A free book on environmental change and food security

I found out a generous offer from Earthscan publisher.

Ingram, J., Ericksen, P., & Liverman, D. (Eds.). (2010). Food Security and Global Environmental Change.  London, UK: Earthscan. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Food_Environment]

Contents


List of Figures, Tables and Boxes ........................................  vii
Editorial Committee ........................................................  x
List of Contributors ......................................................  xi
Preface .................................................................  xiii
Acknowledgements .........................................................  xvi
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................  xvii


Part I Food Security, Food Systems and Global Environmental Change


Chapter 1 Food Systems and the Global Environment: An Overview .............  3
Diana Liverman and Kamal Kapadia


Chapter 2 The Value of a Food System Approach .............................  25
Polly Ericksen, Beth Stewart, Jane Dixon, David Barling, Philip Loring,
Molly Anderson and John Ingram


Chapter 3 Lessons Learned from International Assessments ..................  46
Stanley Wood, Polly Ericksen, Beth Stewart, Philip Thornton and 
Molly Anderson


Chapter 4 Part I: Main Messages ...........................................  63


Part II Vulnerability, Resilience and Adaptation in Food Systems


Chapter 5 Vulnerability and Resilience of Food Systems ....................  67
Polly Ericksen, Hans-Georg Bohle and Beth Stewart


Chapter 6 What is Vulnerable? .............................................  78
Hallie Eakin


Chapter 7 Vulnerability to What? ..........................................  87
Alison Misselhorn, Hallie Eakin, Stephen Devereux, Scott Drimie, 
Siwa Msangi, Elisabeth Simelton and Mark Stafford Smith


Chapter 8 Adapting Food Systems ..........................................  115
Polly Ericksen, Beth Stewart, Siri Eriksen, Petra Tschakert, 
Rachel Sabates-Wheeler, Jim Hansen and Philip Thornton


Chapter 9 Part II: Main Messages .........................................  144


Part III Engaging Stakeholders


Chapter 10 The Science–Policy Interface ..................................  149
John Holmes, Gabriele Bammer, John Young, Miriam Saxl and Beth Stewart


Chapter 11 Engaging Stakeholders at the Regional Level ...................  169
John Ingram, Jens Andersson, Gabriele Bammer, Molly Brown, Ken Giller, 
Thomas Henrichs, John Holmes, James W. Jones, Rutger Schilpzand and
John Young


Chapter 12 Part III: Main Messages .......................................  198


Part IV A Regional Approach


Chapter 13 Why Regions? ..................................................  203
Diana Liverman and John Ingram


Chapter 14 Stakeholders’ Approaches to Regional Food Security Research ...  212
John Ingram and Kamal Kapadia


Chapter 15 Undertaking Research at the Regional Level ....................  221
John Ingram and Anne-Marie Izac


Chapter 16 Part IV: Main Messages ........................................  241


Part V Food Systems in a Changing World


Chapter 17 Food, Violence and Human Rights ...............................  245
Hallie Eakin, Hans-Georg Bohle, Anne-Marie Izac, Anette Reenberg, 
Peter Gregory and Laura Pereira


Chapter 18 Governance Beyond the State: Non-state Actors and Food Systems ..........................................................................  272
Rutger Schilpzand, Diana Liverman, David Tecklin, Ronald Gordon, 
Laura Pereira, Miriam Saxl and Keith Wiebe


Chapter 19 Green Food Systems for 9 Billion ..............................  301
Michael Obersteiner, Mark Stafford Smith, Claudia Hiepe, Mike Brklacich 
and Winston Rudder


Chapter 20 Surprises and Possibilities ...................................  318
Alison Misselhorn, Andrew Challinor, Philip Thornton, James W. Jones, 
Rüdiger Schaldach and Veronique Plocq-Fichelet


Chapter 21 Part V: Main Messages .........................................  342


Chapter 22 Reflections on the Book .......................................  345
Thomas Rosswall


Index ....................................................................  351

Government Subsidies for Nuclear Energy in Germany and the United States

I wanted to check out how much of the taxpayers' money are being wasted for nuclear energy.
From the following two tables, I can say the German government paid at least 5.6 cents and the U.S. government paid 0.78~12.01 cents per every kilowatt-hour of nuclear-powered electricity in 2010.
* In Germany, the residential retail electricity price in 2010 was 18.31 U.S. ¢/kWh (or 0.1381 €/kWh).
* In the United States, the residential retail electricity price in 2010 was 11.58 U.S. ¢/kWh .

