Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제49권3호
  • /
  • Pages.609-620
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Cognitive and Economic Value of a Nuclear Power Plant in Korea

  • 투고 : 2016.06.07
  • 심사 : 2016.10.13
  • 발행 : 2017.06.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

We studied the value of a nuclear power plant by considering Koreans' willingness to pay (WTP) for neutralizing the various problems caused by building and operating a new plant. For this, we used a conjoint analysis and ordered logistic regression. We then compared the WTP estimates between various segment groups. The results revealed that each household was willing to pay an additional 99,677 Korean Won (KRW)/mo on average to resolve the negative impacts from a nuclear plant. Therefore, the yearly cognitive and economic value of a nuclear plant in Korea was about 19 trillion KRW. Through a segment analysis, we found that the more educated, younger, and poorer groups gave higher cognitive values than the less educated, older, and richer groups, respectively. Also, people who lived far from a plant gave higher values than people living near a plant, and people with more knowledge about or interest in nuclear energy gave higher values than people with less knowledge or interest. People who felt that nuclear energy is necessary gave higher values to nuclear energy than those who did not. Our results can be used as bases to set targets for promoting nuclear energy and pursuing a national project of building a nuclear power plant.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. U.N. General Assembly, Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations, New York, 2015.
  2. A. Li, B. Lin, Comparing climate policies to reduce carbon emissions in China, Energy Policy 60 (2013) 667-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.041
  3. J. McVeigh, D. Burtraw, J. Darmstadter, K. Palmer, Winner, loser, or innocent victim? Has renewable energy performed as expected? Sol. Energy 68 (2000) 237-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(99)00073-0
  4. N.S. Rathore, N.L. Panwar, Renewable Energy Sources for Sustainable Development, New India Publishing Agency, New Delhi, India, 2007.
  5. C.T. Whitman, The Case for Nuclear Power, Business Week, New York, Sept. 17 2007.
  6. A. Longo, A. Markandya, M. Petrucci, The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy, Ecol. Econ. 67 (2008) 140-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.006
  7. F. Chen, N. Duic, L.M. Alves, M. da Graca Carvalho, Renewislands - renewable energy solutions for islands, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 11 (2007) 1888-1902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.12.009
  8. S.H. Park, W.J. Jung, T.H. Kim, S.Y. Tom Lee, Can renewable energy replace nuclear power in Korea? An economic valuation analysis, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 48 (2016) 559-571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.12.012
  9. Z. Peidong, Y. Yanli, S. Jin, Z. Yonghong,W. Lisheng, L.Xinrong, Opportunities and challenges for renewable energy policy in China, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 439-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.11.005
  10. J.P. Painuly, Barriers to renewable energy penetration; a framework for analysis, Renew. Energy 24 (2001) 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(00)00186-5
  11. S. Reddy, J.P. Painuly, Diffusion of renewable energy technologies-barriers and stakeholders' perspectives, Renew. Energy 29 (2004) 1431-1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2003.12.003
  12. A.F. Ismail, M.S. Yim, Investigation of activated carbon adsorbent electrode for electrosorption-based uranium extraction from seawater, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 47 (2015) 579-587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.02.002
  13. T.M. Komarek, F. Lupi, M.D. Kaplowitz, Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: choice experiment evidence from a research institution, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 5105-5115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.05.054
  14. G. Cicia, L. Cembalo, T. Del Giudice, A. Palladino, Fossil energy versus nuclear, wind, solar and agricultural biomass: insights from an Italian national survey, Energy Policy 42 (2012) 59-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.030
  15. W.A. Gamson, A. Modigliani, Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach, Am. J. Sociol. 95 (1989) 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1086/229213
  16. J. Palfreman, A tale of two fears: exploring media depictions of nuclear power and global warming, Rev. Policy Res. 23 (2006) 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00184.x
  17. E. Jun, W.J. Kim, Y.H. Jeong, S.H. Chang, Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology, Energy Policy 38 (2010) 1470-1476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.028
  18. J.W. Choi, K.B. Yoon, Current status and development strategy for energy safety technology, J. Energy Eng. 17 (2008) 175-181.
  19. H. Li, H.C. Jenkins-Smith, C.L. Silva, R.P. Berrens, K.G. Herron, Public support for reducing US reliance on fossil fuels: investigating household willingness-to-pay for energy research and development, Ecol. Econ. 68 (2009) 731-742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.005
  20. B.C. Farhar, A.H. Houston, Willingness to for electricity from renewable energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP 460 (1996) 1-27.
