Cost data on nuclear power from industry shown to be skewed

[kristopher]

Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Department of Philosophy and Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, 100 Malloy Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA

Received: 10 August 2009 Accepted: 19 October 2009 Published online: 8 November 2009
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.

Edit to change link: Not available without subscription. http://www.springerlink.com/content/k246p062836210m0/

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[maryf]

2. Thanks, K&R, NO NUKES!!! nt

[havocmom]

3. If solar, wind, geo-thermal got the same financial support and infrastructure support..

the pro-nuclear power folks (shills, or stockholders) might have a tougher time making claims that nuclear is cheaper. Throw out 'industry studies' making claims which are questionable, and one might come to the conclusion that safer, less waste generating methods might be pretty cost effective after all.

Our society pays part of the tab, just like society pays for much of the cost of personal automobile use and over-reliance on oil. We, as a nation, pay for some classes of products, whether they are good for society or not. Then, bad things get to argue that they are 'cheaper' than better alternatives? Insane!

Free market? Level playing field? Not if some industries are getting SOOOOOO much more sustenance from the society/public coffers.

[Zoeisright]

4. I wish I could rec this a thousand times.

It only makes sense that nuke nuts would lie about this. The bloated costs and cost overruns were already obscene at lower levels. This level of costs makes nuclear power a crime.

[bananas]

5. I think the paper is available free on her web page

Many journals allow authors to put a copy on their personal website for non-commercial use.
That paper is among others here: http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/

edit: I'm not sure that particular paper is there.

[kristopher]

7. I don't think it is...

[hansont]

6. How dare you inject FACT into our Fantasy!