IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Prospects for Nuclear Power


  • Lucas W. Davis


The prospects for a revival of nuclear power were dim even before the partial reactor meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear plant. Nuclear power has long been controversial because of concerns about nuclear accidents, proliferation risk, and the storage of spent fuel. These concerns are real and important. In addition, however, a key challenge for nuclear power has been the high cost of construction for nuclear plants. Construction costs are high enough that it becomes difficult to make an economic argument for nuclear, even before incorporating these external costs. This is particularly true in countries like the United States where recent technological advances have dramatically increased the availability of natural gas.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucas W. Davis, 2011. "Prospects for Nuclear Power," NBER Working Papers 17674, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:17674
    Note: EEE IO

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Lucas W. Davis & Catherine Wolfram, 2012. "Deregulation, Consolidation, and Efficiency: Evidence from US Nuclear Power," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 194-225, October.
    2. Nicholas Z. Muller & Robert Mendelsohn & William Nordhaus, 2011. "Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1649-1675, August.
    3. Ryan Kellogg, 2011. "Learning by Drilling: Interfirm Learning and Relationship Persistence in the Texas Oilpatch," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1961-2004.
    4. Paul Joskow & Nancy L. Rose, 1985. "The Effects of Technological Change, Experience, and Environmental Regulation on the Construction Cost of Coal-Burning Generating Units," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 1-17, Spring.
    5. 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.
    6. Rebecca Achee Thornton & Peter Thompson, 2001. "Learning from Experience and Learning from Others: An Exploration of Learning and Spillovers in Wartime Shipbuilding," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1350-1368, December.
    7. Martin B. Zimmerman, 1982. "Learning Effects and the Commercialization of New Energy Technologies: The Case of Nuclear Power," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 297-310, Autumn.
    8. C. Lanier Benkard, 2000. "Learning and Forgetting: The Dynamics of Aircraft Production," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1034-1054, September.
    9. McCabe, Mark J, 1996. "Principals, Agents, and the Learning Curve: The Case of Steam-Electric Power Plant Design and Construction," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 357-375, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Mason, Charles F., 2014. "Uranium and nuclear power: The role of exploration information in framing public policy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 49-63.
    2. Managi, Shunsuke & Guan, Dabo, 2017. "Multiple disasters management: Lessons from the Fukushima triple events," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 114-122.
    3. Welsch, Heinz & Biermann, Philipp, 2016. "Measuring nuclear power plant externalities using life satisfaction data: A spatial analysis for Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 98-111.
    4. Sven-Olof Fridolfsson and Thomas P. Tangeras, 2015. "Nuclear Capacity Auctions," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    5. 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.
    6. Zhu, Hongjia & Deng, Yongheng & Zhu, Rong & He, Xiaobo, 2016. "Fear of nuclear power? Evidence from Fukushima nuclear accident and land markets in China," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 139-154.
    7. Roger Fouquet (ed.), 2013. "Handbook on Energy and Climate Change," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14429.
    8. Alexander Fink & Thomas Stratmann, 2013. "U.S. housing prices and the Fukushima nuclear accident: To update, or not to update, that is the question," ICER Working Papers 04-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    9. 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.
    10. Huhtala, Anni & Remes, Piia, 2017. "Quantifying the social costs of nuclear energy: Perceived risk of accident at nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 320-331.
    11. Huhtala, Anni & Remes, Piia, 2016. "Dimming Hopes for Nuclear Power: Quantifying the Social Costs of Perceptions of Risks," Working Papers 57, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    12. Roger Fouquet, 2013. "Low-carbon economy: dark age or golden age?," Chapters,in: Handbook on Energy and Climate Change, chapter 32, pages 682-708 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. repec:eee:energy:v:131:y:2017:i:c:p:67-77 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Aalbers, Rob & Shestalova, Victoria & Kocsis, Viktória, 2013. "Innovation policy for directing technical change in the power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1240-1250.
    15. Ando, Michihito, 2015. "Dreams of urbanization: Quantitative case studies on the local impacts of nuclear power facilities using the synthetic control method," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 68-85.
    16. Roman Mendelevitch & Thanh Thien Dang, 2016. "Nuclear Power and the Uranium Market: Are Reserves and Resources Sufficient?," DIW Roundup: Politik im Fokus 98, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    17. Thomas Covert & Michael Greenstone & Christopher R. Knittel, 2016. "Will We Ever Stop Using Fossil Fuels?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(1), pages 117-138, Winter.
    18. Sexton, Steven & Eyer, Jonathan, 2016. "Leveling the playing field of transportation fuels: Accounting for indirect emissions of natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 21-31.
    19. Harris, Grant & Heptonstall, Phil & Gross, Robert & Handley, David, 2013. "Cost estimates for nuclear power in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 431-442.
    20. Roger Fouquet, 2012. "Economics of Energy and Climate Change: Origins, Developments and Growth," Working Papers 2012-08, BC3.
    21. Lucas Davis & Catherine Hausman, 2014. "The Value of Transmission in Electricity Markets: Evidence from a Nuclear Power Plant Closure," NBER Working Papers 20186, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Fink, Alexander & Stratmann, Thomas, 2015. "U.S. housing prices and the Fukushima nuclear accident," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 309-326.
    23. 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.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • L94 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Electric Utilities
    • Q40 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - General
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:nbr:nberwo:17674. 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: .

    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 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.

    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.