IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i1p99-115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents and Accidents

Author

Listed:
  • Spencer Wheatley
  • Benjamin Sovacool
  • Didier Sornette

Abstract

We perform a statistical study of risk in nuclear energy systems. This study provides and analyzes a data set that is twice the size of the previous best data set on nuclear incidents and accidents, comparing three measures of severity: the industry standard International Nuclear Event Scale, the Nuclear Accident Magnitude Scale of radiation release, and cost in U.S. dollars. The rate of nuclear accidents with cost above 20 MM 2013 USD, per reactor per year, has decreased from the 1970s until the present time. