IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwwpp/dp1700.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Nuclear Power in the Twenty-First Century: An Assessment (Part I)

Author

Listed:
  • Christian von Hirschhausen

Abstract

Nuclear power was one of the most important discoveries of the twentieth century, and it continues to play an important role in twenty-first century discussions about the future energy mix, climate change, innovation, proliferation, geopolitics, and many other crucial policy topics. This paper addresses some key issues around the emergence of nuclear power in the twentieth century and perspectives going forward in the twenty-first, including questions of economics and competitiveness, the strategic choices of the nuclear superpowers and countries that plan to either phase out or start using nuclear power, to the diffusion of nuclear technologies and the emergence of regional nuclear conflicts in the “second nuclear age”. The starting point for our hypothesis is the observation that nuclear power was originally developed for military purposes as the “daughter of science and warfare” (Lévêque 2014, 212), whereas civilian uses such as medical applications and electricity generation emerged later as by-products. Based upon this observation, we interpret the nuclear industry in terms of “economies of scope”, where strategies, costs, and benefits must be assessed in the multiproduct context of military and civilian uses of nuclear power. We propose a classification of different economic perspectives on nuclear electricity generation, and confirm the consensus of the literature that on its own, nuclear power has never been an economic method of producing electricity: not a single reactor in existence today was constructed by a private investor in a competitive, market economic framework. The economics-of-scope perspective is a useful heuristic to interpret countries’ strategic choices regarding the use of nuclear power. The paper provides a survey of strategies used by the nuclear superpowers (United States, Russia, China), by countries phasing out nuclear power because they cannot benefit from economies of scope (e.g., Italy, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland), and by potential newcomers who may expect synergies between military and civilian uses (e.g., Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, perhaps one day also Japan). We conclude that the future of nuclear power in the twenty-first century must be assessed in terms of economies of scope, and that a purely “economic” analysis of nuclear electricity is insufficient to grasp the complexity of the issue; this also raises conceptual challenges for energy modelers. The paper leaves out some important questions to be addressed in a future Part II of the assessment, such as economic and technical issues of plant decommissioning, long-term storage of waste, and the potential role of nuclear energy in climate policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian von Hirschhausen, 2017. "Nuclear Power in the Twenty-First Century: An Assessment (Part I)," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1700, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp1700
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.575798.de/dp1700.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Midttun, Atle & Baumgartner, Thomas, 1986. "Negotiating energy futures The politics of energy forecasting," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 219-241, June.
    2. Lucas W. Davis, 2012. "Prospects for Nuclear Power," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(1), pages 49-66, Winter.
    3. Christian von Hirschhausen & Felix Reitz, 2014. "Nuclear Power: Phase-Out Model Yet to Address Final Disposal Issue," DIW Economic Bulletin, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 4(8), pages 27-35.
    4. Grubler, Arnulf, 2010. "The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5174-5188, September.
    5. Lina Escobar Rangel and Francois Leveque, 2015. "Revisiting the Cost Escalation Curse of Nuclear Power: New Lessons from the French Experience," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2).
    6. Andreas Schröder & Friedrich Kunz & Jan Meiss & Roman Mendelevitch & Christian von Hirschhausen, 2013. "Current and Prospective Costs of Electricity Generation until 2050," Data Documentation 68, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    7. Patrick Criqui & Sandrine Mathy & Jean-Charles Hourcade, 2015. "Pathways to deep decarbonization in France," CIRED Working Papers hal-01202005, HAL.
    8. Son Kim & Kenichi Wada & Atsushi Kurosawa & Matthew Roberts, 2014. "Nuclear energy response in the EMF27 study," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 443-460, April.
    9. W. Kip Viscusi & Joseph E. Harrington & John M. Vernon, 2005. "Economics of Regulation and Antitrust, 4th Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 4, volume 1, number 026222075x.
    10. François Lévêque & Lina Escobar Rangel, 2015. "Revisiting the Cost Escalation Curse of Nuclear Power Generation: New Lessons from the French Experience," Post-Print hal-01260975, HAL.