1. German State Aid for Nuclear Energy 1950-2010

All specifications in billions of €		Funding 1950-2010		2010 Funding	Funding as of 2011 (accumulated)
		Nominal	Real (2010 prices)
A	Financial aid	51.1	> 82.4	> 1.3	> 8.9
1	Research (Germany)	28.7	55.2	0.59	> 1.8
2	Federal state contributions	5.0	5.3	n/a	n/a
3	Guaranteed loans	0.14	> 0.14	n/a	0.05
4	German share of Euratom (European Atomic Energy Community) and PHARE (improving the operational safety of nuclear power plants and the training of their operators)	2.3	2.9	0.11	0.11
5	Closure of East German nuclear power	3.0	> 3.1	0.11	0.86
6	Decontamination of Wismut's uranium mines	5.4	6.5	0.15	1.02
7	Morsleben (repository for radioactive waste)	0.8	0.9	0.05	1.34
8	Asse (deep geological repository for radioactive waste)	0.5	0.5	0.08	3.7
9	Repository site search	0	0	0	0
10	Chernobyl	0.4	0.5	0.01	> 0.02
11	Contributions from international organisations	4.9	7.3	0.18	n/a
B	Tax benefits	92.1	> 112.5	3.3	66.4
1	Accruals	54.2	68.3	1.8	54.0
2	Net energy tax benefits	37.8	44.2	1.6	12.4
C	Budget independent state provisions	37.5	> 44.4	2.7	35.0
1	Increase in price of electricity through emissions trading	8.4	8.7	1.3	24.6
2	Incomplete competition in the electricity market	29.0	35.7	1.3	10.4
A + B	Sum 1: Budgetary funding	143.2	> 194.9	> 4.6	> 75.3
	Average in Euro cents per kWh	3.0	> 4.1	> 3.2	> 7.3
	Average in U.S. cents per kWh	4.0	> 5.4	> 4.2	> 9.7
A + B + C1	Sum 2: Budgetary funding + emissions trading benefits	151.6	> 203.7	> 5.9	> 99.9
	Average in cents per kWh	3.2	> 4.3	> 4.2	> 9.8
	Average in U.S. cents per kWh	4.2	> 5.7	> 5.6	> 13.0

Annual exchange rate: 1 € = 1.3261 U.S. $ in 2010 (Source: FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) at http://j.mp/USD_per_Euro)

