IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v39y2011i9p5664-5673.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the contribution of external cost calculations to energy system governance: The case of a potential large-scale nuclear accident

Author

Listed:
  • Laes, Erik
  • Meskens, Gaston
  • van der Sluijs, Jeroen P.

Abstract

The contribution of nuclear power to a sustainable energy future is a contested issue. This paper presents a critical review of an attempt to objectify this debate through the calculation of the external costs of a potential large-scale nuclear accident in the ExternE project. A careful dissection of the ExternE approach resulted in a list of 30 calculation steps and assumptions, from which the 6 most contentious ones were selected through a stakeholder internet survey. The policy robustness and relevance of these key assumptions were then assessed in a workshop using the concept of a 'pedigree of knowledge'. Overall, the workshop outcomes revealed the stakeholder and expert panel's scepticism about the assumptions made: generally these were considered not very plausible, subjected to disagreement, and to a large extent inspired by contextual factors. Such criticism indicates a limited validity and useability of the calculated nuclear accident externality as a trustworthy sustainability indicator. Furthermore, it is our contention that the ExternE project could benefit greatly - in terms of gaining public trust - from employing highly visible procedures of extended peer review such as the pedigree assessment applied to our specific case of the external costs of a potential large-scale nuclear accident.

Suggested Citation

  • Laes, Erik & Meskens, Gaston & van der Sluijs, Jeroen P., 2011. "On the contribution of external cost calculations to energy system governance: The case of a potential large-scale nuclear accident," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5664-5673, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:9:p:5664-5673
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511002990
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adamantiades, A. & Kessides, I., 2009. "Nuclear power for sustainable development: Current status and future prospects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5149-5166, December.
    2. Emilie Roth & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Lester Lave & Ann Bostrom, 1990. "What Do We Know About Making Risk Comparisons?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 375-387, September.
    3. Stirling, Andrew, 1997. "Limits to the value of external costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 517-540, April.
    4. Rayner, Steve, 2010. "Trust and the transformation of energy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2617-2623, June.
    5. Alan J. Krupnick & Anil Markandya & Eric Nickell, 1993. "The External Costs of Nuclear Power: Ex Ante Damages and Lay Risks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(5), pages 1273-1279.
    6. Andy Stirling, 2010. "Keep it complex," Nature, Nature, vol. 468(7327), pages 1029-1031, December.
    7. Verbruggen, Aviel, 2008. "Renewable and nuclear power: A common future?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4036-4047, November.
    8. van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2010. "Externality or sustainability economics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2047-2052, September.
    9. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hong, Sanghyun & Bradshaw, Corey J.A. & Brook, Barry W., 2014. "South Korean energy scenarios show how nuclear power can reduce future energy and environmental costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 569-578.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Aven, Terje, 2017. "Improving risk characterisations in practical situations by highlighting knowledge aspects, with applications to risk matrices," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 42-48.
    4. Danzer, Alexander M. & Danzer, Natalia, 2016. "The long-run consequences of Chernobyl: Evidence on subjective well-being, mental health and welfare," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 47-60.
    5. Chuanwang Sun & Nan Lyu & Xiaoling Ouyang, 2014. "Chinese Public Willingness to Pay to Avoid Having Nuclear Power Plants in the Neighborhood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-27, October.
    6. Berner, Christine Louise & Flage, Roger, 2017. "Creating risk management strategies based on uncertain assumptions and aspects from assumption-based planning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 10-19.
    7. Brown, Alistair, 2016. "The need for improved financial reporting of a developing country energy utility," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1448-1454.
    8. Aven, Terje & Kristensen, Vidar, 2019. "How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge can improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    9. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    10. Verbruggen, Aviel & Laes, Erik & Lemmens, Sanne, 2014. "Assessment of the actual sustainability of nuclear fission power," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 16-28.
    11. Csereklyei, Zsuzsanna, 2014. "Measuring the impact of nuclear accidents on energy policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 121-129.
    12. Spada, Matteo & Paraschiv, Florentina & Burgherr, Peter, 2018. "A comparison of risk measures for accidents in the energy sector and their implications on decision-making strategies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 277-288.
