IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v39y2011i6p3025-3028.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of the nuclear options for greenhouse gas mitigation in China and in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Yang, Chi-Jen

Abstract

China is quickly building up its nuclear power capacity while the hailed nuclear renaissance in the United States has been largely stagnant. The political and industrial structures explain the divergent paths. This paper draws lessons from the French experiences in deploying nuclear power and uses the lessons in comparing Chinese and U.S. policies. An authoritative political system and state-owned utility industry allow China to emulate the French approaches such as government-backed financing and broad-scale deployment with standardized design. The democratic political system and fragmented utility industry, and the laissez-faire ideology in the United States, on the other hand, are unfavorable to a nuclear renaissance. The prospect of a nuclear revival in the United States remains highly uncertain. As China builds up its nuclear industry, it will be able to reduce carbon emissions without a carbon price through a national plan to deploy low-carbon nuclear electricity, while the United States cannot implement a climate policy without a carbon price. American politicians should stop using China's lack of carbon cap as an excuse for postponing the legislation of a carbon price.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang, Chi-Jen, 2011. "A comparison of the nuclear options for greenhouse gas mitigation in China and in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3025-3028, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:6:p:3025-3028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151100190X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xu, Yi-chong, 2008. "Nuclear energy in China: Contested regimes," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1197-1205.
    2. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Valentine, Scott Victor, 2010. "The socio-political economy of nuclear energy in China and India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 3803-3813.
    3. Collingridge, D., 1984. "Lessons of nuclear power French `success' and the breeder," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 189-200, June.
    4. Richard K. Lester & Mark J. McCabe, 1993. "The Effect of Industrial Structure on Learning by Doing in Nuclear Power Plant Operation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(3), pages 418-438, Autumn.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen, Yen-Heng Henry, 2013. "Non-nuclear, low-carbon, or both? The case of Taiwan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 53-65.
    2. Lin, Boqiang & Bae, Nuri & Bega, François, 2020. "China's Belt & Road Initiative nuclear export: Implications for energy cooperation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    3. Zhang, Shuwei & Bauer, Nico & Luderer, Gunnar & Kriegler, Elmar, 2014. "Role of technologies in energy-related CO2 mitigation in China within a climate-protection world: A scenarios analysis using REMIND," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 445-455.
    4. Wang, Jing & Li, Yazhou & Wu, Jianlin & Gu, Jibao & Xu, Shuo, 2020. "Environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy in China: A moderated mediation analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    5. Yang, Chi-Jen & Xuan, Xiaowei & Jackson, Robert B., 2012. "China's coal price disturbances: Observations, explanations, and implications for global energy economies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 720-727.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chi, Cheryl S.F. & Chen, Ling, 2012. "The sources of divergent practices in China's nuclear power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 348-357.
    2. Koomey, Jonathan & Hultman, Nathan E., 2007. "A reactor-level analysis of busbar costs for US nuclear plants, 1970-2005," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5630-5642, November.
    3. Ramana, M.V. & Saikawa, Eri, 2011. "Choosing a standard reactor: International competition and domestic politics in Chinese nuclear policy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 6779-6789.
    4. Zhang, Long & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Ren, Jingzheng & Ely, Adrian, 2017. "The Dragon awakens: Innovation, competition, and transition in the energy strategy of the People’s Republic of China, 1949–2017," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 634-644.
    5. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    6. Valentine, Scott Victor, 2014. "The socio-political economy of electricity generation in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 416-429.
    7. Yang, Min & Liu, Qi & Zhao, Hongsheng & Li, Ziqiang & Liu, Bing & Li, Xingdong & Meng, Fanyong, 2014. "Automatic X-ray inspection for escaped coated particles in spherical fuel elements of high temperature gas-cooled reactor," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 385-398.
    8. S. Taniguchi, Kazuhiro, 2022. "Why Fukushima? A diachronic and multilevel comparative institutional analysis of a nuclear disaster," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    9. Lars Sorge & Anne Neumann & Christian von Hirschhausen & Ben Wealer, 2019. "Nuclear Power, Democracy, Development, and Nuclear Warheads: Determinants for Introducing Nuclear Power," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1811, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    10. Daniel Z. Levin, 2000. "Organizational Learning and the Transfer of Knowledge: An Investigation of Quality Improvement," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(6), pages 630-647, December.
    11. Piazza, Alessandro & Perretti, Fabrizio, 2015. "Categorical Stigma and Firm Disengagement: Nuclear Power Generation in the United States, 1970-2000," OSF Preprints xqkdj, Center for Open Science.
    12. Richard A. Jensen, 2004. "Multiplant Firms and Innovation Adoption and Diffusion," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 70(3), pages 661-671, January.
    13. Sijm, Jos & Lehmann, Paul & Chewpreecha, Unnada & Gawel, Erik & Mercure, Jean-Francois & Pollitt, Hector & Strunz, Sebastian, 2014. "EU climate and energy policy beyond 2020: Are additional targets and instruments for renewables economically reasonable?," UFZ Discussion Papers 3/2014, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    14. Alvarez, F. & Cerda, E., 2003. "Learning by doing in a T-period production planning: Analytical solution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(2), pages 353-369, October.
    15. Furukawa, Yuichi, 2007. "The protection of intellectual property rights and endogenous growth: Is stronger always better?," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 31(11), pages 3644-3670, November.
    16. Phil Johnstone & Andy Stirling, 2015. "Comparing Nuclear Power Trajectories inGermany And the UK: From ‘Regimes’ to ‘Democracies’ in Sociotechnical Transitions and Discontinuities," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-18, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    17. Rothwell, Geoffrey & Rust, John, 1997. "On the Optimal Lifetime of Nuclear Power Plants," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 15(2), pages 195-208, April.
    18. Eunnyeong Heo & Seong-Yun Shin, 1999. "Estimating learning effects on nuclear power plants: A count data model with a varying time interval as a duration variable," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(10), pages 655-658.
    19. Paul L. Joskow, 1997. "Restructuring, Competition and Regulatory Reform in the U.S. Electricity Sector," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 119-138, Summer.
    20. Lehmann, Paul & Gawel, Erik, 2013. "Why should support schemes for renewable electricity complement the EU emissions trading scheme?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 597-607.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:6:p:3025-3028. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.