2. U.S. Subsidies to Existing and New Reactors

Subsidy Type	Subsidies to Existing Reactors (¢/kWh)			Subsidies to New Reactors (¢/kWh)
	Legacy	Ongoing
	All Ownership Types	IOU	POU	IOU	POU
Factors of production Capital Reactor loan guarantees or direct loans Accelerated depreciation Recovery of construction/work-in-progress Government research and development Tax-exempt public reactors; no required rate of return Subsidized site approval and licensing costs Transfer of stranded asset liabilities Traditional rate regulation (return on “prudently incurred” investments even if not used or economically competitive) Regulatory-delay insurance Labor (shifting of health-related liabilities to taxpayers) Land (reduced property tax burdens for new plants at state or county level)	7.20	0.06	0.96-1.94	3.51-6.58	3.73-5.22
Intermediate inputs Uranium Subsidized access, bonding on public lands Percentage depletion on uranium extraction Legacy costs of uranium mining, milling sites (contamination costs staying with taxpayers) Federal uranium-stockpile management Enrichment services Below-market sales from government-owned facilities (prior to privatization in the United States) Tariffs on imported enriched uranium Federal liability indemnification for U.S. Enrichment Corporation; ambiguous requirements under Price-Anderson for newer private enrichment provider Monopoly agent for selling LEU derived from Russian HEU in warheads Environmental remediation costs Cooling water (free or subsidized use of large quantities of cooling water)	0.10-0.24	0.29-0.51	0.16-0.18	0.21-0.42	0.21-0.42
Output-linked support Market-price support (purchase mandates) Payments based on current output (nuclear production tax credit)	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.05-1.45	0.00
Security and risk management Cap on accident liability: reactors, contractors, fuel-cycle facilities, shippers ("Price-Anderson" cap) Nuclear Regulatory Commission services not paid by user fees U.S. funding of proliferation oversight abroad by the IAEA Plant security/low design-basis requirements for attacks	0.21-0.22	0.10-2.50	0.10-2.50	0.10-2.50	0.10-2.50
Decommissioning and waste management Tax breaks for reactor decommissioning Nationalization of nuclear waste management	n/a	0.29-1.09	0.31-1.15	0.13-0.48	0.16-0.54
Total (in 2007 U.S. cents)	7.50-7.66	0.74-4.16	1.53-5.77	5.01-11.42	4.20-8.68
Total (in 2010 U.S. cents)	7.89-8.06	0.78-4.37	1.61-6.07	5.27-12.01	4.42-9.13
Share of power price	139%-142%	13%-70%	26%-98%	84%-190% (high)	70%-145% (high)
				88%-200% (reference)	74%-152% (reference)

Consumer Price Index (CPI) change between 2007 and 2010: 105.2% (=218.056/207.342) (Source: BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) at http://j.mp/US_CPI)


Sources:
Eurostat. (2011). Energy Statistics - Prices. Retrieved from http://j.mp/EU_Residential_Electricity_Price
Energy Information Administration. (2011). Electric Power Monthly. (January 2011). Retrieved from http://j.mp/US_Residential_Electricity_Price
Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft (Green Budget Germany). (2010). Staatliche Förderungen der Atomenergie. Hamburg, Germany: Greenpeace. [Full-text at http://j.mp/German_Atomic_Subsidies]
Koplow, D. (2011). Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. [Full-text at http://j.mp/US_Atomic_Subsidies]

Levelized Costs of Electricity Generation (LCOE) - 2011 Update

I updated the list in a new post for the year of 2012. Please move to the post cited below.

Park, H. (2011). Levelized Costs of Electricity Generation (LCOE) - 2012 Update [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://j.mp/LCOE_2012

IPCC's summary of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by electricity generation technology

Today, the IPCC's Working Group III has published the 'summary for policy makers' chapter of their special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation.

In the summary, I found a figure on the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions estimates for electricity generation technologies.

Compared to renewable resources, fossil fuels' greenhouse emissions are gigantic.
Emissions of three energy sources seem controversial. Biopower's emissions span from negative to positive. Photovoltaics and nuclear energy can emit either near-zero or up to almost 250 grams of CO₂ equivalent greenhouse gases per kilowatt-hour.
However, when we take into account the Fukushima dai-ich nuclear power plant's ongoing disaster, photovoltaics beats nuclear energy. (I hope I can get empirical evidence for this assertion soon.)


Source: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Seyboth, K., Arvizu, D., Bruckner, T., Christensen, J., Devernay, J.-M., Faaij, A., Fischedick, M., Goldstein, B., Hansen, G., Huckerby, J., Jäger-Waldau, A.,  Kadner, S., Kammen, D., Krey, V., Kumar, A., Lewis, A., Lucon, O., Matschoss, P., Maurice, L., Mitchell, C., Moomaw, W., Moreira, J., Nadai, A., Nilsson, L.J., Nyboer, J., Rahman, A., Sathaye, J., Sawin, J., Schaeffer, R., Schei, T., Schlömer, S., Sims, R., Verbruggen, A., von Stechow, C., Urama, K., Wiser, R., Yamba, F., & Zwickel, T. (2011). Summary for Policy Makers. In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, & C. v. Stechow (Eds.), IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. [Full-text at http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/report/srren-spm-fd4]

How Many Jobs Are Created by Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy?

