang, Songyan, 2017. "Greening cement in China: A cost-effective roadmap," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 233-244.
    7. Söderholm, Patrik & Pettersson, Fredrik, 2008. "Climate policy and the social cost of power generation: Impacts of the Swedish national emissions target," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4154-4158, November.
    8. Steve Newbold & Charles Griffiths & Christopher C. Moore & Ann Wolverton & Elizabeth Kopits, 2010. "The "Social Cost of Carbon" Made Simple," NCEE Working Paper Series 201007, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2010.
    9. Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago & Conceição, Pedro & Belbute, José, 2005. "Constraints on dematerialisation and allocation of natural capital along a sustainable growth path," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 382-396, September.
    10. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    11. Wenbin Wang & Mark E. Ferguson & Shanshan Hu & Gilvan C. Souza, 2013. "Dynamic Capacity Investment with Two Competing Technologies," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 616-629, October.
    12. Knopf, Brigitte & Nahmmacher, Paul & Schmid, Eva, 2015. "The European renewable energy target for 2030 – An impact assessment of the electricity sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 50-60.
    13. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    14. Hansen, Anders Chr., 2006. "Do declining discount rates lead to time inconsistent economic advice?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 138-144, November.
    15. Raitzer, David A., 2010. "Assessing the Impact of Policy-Oriented Research: The Case of CIFOR's Influence on the Indonesian Pulp and Paper Sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1506-1518, October.
    16. Runst, Petrik & Höhle, David, 2022. "The German eco tax and its impact on CO2 emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    17. Marques, António Cardoso & Fuinhas, José Alberto & Neves, Sónia Almeida, 2018. "Ordinary and Special Regimes of electricity generation in Spain: How they interact with economic activity," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 1226-1240.
    18. Tol, Richard S.J., 2012. "A cost–benefit analysis of the EU 20/20/2020 package," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 288-295.
    19. Liang, Chao & Xia, Zhenglan & Lai, Xiaodong & Wang, Lu, 2022. "Natural gas volatility prediction: Fresh evidence from extreme weather and extended GARCH-MIDAS-ES model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    20. Zhou, Peng & Poh, Kim Leng & Ang, Beng Wah, 2007. "A non-radial DEA approach to measuring environmental performance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 1-9, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:57:y:2013:i:c:p:575-584. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.