  21. B.C. Farhar, Willingness to pay for electricity from renewable resources: a review of utility market research, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP 550 (1999) 1-20.
  22. B. Roe, M.F. Teisl, A. Levy, M. Russell, US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity, Energy Policy 29 (2001) 917-925. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00006-4
  23. R.H. Wiser, Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles, Ecol. Econ. 62 (2007) 419-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.003
  24. N. Nomura, M. Akai, Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method, Appl. Energy 78 (2004) 453-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2003.10.001
  25. A.M. Borchers, J.M. Duke, G.R. Parsons, Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source? Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3327-3334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.009
  26. A. Hansla, A. Gamble, A. Juliusson, T. Garling, Psychological determinants of attitude towards and willingness to pay for green electricity, Energy Policy 36 (2008) 768-774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.027
  27. R. Scarpa, K. Willis, Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies, Energy Econ. 32 (2010) 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.06.004
  28. Q. Wang, X. Chen, Regulatory transparency-how China can learn from Japan's nuclear regulatory failures? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (2012) 3574-3578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.001
  29. G.E. Metcalf, Designing a carbon tax to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions, Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 3 (2009) 63-83.
  30. L. Sjoberg, B.M. Drottz-Sjoberg, Public risk perception of nuclear waste, Int. J. Risk Assess. Manag. 11 (2009) 248-280.
  31. M. Trebilcock, R.A. Winter, The economics of nuclear accident law, Int. Rev. Law Econ. 17 (1997) 215-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8188(97)00004-5
  32. J.C. Kaiser, P. Jacob, M. Blettner, S. Vavilov, Screening effects in risk studies of thyroid cancer after the Chernobyl accident, Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 48 (2009) 169-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-009-0211-6
  33. B.K. Sovacool, The costs of failure: a preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907-2007, Energy Policy 36 (2008) 1802-1820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.040
  34. N.C. Bronfman, R.B. Jimenez, P.C. Arevalo, L.A. Cifuentes, Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources, Energy Policy 46 (2012) 246-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.057
  35. S.W. Kidd, Nuclear power-economics and public acceptance, Energy Strategy Rev. 1 (2013) 277-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2013.03.006
  36. P. Richardson, K. Rickwood, P. Rickwood, Public involvement as a tool to enhance nuclear safety, Energy Strategy Rev. 1 (2013) 266-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2012.11.002
  37. Y. Song, D. Kim, D. Han, Risk communication in South Korea: social acceptance of nuclear power plants (NPPs), Public Relations Rev. 39 (2013) 55-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.10.002
  38. J.H. Bae, Estimating the Effect and the Social Value on the Regional Economic Affected by the Regional Renewable [Korea Energy Economics Institute Report], Korea Energy Economics Institute, Ulsan, Korea, 2007.
  39. Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Nuclear Power Generation White Paper [Report], Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Seoul, Korea, 2011.
  40. G.Y. Huh, The Issues and Challenges about the Cost of Nuclear Power, National Assembly Budget Office Report, Seoul, Korea, 2014.
  41. Lawissue [Internet]. The first acknowledge about the thyroid cancer due to the long-term radiation exposure… compensation 15 million KRW [cited 2014 Dec 12]. Available from: http://www.lawissue.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=19178.
  42. M.S. Kazimi, N.E. Todreas, Nuclear power economic performance: challenges and opportunities, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 24 (1999) 139-171. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.24.1.139
  43. J.G. Hewlett, Economic and regulatory factors affecting the maintenance of nuclear power plants, Energy J. 17 (1996) 1-31.
  44. A.A. Afanas'ev, L.A. Bol'shov, A.N. Karkhov, Economic efficiency of new-generation nuclear power plants, At. Energy 81 (1996) 572-579. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02415659
  45. F.M. Mitenkov, B.A. Averbakh, I.N.Antyufeeva, Economic effect of the development and operation of serially produced propulsion nuclear power systems, At. Energy 102 (2007) 42-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10512-007-0006-2
  46. T. Kato, S. Takahara, M. Nishikawa, T. Homma, A case study of economic incentives and local citizens' attitudes toward hosting a nuclear power plant in Japan: impacts of the Fukushima accident, Energy Policy 59 (2013) 808-818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.043
  47. P.A. Groothuis, J.D. Groothuis, J.C. Whitehead, Green vs. green: measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed, Energy Policy 36 (2008) 1545-1550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.018
  48. A. Bergmann, S. Colombo, N. Hanley, Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments, Ecol. Econ. 65 (2008) 616-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.011
  49. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Linking Renewable Energy to Rural Development, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 2012.