"[...] if you've ever seen the look on someone's face the day they get a job, [...] they look like they could fly. And unless we start tapping into that kind of spirit again, there's no way we're gonna fix anything in this country." -- Dave Kovic (impersonating U.S. President Mitchell in the 1993 movie Dave)

You don't have to cite the IPCC's fourth assessment report if you want to persuade people to adopt renewable energy technologies or buy energy efficient appliances, cars, and buildings. If they know they will have more jobs in the sustainable energy future, they will listen to clean (green) energy advocates.

Above all, what are green jobs? The UNEP defines green jobs as "work in agricultural, manufacturing, research and development (R&D), administrative, and service activities that contribute substantially to preserving or restoring environmental quality." (Worldwatch Institute, 2008) If you want to know specific names of green jobs, there are extensive lists of green increased demand occupations, green enhanced skills occupations, green new and emerging occupations according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA), which are online at the O*NET Resource Center (2009).

Perhaps the most influential paper on this topic after the UNEP's 2008 green jobs report mentioned above is Wei, et al.'s Energy Policy article (2010). While the UNEP study or the WWF's similar study for Europe (Ghani-Eneland, et al., 2009) calculated specific number of jobs that are created or could be created by green economics, Wei, et al. brilliantly extracted an average number of jobs per unit energy output by technology.
Their meta-analysis is quoted in a summary table as this:

Energy technology	Capacity factor	Equipment lifetime (years)	Average employment over life of facility (total job-years per GWh)
Biomass	85%	40	0.21
Geothermal	90%	40	0.25
Landfill Gas	85%	40	0.72
Small Hydro	55%	40	0.27
Solar PV	20%	25	0.87
Solar Thermal	40%	25	0.23
Wind	35%	25	0.17
Carbon Capture & Storage	80%	40	0.18
Nuclear	90%	40	0.14
Coal	80%	40	0.11
Natural Gas	80%	40	0.11
Energy Efficiency	100%	20	0.38

Although some technologies' capacity factors or lifetimes are arguable, it shows strong potential for large job creation from most renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Conventional technologies like fossil fuel, nuclear, and wind technologies had relatively lower employment multiplier effect.

The Center for American Progress (Pollin, et al., 2009) has a different calculation. They calculated numbers of new jobs per unit monetary output. (Wei, et al. compared total numbers of jobs between technologies.)

Energy source		Direct new jobs per $1 million in output	Indirect new jobs per $1 million in output	Total job creation per $1 million in output
Fossil fuels	Oil and natural gas	0.8	2.9	3.7
	Coal	1.9	3.0	4.9
Energy efficiency	Building retrofits	7.0	4.9	11.9
	Mass Transit / Freight Rail (90% MT, 10% FR)	11.0	4.9	15.9
	Smart grid	4.3	4.6	8.9
Renewables	Wind	4.6	4.9	9.5
	Solar	5.4	4.4	9.8
	Biomass	7.4	5.0	12.4

In this study, the energy efficiency sector's employment potential is higher than the previous table. Renewable energy sources' job creation power is stronger than that of fossil fuels.

There have been doubts to clean energy industry's employment potential. For example, Lesser (2010) asserted that higher electricity price due to higher penetration rates of costly (or subsidized) renewable electricity will actually decrease overall employment. Mostafaeipour (2010) pointed out that renewable industry's (in this article, wind power) workforce is predominantly male.
Lesser's assertions can be deputed by recent studies promising renewable energy's grid-parity even without subsidies, one of which I introduced in my previous post (http://j.mp/PV_LCOE_Reduction).
Although gender injustice against women in employment doesn't seem the renewable energy sector's exclusive issue, it is an important issue I'll look into later.