    13. Huhtala, Anni & Remes, Piia, 2017. "Quantifying the social costs of nuclear energy: Perceived risk of accident at nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 320-331.
    14. Huhtala, Anni & Remes, Piia, 2016. "Dimming Hopes for Nuclear Power: Quantifying the Social Costs of Perceptions of Risks," Working Papers 57, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    15. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    16. Sascha Samadi, 2017. "The Social Costs of Electricity Generation—Categorising Different Types of Costs and Evaluating Their Respective Relevance," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-37, March.
    17. Hartmann, Patrick & Apaolaza, Vanessa & D'Souza, Clare & Echebarria, Carmen & Barrutia, Jose M., 2013. "Nuclear power threats, public opposition and green electricity adoption: Effects of threat belief appraisal and fear arousal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1366-1376.
    18. Burgherr, Peter & Hirschberg, Stefan, 2014. "Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(S1), pages 45-56.
    19. Berner, Christine Louise & Flage, Roger, 2016. "Comparing and integrating the NUSAP notational scheme with an uncertainty based risk perspective," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 185-194.
    20. Aven, Terje, 2017. "How some types of risk assessments can support resilience analysis and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 536-543.
    21. Lee, Sang Hun & Kang, Hyun Gook, 2016. "Integrated framework for the external cost assessment of nuclear power plant accident considering risk aversion: The Korean case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 111-123.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    2. Hugé, Jean & Waas, Tom & Eggermont, Gilbert & Verbruggen, Aviel, 2011. "Impact assessment for a sustainable energy future'Reflections and practical experiences," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6243-6253, October.
    3. Lee, Sang Hun & Kang, Hyun Gook, 2016. "Integrated framework for the external cost assessment of nuclear power plant accident considering risk aversion: The Korean case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 111-123.
    4. Karakosta, Charikleia & Pappas, Charalampos & Marinakis, Vangelis & Psarras, John, 2013. "Renewable energy and nuclear power towards sustainable development: Characteristics and prospects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 187-197.
    5. Tingzhu Li & Debin Du & Xueli Wang & Xionghe Qin, 2022. "Can Nuclear Power Products Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Evidence from Global Trade Network," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-25, June.
    6. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2009. "Comparative historical institutional analysis of German, English and American economics," MPRA Paper 48173, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Maarten Hillebrandt, 2017. "Transparency as a Platform for Institutional Politics: The Case of the Council of the European Union," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(3), pages 62-74.
    8. Broich, Tobias, 2017. "Do authoritarian regimes receive more Chinese development finance than democratic ones? Empirical evidence for Africa," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 180-207.
    9. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    10. Łukasz Jarosław Kozar & Robert Matusiak & Marta Paduszyńska & Adam Sulich, 2022. "Green Jobs in the EU Renewable Energy Sector: Quantile Regression Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-21, September.
    11. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    12. Luis Alfonso Dau & Aya S. Chacar & Marjorie A. Lyles & Jiatao Li, 2022. "Informal institutions and international business: Toward an integrative research agenda," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(6), pages 985-1010, August.
    13. repec:mje:mjejnl:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:25-70 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Emil Evenhuis, 2017. "Institutional change in cities and regions: a path dependency approach," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 10(3), pages 509-526.
    15. Joshua M. Pearce, 2012. "Limitations of Nuclear Power as a Sustainable Energy Source," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-15, June.
    16. Rivera-Ferre, Marta G. & Ortega-Cerda, Miquel, 2011. "Assessment of the Agri-food System for Sustainability: Recognizing Ignorance," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115965, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Sophie Jacquot & Cornelia Woll, 2003. "Usage of European Integration - Europeanisation from a Sociological Perspective," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01019642, HAL.
    18. Islam, Aminul & Chan, Eng-Seng & Taufiq-Yap, Yun Hin & Mondal, Md. Alam Hossain & Moniruzzaman, M. & Mridha, Moniruzzaman, 2014. "Energy security in Bangladesh perspective—An assessment and implication," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 154-171.
    19. Reibling, Nadine & Ariaans, Mareike & Wendt, Claus, 2019. "Worlds of Healthcare: A Healthcare System Typology of OECD Countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(7), pages 611-620.
    20. Saner, Marc A. & Bordt, Michael, 2016. "Building the consensus: The moral space of earth measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 74-81.
    21. Streeck, Wolfgang, 2009. "Institutions in history: Bringing capitalism back in," MPIfG Discussion Paper 09/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:9:p:5664-5673. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.