Electricity and Energy Policy in Britain, France and the United States since 1945

Conditional inevitability: Expert perceptions of carbon capture and storage uncertainties in the UK context

“…Alternatively, it may indicate the presence of a representativeness bias (Kahneman et al, 1982) as participants made hardly any references to difficulties surrounding previous attempts to deploy large and complex energy technologies. The UK's plan to construct a suite of nuclear reactors during the 1980s, of which only one was completed, is an example of failure to account for complexities that inflated costs to unacceptable levels and hindered widespread deployment (Chick, 2007). Bazerman's (2006) finding that people commonly have positive illusions about the role of technology in controlling climate change indicates that optimism is not unique to the CCS domain.…”

“…Coal has an extensive legacy in industrialised nations (Chick, 2007) and is increasingly the fuel of choice for base-load energy generation in the emerging economies of China and India (IEA, 2010). The benefits of using coal accrue from low financial costs compared with oil and gas, and extensive worldwide reserves.…”

Three Investment Scenarios for Future Nuclear Reactors in Europe

“…History shows that the cost-benefit analysis led state choices about electricity investments mostly in France and partly in other European countries, but it tended to be forgotten in times of crisis (Suez Crisis, oil crises) in favor of national security of supply or national employment protection (Chick 2007). Cost-benefit analysis was thus an efficient approach to introduce economic rationality into choices, but not the appropriate tool to describe investment choices in a realistic manner.…”

“…The dominant economic theory used for electricity investment choices in the second half of the 20 th century was the cost-benefit analysis (Chick 2007). It takes its roots in the welfare economics theories founded in the 1930s and 1940s (Hicks 1939;Pigou 1924;Samuelson 1943;Allais 1943), and became known in the early fifties (Massé 1953;Boiteux 1956).…”

“…It remained the dominant academic current until the start of the liberalization process in 1986, though academics had already started to question it. With the Suez crisis in 1956, empirical research tended to show the shortcomings in the cost-benefit analysis: it became apparent that it did not include risks properly, in particular exogenous risks, like that on fuel supply (Chick 2007).…”