Comments on LMFBR Cost-Benefit Analysis.
ResearchPublished 1975
In March 1975, Robert C. Seamans, Jr., administrator of the Energy Research and Development Administration, requested Donald Rice, president of RAND, to provide a review of the cost-benefit analysis contained in the Proposed Final Environmental Impact Statement (PFEIS) on the liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR) program. The three-part response, in letter form, reviews important assumptions and projections, examines the role of cost-benefit analysis as a decisionmaking tool, and gives guides for future policy. Among the findings: (1) Capital cost differentials between LMFBR and light water reactors are likely to be substantially higher than $100/kW. (2) R&D costs may go much higher than the $5 billion PFEIS estimate. (3) The growth of demand for electrical energy over 10 to 15 years will almost certainly be slower than PFEIS assumes. (4) The great uncertainties that characterize both the program and its economic environment can be effectively met only with an austere, incremental, sequential development program. .
Document Details
- Copyright: RAND Corporation
- Availability: Available
- Year: 1975
- Print Format: Paperback
- Paperback Pages: 18
- Paperback Price: $20.00
- Document Number: P-5498
Citation
RAND Style Manual
Chicago Manual of Style
Alexander, Arthur J. and Donald B. Rice, Comments on LMFBR Cost-Benefit Analysis. RAND Corporation, P-5498, 1975. As of September 5, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P5498.html
Alexander, Arthur J. and Donald B. Rice, Comments on LMFBR Cost-Benefit Analysis. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1975. https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P5498.html. Also available in print form.
This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.