Judging by the continuing stream of nuclear power plant cancellations and downward revisions of nuclear energy forecasts, there is nothing riskier than predicting the future of commercial nuclear power. U.S. Nuclear Regulation Commissioner John Ahearne (1981) likens the recent events affecting the nuclear power industry in the United States to a Greek tragedy. Others, particularly other nations, take a different view about the future.
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (1980). An Approach to Quantitative Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0739, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October, pp. 65-67.
2.
JohnAhearne (1981). “Nuclear Power: A Greek Tragedy?” Progress in Nuclear Energy 7, 2:77—85.
3.
AllisonG.CarnesaleA.ZigmanP.DeRosaF. (1981). Governance of Nuclear Power Report submitted to the President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee, September.
4.
BodanskyDavid (1982). “Risk Assessment and Nuclear Power.” Journal of Contemporary Studies, 5, 1 (winter).
5.
CommonerBarry (1979). The Politics of Energy. New York:Alfred A. Knopf.
6.
CONAES (1979). Energy in Transition, 1985-2010. Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
7.
DupontRobert L. (1980). “Nuclear Phobia—Phobic Thinking About Nuclear Power.” Washington, D.C.: The Media Institute.
8.
FirebaughMorris W. (1980). Public Attitudes and Information on the Nuclear Option. Institute for Energy Analysis, May, p. 5.
9.
FischhoffB.SlovicP.LichtensteinS. (1978). “How Safe Is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits.” Pol icy Science9:127-152.
10.
Freeman, S.David (1981). “New Fuels Era.” Paper presented at the 8th Annual Energy Technology Conference, Washington, D.C., March10.
11.
HollisterKenneth (1981). “Financial Support for Nuclear Power Plants.” Progress in Nuclear Energy 7,2:125-126.
12.
House Hearing (1981). Energy Demand Forecasting, No. 14. Hearing before the Subcommittee of Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology. U.S. House of Representatives, 97th Congress, 1st Session, June 1-2.
13.
House Report (1981). Nuclear Public Information and Rational Public Policy Decisions, No. 72. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 97th Congress, 1st Session, December15.
14.
House Staff Report (1980). “The Department of Energy's Public Information Programs: Major Changes Needed.” Report by the Staff of the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 96th Congress, 2nd Session, December.
15.
KaspersonR. E. (1980). “Public Opposition to Nuclear Energy: Retrospect and Prospect.” Science, Technology, and Human Values, 5,31, (Spring).
16.
KomanoffCharles (1981). Power Plant Cost Escalation: Nuclear and Coal Capital Costs, Regulation and Economics. New York: Komanoff Energy Associates.
17.
LilienthalDavid E. (1980). Atomic Energy: A New Start. New York: Harper & Row.
18.
MaizeKennedy (1981). “Upset Forecasts of Quads in A Nosedive.” The Energy Daily, June4.
19.
MartinoJoseph (1968). “Blunders of Negative Forecasting.” The Futurist, December.
20.
MattsonR.ErnstM.MinnersW.SpanglerM. (1980). “Concepts, Problems, and Issues in Developing Safety Goals and Objectives for Commercial Nuclear Power.” Nuclear Safety 21,6 (November- December): 703-716.
21.
MelberBarbara D. (1982). “Public Evaluations of Nuclear Power and Other Energy Options.” Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 1982 Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, June 6-10 p. 445.
22.
National Academy of Sciences (1969). Technology: Processes of Assessment and Choice. Report of the National Academy of Sciences to the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, July.
23.
National Academy of Engineering (1969), Study of Technology Assessment. Report of the Committee on Public Engineering Policy of the National Academy of Engineering to the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, July.
24.
National Goals Research Staff (1970). Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity with Quality. Report to the President, Washington, D.C., July4.
25.
NRC(1980). NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident, Vols. 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG-0660, May.
26.
NRC(1982). Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plants: A Discussion Paper. Issued for comment by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0880, February.
27.
ParisiAnthony J. (1981). “Hard Times for Nuclear Power.” New York Times Magazine, April12.
SchrammGunter (1979). The Value of Time in Environmental Decision Processes: Concepts and Issues. Ann Arbor, Mich.: School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, November.
30.
SpanglerMiller B. (1976). “Probabilistic Methods of Assessing Risk in Cost-Benefit Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants and Alternative Energy Sources.” In R. A. Karam and K. Z. Morgan (eds.) Energy and the Environment: Cost-Benefit Analysis. New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 446-474.
31.
SpanglerMiller B. (1977). “The Use of Scenarios in a Technology Assessment of Offshore Oil Developments.” In Philip D. Wilmot and Aart Slingerland (eds.) Technology Assessment and the Oceans. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, pp. 106-119.
32.
SpanglerMiller B. (1980). United States Experience in Environmental Cost-Bemjit Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants with Implications for Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0701, August.
33.
SpanglerMiller B. (1982). “The Role of Interdisciplinary Analysis in Bridging the Gap between the Technical and Human Sides of Risk Assessment.” Risk Analysis: An International Journal 2,2:101-114.
34.
Technology Assessment (1970). House Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, 91st Congress, 1st Session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 219-240.
35.
WeinbergAlvin M.(1977). “Toward an Acceptable Nuclear Future.” Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Institute for Energy Analysis, ORAU/IEA(o)-77-31, November.
