Application of the counterfactual method to assess of the local economic impact of a nuclear power station

Several studies have examined the local economic effects of nuclear power stations. However, their heterogeneity within countries and between countries indicate that one must be very cautious in drawing general conclusions about the positive and negative local economic effects of nuclear power stations over time. Using information about a specific nuclear facility in Spain and its zone of influence, we investigate the local economic impact of a nuclear facility by applying an infrequently used methodology called the “counterfactual” method. The purpose of this application of the counterfactual method is to establish what would have happened if the nuclear power plant had not been built where it was. This method permits observation of the impact of the nuclear power plant on the evolution of a set of variables whose influence is extremely important for the local area, such as the population, unemployment level, per capita income, and municipal governments’ revenues. Generalization of this method could offer the possibility of providing comparative results. However, the method must be complemented with other short-term approaches to provide a more specific analysis of the economic effects on the local actors involved and to offer incentives to policymakers to design and develop policies aimed at boosting economic activity in the area.

[1]  Bob van der Zwaan,et al.  Prospects for nuclear energy in Europe , 2008 .

[2]  David Pijawka,et al.  Impacts of nuclear generating plants on local areas. , 1983 .

[3]  R. Bezdek,et al.  The impacts of nuclear facilities on property values and other factors in the surrounding communities , 2006 .

[4]  A. Azapagic,et al.  Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review , 2011 .

[5]  Donald A. Krueckeberg,et al.  Socioeconomic impacts of US nuclear weapons facilities , 1998 .

[6]  Benjamin K. Sovacool,et al.  Valuing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear Power: A Critical Survey , 2008 .

[7]  Petros A. Pilavachi,et al.  Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process , 2008 .

[8]  Ioannis N. Kessides,et al.  Nuclear Power for Sustainable Development : Current Status and Future Prospects , 2009 .

[9]  Alan Bond,et al.  Public participation in EIA of nuclear power plant decommissioning projects: a case study analysis , 2004 .

[10]  F. Yamane,et al.  Nuclear Power‐Related Facilities and Neighboring Land Price: A Case Study on the Mutsu‐Ogawara Region, Japan , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[11]  William D'haeseleer,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear life cycle: A balanced appraisal , 2009 .

[12]  C. Robert Kenley,et al.  Job creation due to nuclear power resurgence in the United States , 2009 .

[13]  Ragnar E. Löfstedt,et al.  Are renewables an alternative to nuclear power? An analysis of the Austria/Slovakia discussions , 2008 .

[14]  Ioannis N. Kessides,et al.  The Future of the Nuclear Industry Reconsidered: Risks, Uncertainties, and Continued Potential , 2012 .

[15]  John Glasson,et al.  Better monitoring for better impact management: the local socio-economic impacts of constructing Sizewell B nuclear power station , 2005 .

[16]  T. N. Srinivasan,et al.  Fukushima and thereafter: Reassessment of risks of nuclear power , 2013 .

[17]  Karen Lowrie,et al.  Questioning conventional wisdom: the regional economic impacts of Major US nuclear weapons sites, 1970-1994 , 1999 .

[18]  Karen Lowrie,et al.  Regional economic benefits of environmental management at the US Department of Energy's major nuclear weapons sites , 1998 .

[19]  Mari Martiskainen,et al.  Climate change, energy security, and risk—debating nuclear new build in Finland, France and the UK , 2011 .

[20]  Larry Hughes,et al.  The Fukushima nuclear accident and its effect on global energy security , 2013 .