This paper attempts to gain insights into the cost-effectiveness of remote nuclear power plant siting as a means of minimizing potential radiation exposure. A simplified approach was used in which the reduction in population dose as a function of increasing distance between the nuclear power plant and the densely populated area it serves is evaluated against the resulting increase in power transmission cost. The model only considers power transmission costs as an economic variable; other advantages, such as the use of secondary heat, are not included.
These calculations indicate that, based upon the guideline value of $1,000/man-rem, remote siting of nuclear power facilities would not seem to be a cost-effective way to control potential radiation exposures. But only the biological effects of potential radiation exposure were considered; if other risk aspects were to be included remote siting might be justified