    11. Claudia Kemfert & Thorsten Burandt & Karlo Hainsch & Konstantin Löffler & Pao-Yu Oei & Christian von Hirschhausen, 2017. "Nuclear Power Unnecessary for Climate Protection—There Are More Cost-Efficient Alternatives," DIW Economic Bulletin, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 7(48), pages 498-506.
    12. Christian von Hirschhausen & Clemens Gerbaulet & Claudia Kemfert & Felix Reitz & Cornelia Ziehm, 2015. "German Nuclear Phase-Out Enters the Next Stage: Electricity Supply Remains Secure - Major Challenges and High Costs for Dismantling and Final Waste Disposal," DIW Economic Bulletin, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 5(22/23), pages 293-301.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gerbaulet, Clemens & von Hirschhausen, Christian & Kemfert, Claudia & Lorenz, Casimir & Oei, Pao-Yu, 2019. "European electricity sector decarbonization under different levels of foresight," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 973-987.
    2. Wealer, B. & Bauer, S. & Hirschhausen, C.v. & Kemfert, C. & Göke, L., 2021. "Investing into third generation nuclear power plants - Review of recent trends and analysis of future investments using Monte Carlo Simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    3. Ben Wealer & Simon Bauer & Leonard Göke & Christian von Hirschhausen & Claudia Kemfert, 2019. "Economics of Nuclear Power Plant Investment: Monte Carlo Simulations of Generation III/III+ Investment Projects," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1833, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    4. Quentin Perrier, 2017. "The French Nuclear Bet," Working Papers 2017.18, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Samadi, Sascha, 2018. "The experience curve theory and its application in the field of electricity generation technologies – A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2346-2364.
    6. Lovering, Jessica R. & Yip, Arthur & Nordhaus, Ted, 2016. "Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 371-382.
    7. Perrier, Quentin, 2018. "The second French nuclear bet," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 858-877.
    8. Suna, Demet & Resch, Gustav, 2016. "Is nuclear economical in comparison to renewables?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 199-209.
    9. Matsuo, Yuhji & Nei, Hisanori, 2019. "An analysis of the historical trends in nuclear power plant construction costs: The Japanese experience," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 180-198.
    10. Quentin Perrier, 2017. "The French nuclear bet," CIRED Working Papers halshs-01487296, HAL.
    11. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2021. "Four Ways to Scale Up: Smart, Dumb, Forced, and Fumbled," Papers 2101.11104, arXiv.org.
    12. Sven-Olof Fridolfsson and Thomas P. Tangeras, 2015. "Nuclear Capacity Auctions," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    13. Linares, Pedro & Conchado, Adela, 2013. "The economics of new nuclear power plants in liberalized electricity markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(S1), pages 119-125.
    14. Roger Fouquet (ed.), 2013. "Handbook on Energy and Climate Change," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14429, September.
    15. Roger Fouquet, 2013. "Low-carbon economy: dark age or golden age?," Chapters, in: Roger Fouquet (ed.), Handbook on Energy and Climate Change, chapter 32, pages 682-708, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Sascha Samadi, 2017. "The Social Costs of Electricity Generation—Categorising Different Types of Costs and Evaluating Their Respective Relevance," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(3), pages 1-37, March.
    17. Jewell, Jessica & Vetier, Marta & Garcia-Cabrera, Daniel, 2019. "The international technological nuclear cooperation landscape: A new dataset and network analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 838-852.
    18. Sascha Samadi, 2016. "A Review of Factors Influencing the Cost Development of Electricity Generation Technologies," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(11), pages 1-25, November.
    19. Christian von Hirschhausen & Claudia Kemfert & Fabian Praeger, 2020. "Fossil Natural Gas Exit – A New Narrative for the European Energy Transformation towards Decarbonization," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1892, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    20. Solveig Glomsrød & Taoyuan Wei & Torben Mideksa & Bjørn Samset, 2015. "Energy market impacts of nuclear power phase-out policies," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(8), pages 1511-1527, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Nuclear power; technology; competitiveness; economies of scope; geopolitics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L52 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Industrial Policy; Sectoral Planning Methods
    • L95 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Gas Utilities; Pipelines; Water Utilities
    • N7 - Economic History - - Economic History: Transport, International and Domestic Trade, Energy, and Other Services
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:diw:diwwpp:dp1700. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.