slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Does It Matter If You Live Next to a Nuclear Power Plant?

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 38

Does It Matter If You Live Next to a Nuclear Power Plant? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 72 Views
  • Uploaded on

Does It Matter If You Live Next to a Nuclear Power Plant? based on articles in Land Economics , March 1991 and Journal of Regional Science November 2000. This session discusses environmental

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Does It Matter If You Live Next to a Nuclear Power Plant? ' - griselda-robert


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1
Does It Matter If You Live Next

to a Nuclear Power Plant?

based on articles

in

Land Economics, March 1991

and

Journal of Regional Science

November 2000

slide2
This session discusses environmental

costs of several types:

1. Cases of a threat without physical damage.

2. Cases of physical or emotional damage.

3. Cases of perceptions of harm to the

"commons."

slide3
The nuclear power case is generally one

of threat without physical damage.

Its study is the source of what I have

learned about environmental costs of

all kinds.

My knowledge is economic knowledge;

I mean by this that it is limited both

to the sphere of economics and to my

own understanding.

slide4
Please be thinking about these questions

in addition to your own:

1. What harm can nuclear power do

and to whom?

2. Does the perception or prediction of

harm count as an environmental cost?

3. Do Americans really perceive any harm

or care about it?

slide6
The percent share

of each country’s

energy needs that

are supplied by

nuclear power

plants, ca 1998.

slide8
The economic theory of environmental

costs:

1. Some environmental costs are

normally incurred in economic

production--these need not be

inefficient uses of the environment:

E.g.: a. the woodcutter; b. the lumber mill,

c. the farmer clearing land; d. fishermen;

e. city builder and so on.

slide9
For economic theory, the key question is

whether the environmental costs are fully

incorporated into the costs of the product.

The idea: In such case, humanity is

recognizing its effects on the environment,

and provided also that markets are well-

functioning competitive markets--then

the environment is being properly employed.

slide10
The poet might put it this way:

We, too, are children of the universe,

we have a right to use the Earth's

resources just as do the other

living things.

So what is the problem? Is there one?

slide11
2. In economic theory, the environment

is misused when the damage is not

fully recognized and incorporated into

the economic costs we humans incur.

These problems are called

Detrimental Externalities.

slide12
Formally: An detrimental externality is a

harm caused by a market activity that

is non-monetary and is not compensated.

E.g: factory smoke--detrimental externality

acid rain--detrimental externality

labor costs--not an externality

materials costs--not an externality

compensated pollution--not an externality

slide13
An externality in theory:

A simple

picture shows

the market as

a circle around

supply and

demand. The

side effect can

be any harm

(or benefit).

slide15
Coase Theorem:

Externalities will tend to self-correct

when property rights are clearly defined

and transactions costs are minimal.

slide17
If these concepts define the environmental

costs of e.g. nuclear power, then

what are the costs in this case?

slide19
No! The scientists complain.

The Manhattan Project would

have been a piece of cake if

it were this easy.

An atom bomb requires large

yield conventional explosives

just to get things going—”implosion”.

slide20
However:

1. A severe accident would spew

radioactive matter into the environment

damaging both humans and physical assets.

2. The nuclear waste material lasts a very

long time, is difficult to store safely, and

is nearly impossible to store politically.

slide21
A related question of interest to me:

1. Is an imagined threat properly

a detrimental externality?

2. Is a threat without battery considered

an assault under the law?

slide22
What do we know about Three Mile Island

the best known nuclear crisis in America?

Mainly that the distance “gradient” on house

prices was neutral around Three Mile Island

both before and after the accident.

slide24
Negative gradient.

(hypothetical)

slide25
What researchers found:

Neutral gradient (actual).

slide26
One other study confirmed this with 4 other plants:

Ginna—Rochester, NY

Pilgrim—Plymouth., Mass.

Oyster Creek--NJ

Millstone—Waterford., CT

Plus Three Mile Island again.

slide27
Didn't anyone care?

Do people even notice?

slide28
My background to this story.

1. Donna and I lived near TMI from August 1981

until August 1986.

2. Colleagues at Penn State Harrisburg did

research on the human reactions to the

TMI accident.

slide31
Hough taught at

Oakland University

in MIS and Econ

from early 1960s

to 2000.

Robbin had assembled

data suitable to make

and initial study.

He "amassed" data.

Robbin Hough,

coauthor.

slide32
We were aware of some drawbacks of the
  • gradient approach:
  • 1. The selected 20 mile radiusmay be too small.
  • 2. TMI was arguably safer after the accident.
  • Were residents really unconcerned? Instead
  • many residents had been terrified.
slide33
Our study found: Farmland with

a nuclear “neighbor” is worth about

10 (ten) percent less than elsewhere.

(We compared some 80 nuclear areas to some

410 nonnuclear areas over 11 years.)

slide35
Year of the data

(cross-section)

PerCent drop

in land value

1959

-0.111

1964

-0.110

1969

-0.094

1974

-0.066

1978

-0.-87

1982

-0.084

1987

-0.012

1992

-0.017

A drop in

land prices

was

observed

in each of

the single

year data

sets.

slide36
Bottom line:

Nuclear plants will drop your farmland value

by 3 to 4 percent on average.

and over 10 percent for many farm locations.

slide37
Imagine Farmer Kushinsky owns

section of farmland valued at

$5,000 per acre. A 10 percent

drop in per acre value means he

loses:

640*5000*10% =$320,000

slide38
Conclusion:
  • This cost is big enough to matter
  • for American energy policy.
  • 2. But, it’s not big enough to prove
  • that nuclear energy is the wrong
  • choice for us.
ad