  50. C. Sun, X. Zhu, Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China: evidence from a contingent valuation survey, Energy Policy 69 (2014) 397-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.011
  51. G.L. Bennett, The safety review and approval process for space nuclear power sources, Nucl. Saf. 32 (1991) 1-18.
  52. C. Liu, Z. Zhang, S. Kidd, Establishing an objective system for the assessment of public acceptance of nuclear power in China, Nucl. Eng. Des. 238 (2008) 2834-2838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2008.04.001
  53. T. Lee, K. Harrison, Assessing safety culture in nuclear power stations, Saf. Sci. 34 (2000) 61-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00007-2
  54. A.N. Rumyantsev, Safety prediction in nuclear power, At. Energy 102 (2007) 94-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10512-007-0014-2
  55. Z. Chen, J. Kong, M. Geng, Survey of public acceptance on nuclear power in Guangdong province, China Electric Power Educ. 1 (2009) 134-137.
  56. A. Jalil, S.F. Mahmud, Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China, Energy Policy 37 (2009) 5167-5172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.044
  57. G.M. Grossman, A.B. Krueger, Economic environment and the economic growth, Q. J. Econ. 110 (1995) 353-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443
  58. T.M. Selden, D. Song, Neoclassical growth, the J curve for abatement, and the inverted U curve for pollution, J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 29 (1995) 162-168. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1038
  59. S.M. Rashad, F.H. Hammad, Nuclear power and the environment: comparative assessment of environmental and health impacts of electricity-generating systems, Appl. Energy 65 (2000) 211-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-2619(99)00069-0
  60. J.W. Stoutenborough, S.G. Sturgess, A. Vedlitz, Knowledge, risk, and policy support: public perceptions of nuclear power, Energy Policy 62 (2013) 176-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.098
  61. M. Siegrist, B. Sutterlin, C. Keller, Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima? Energy Policy 69 (2014) 356-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.026
  62. P. Hartmann, V. Apaolaza, C. D'Souza, C. Echebarria, J.M. Barrutia, Nuclear power threats, public opposition and green electricity adoption: effects of threat belief appraisal and fear arousal, Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1366-1376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.058
  63. J.J. Louviere, Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity, J. transport econ. policy 22 (1988) 93-119.
  64. J.L. Anderson, S.U. Bettencourt, A conjoint approach to model product preferences: the New England market for fresh and frozen salmon, Marine Resour. Econ. 8 (1993) 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1086/mre.8.1.42629045
  65. P.E. Green, V.R. Rao, Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data, J. Mark. Res. 8 (1971) 355-363. https://doi.org/10.2307/3149575
  66. P.E. Green, Y. Wind, H.J. Claycamp, Brand-features congruence mapping, J. Mark. Res. 12 (1975) 306-313. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151229
  67. P.E. Green, V. Srinivasan, Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook, J. Consum. Res. 5 (1978) 103-123. https://doi.org/10.1086/208721
  68. D.A. Hensher, Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice, Transportation 21 (1994) 107-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01098788
  69. R.M. Johnson, Trade-off analysis of consumer values, J. Mark. Res. 11 (1974) 121-127. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150548
  70. V. Srinivasan, A.D. Shocker, Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgments, Psychometrika 38 (1973) 473-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291490
  71. J. Mackenzie, A comparison of contingent preference models, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 75 (1993) 593-603. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243566
  72. W. Adamowicz, J. Louviere, M. Williams, Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities, J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 26 (1994) 271-292. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1017
  73. Y.H. Kwak, F.T. Anbari, Benefits, obstacles, and future of six sigma approach, Technovation 26 (2006) 708-715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.10.003
  74. N. Hanley, R.E. Wright, V. Adamowicz, Using choice experiments to value the environment, Environ. Resour. Econ. 11 (1998) 413-428. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008287310583
  75. D. McFadden, Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, in: P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press, New York, 1974.
  76. S. Stern, Simulation-based estimation, J. Econ. Lit. 35.4 (1997) 2006-2039.
  77. W.H. Greene, Econometric Analysis, Prentice Hall International, London, 2000.
  78. Y. Kim, M. Kim, W. Kim, Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy, Energy Policy 61 (2013) 822-828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.107