However, for now, I can say there're empirical evidence for better employment opportunities in the sustainable energy future.

Sources:

Ghani-Eneland, M., Renner, M., & Chawla, A. (2009). Low Carbon Jobs for Europe: Current Opportunities and Future Prospects. Gland, Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). [Full-text at http://j.mp/EU_Low_Carbon_Jobs]

Lesser, J. A. (2010). Renewable Energy and the Fallacy of 'Green' Jobs. The Electricity Journal, 23(7), 45-53. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2010.06.019]

Martinez-Fernandez, C., Hinojosa, C., & Miranda, G. (2010). Greening Jobs and Skills: Labour Market Implications of Addressing Climate Change. OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Working Papers, (2010/2). [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kmbjgl8sd0r-en]

Mostafaeipour, A. (2010). Productivity and development issues of global wind turbine industry. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(3), 1048-1058. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.031]

O*NET Resource Center. (2009). The Green Economy, from http://www.onetcenter.org/green.html

Pollin, R., Heintz, J., & Garrett-Peltier, H. (2009). The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy: How the economic stimulus program and new legislation can boost U.S. economic growth and employment. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. [Full-text at http://j.mp/CAP_Clean_Jobs]

Wei, M., Patadia, S., & Kammen, D. M. (2010). Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: How many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US? Energy Policy, 38(2), 919-931. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.044]

Worldwatch Institute. (2008). Green Jobs: Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon World. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). [Full-text at http://j.mp/UNEP_Green_Jobs]

Two grave nuclear-related difficulties governments cannot resolve, but nuclear moratorium can

There are two grave difficulties that governments cannot resolve with science and technology, but can totally avoid by declaring nuclear moratorium.

The first difficulty of governments is persuading people to accept financial uncertainties in nuclear power plant proposals.
Above all, people never know the full costs of the proposed nuclear power plant. Let alone non-monetary externalities, there are direct and indirect subsidies hidden in its capital and O&M cost estimation.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has published an interesting (and helpful) report (written by Doug Koplow) on economics of nuclear power. Its title (Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies) tells it all. Currently, the subsidies for nuclear power sum up to 11.42 cents per kilowatt-hour, while EIA's average electricity price estimation spans between 5.4~5.9 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Notable subsidies are:

• Nuclear power purchase mandates ("clean energy" portfolio standards)
• Nuclear production tax credit
• Reactor loan guarantees or direct loans (domestic and foreign)
• Accelerated depreciation
• Recovery of construction/work-in-progress (regulated utilities only)
• Government research and development
• Tax-exempt public reactors; no required rate of return
• Subsidized site approval and licensing costs
• Transfer of stranded asset liabilities
• Traditional rate regulation (return on “prudently incurred” investments even if not used or economically competitive)
• Regulatory-delay insurance
• Shifting of health-related liabilities to taxpayers
• Reduced property tax burdens for new plants at state or county level
• Subsidized access, bonding on public lands for uranium mining
• Percentage depletion on uranium extraction
• Legacy costs of uranium mining, milling sites (contamination costs staying with taxpayers)
• Federal uranium-stockpile management
• Free or subsidized use of large quantities of cooling water
• Cap on accident liability: reactors, contractors, fuel-cycle facilities, shippers ("Price-Anderson" cap)
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission services not paid by user fees
• U.S. funding of proliferation oversight abroad by the IAEA
• Plant security/low design-basis requirements for attacks
• Tax breaks for reactor decommissioning
• Nationalization of nuclear waste management

Obviously, these subsidies reduce the costs of nuclear energy and cause injustice on renewable energy sources. Zelenika-Zovko & Pearce (2011) assessed  possibility of divesting those subsidies from nuclear energy giving to solar energy in the United States. According to their analysis, subsidy transfer from nuclear to solar will result in dramatic increase in photovoltaic power production, which will eventually surpass nuclear electricity production from 2046.

