Cover: A Cross-National Comparison of Nuclear Reactor Development Strategies.

A Cross-National Comparison of Nuclear Reactor Development Strategies.

Published 1976

by Peter DeLeon

Purchase Print Copy

 Format Price
Add to Cart Paperback53 pages $23.00

Reviews the development of nuclear power reactors in the United States, Great Britain, France, West Germany, Canada, and the Soviet Union. The paper discusses the acceptance or rejection of respective national reactor types and what factors influenced that decision. It concludes that a close working relationship between the developing government agencies, the electrical utility industry, and the electric construction industry was essential if the reactor system was to experience widespread diffusion. Furthermore, those countries that enjoyed the greatest success in their reactor development programs typically developed multiple reactor types. (Presented to the Second International Congress on Technology Assessment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, October 25-27, 1976.)

This report is part of the RAND paper series. The paper 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.