One of the standard practices in estimating costs for new procedures is to apply past experience. In this chapter, Robin Cantor uses prudency hearings and other data from power plant construction to illuminate some of the pitfalls likely to be encountered in preparing estimates for power plant decommissioning. Two of the most tempting pitfalls are scale and learning economies. She suggests that these presumed economies have had less impact on keeping construction costs down than expected, and that they also are unlikely to have much effect on decommissioning costs. Ignoring such evidence, she suggests, could result in decommissioning cost estimates that are too low and collection strategies that are inadequate. This finding has implications for future generations and future decommissioning options.
Applied Decision Analysis, Inc. (1983). An Analysis of Power Plant Construction Leadtimes. EPRI-2880, Volume 1, Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute.
2.
BernowS.S.BiewaldB.E. (1987). “Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning: Cost Estimation for Planning and Rate Making,” Public Utilities Fortnightly120: 14-20.
3.
BuppI.DerianJ.C. (1981). The Failed Promise of Nuclear Power. New York: Basic Books.
4.
CantorR.HewlettJ. (1988). “The Economics of Nuclear Power: Further Evidence on Learning, Economies of Scale, and Regulatory Effects,” Resources and Energy10: 315-335.
5.
CohnS. (1986). The Political Economy of Nuclear Power, 1946-1982. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
6.
Applied Decision Analysis, Inc. (1983). An Analysis of Power Plant Construction Leadtimes. EPRI-2880, Volume 1, Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute.
7.
BernowS.S.BiewaldB.E. (1987). “Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning: Cost Estimation for Planning and Rate Making,” Public Utilities Fortnightly120: 14-20.
8.
BuppI.DerianJ.C. (1981). The Failed Promise of Nuclear Power. New York: Basic Books.
9.
CantorR.HewlettJ. (1988). “The Economics of Nuclear Power: Further Evidence on Learning, Economies of Scale, and Regulatory Effects,” Resources and Energy10: 315-335.
10.
CohnS. (1986). The Political Economy of Nuclear Power, 1946-1982. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (1972). Docket No. D.P.U. 1009-G.
18.
Michigan Public Service Staff (1984). Staff Investigation of Enrico Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Project. Prepared for the Michigan Public Service Commission.
19.
MoozW.E. (1978). Cost Analysis of Light Water Reactor Power Plants. R-2304-DOE, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
20.
MoozW.E. (1979). A Second Cost Analysis of Light Water Reactor Power Plants. R-2594-RC, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
21.
New York Public Service Commission (1979). Opinion No. 79-1, Case 27123.
22.
New York Public Service Commission (1985). Opinion No. 85-23, Case 27563.
23.
O’Brien-Kreitzberg &Associates, Inc. (1985). San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3: Phase II Report, Review of Construction and Management. Prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission.
24.
PaikS.SchriverW. (1979). “The Effect of Increased Regulation on Capital Costs and Manual Labor Requirements of Nuclear Power,” The Engineering Economist26: 233-244.
25.
PasqualettiM.J., ed. (1990). Nuclear Power and Society: Public Links to a Technical Task. New York and London: Routledge.
26.
PhungD.L. (1987). Theory and Evidence for Using the Economy -of-Scale Law in Power Plant Economics. ORNL/TM-10195, Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
27.
Sandy Cohen and Associates (SC&A) (1987). An Assessment of the Contribution of NRC Regulatory Growth to Nuclear Plant Cost Growth Using Engineering Scope Changes. ORNL/SUB/86-19785/1, Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
28.
TomainJ. (1987). Nuclear Power Transformation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
29.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (1986). An Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Construction Costs. DOE/EIA-0485, Washington, D.C.
30.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1988). Nuclear Regulation: NRC’s Decommissioning Cost Estimates Appear Low. GAO/RCED-88-184, Washington, D.C.
31.
U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1984). Nuclear Power in an Age of Uncertainty. OTA-E-216, Washington, D.C.
32.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) (1974). Power Plant Capital Costs, Current Trends, and Sensitivity to Economic Parameters. WASH-1345, Washington, D.C.
33.
WeinbergA.M.SpiewakI.BarkenbusJ.N.LivingstonR.S.PhungD.L. (1985). The Second Nuclear Era: A New Start for Nuclear Power. Edited by Russ Manning. New York: Praeger Publishers.
34.
ZimmermanM.B. (1982). “Learning Effects and the Commercialization of New Energy Technologies,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science13: 297-310.