The second difficulty governments have to handle is people's distrust in their governments once any nuclear accident takes place.
Because every pro-nuclear government has been championing the safety of nuclear power plants, they can hardly admit adverse health effects or fatality of radioactive materials coming from failed nuclear facilities. Consequently, people cannot trust a government's delayed or summarized announcements. Since Fukushima Dai-ich nuclear power plant accident occurred, nuclear apologists tell us radiation levels in our neighborhood (whether it is in America, Europe or Asia) are so low that they do not affect our health. That can be true, although nobody won't actually dare to feed their children with irradiated milk or lettuce.
But sometimes psychological effects of nuclear accidents can exploit people's health even the actual radiation level is negligibly low. This is an important issue that Becker (2011) raises in his editorial of the journal BMJ.

Psychological effects of a nuclear accident are: anxiety disorders, depression, a persistent subjective sense of ill health, deep fatalism about the future, and multiple unexplained physical symptoms. Becker cites World Health Organization's conclusion about the Chernobyl nuclear accident that psychological effects had been "the largest public health problem caused by the accident to date."

Becker points out importance of people's 'trust' in a government to protect people from nuclear emergencies. He stresses that it is more important for a government to gain people's confidence than to explain them how low the radiation level is. He makes this point clear by saying,
"the provision of timely, accurate, clear, and credible information may be the single most important way to save lives, reduce injuries and illnesses, prevent psychosocial effects, and help maintain people’s trust and confidence."

Therefore, my conclusion is: "Governments, declare nuclear moratorium!"


Sources:
Becker, S. M. (2011). Protecting public health after major radiation emergencies. BMJ, 342, 717-718. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d1968]
Koplow, D. (2011). Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Nuke_Subsidies]

Zelenika-Zovko, I., & Pearce, J. M. (2011). Diverting indirect subsidies from the nuclear industry to the photovoltaic industry: Energy and financial returns. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2626-2632. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.031]

A free pdf book on costs and risks of nuclear power's global expansion

I found a free pdf book on costs and risks of nuclear power's expansion. It was prepared by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC) and published at the end of 2010.

Sokolski, H. (Ed.). (2010). Nuclear Power's Global Expansion: Weighing Its Costs and Risks. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, United States Army War College. [Full-text at http://j.mp/NuclearExpansion]

----------------------------

Table of Contents

Foreword............................................vii

Overview............................................  1

1. Nuclear Power, Energy Markets, and Proliferation.  3

Henry Sokolski

Part I: Nuclear Power's Economic, Environmental,

 and Political Prospectus........................... 51

2. Mapping Nuclear Power's Future Spread............ 53

Sharon Squassoni

3. Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly?............. 93

Amory B. Lovins, Imran Sheikh, Alex Markevich

4. The Credit Crunch and Nuclear Power..............125

Stephen Thomas

5. Taxpayer Financing for Nuclear Power: Precedents

 and Consequences...................................149

Peter A. Bradford

Part II: Expanding Nuclear Power in Existing and to

 Future Nuclear States..............................187

6. Nuclear Power Made in France: A Model?...........189

Mycle Schneider

7. What Will Be Required of the British Government

 to Build the Next Nuclear Power Plant?.............279

Stephen Thomas

8. A Case Study of Subsidies to Calvert Cliffs......335

Doug Koplow

9. Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and

 Turkey: How Cost Effective?........................383

Peter Tynan and John Stephenson

10. Civilian Nuclear Power in the Middle East: The

 Technical Requirements.............................423

James M. Acton and Wyn Q. Bowen

Part III: Making and Disposing of Nuclear Fuel......477

11. Nuclear Fuel: Myths and Realities...............479

Steve Kidd

12. The Costs and Benefits of Reprocessing..........525

Frank Von Hippel

Part IV: Using Market Economics to Price Nuclear

 Power and Its Risks................................553

13. Third Party Insurance: The Nuclear Sector's

 'Silent' Subsidy in Europe.........................555

Antony Froggatt and Simon Carroll

14. Market-Based Nuclear Nonproliferation...........627

Henry Sokolski

About the Contributors..............................641

----------------------------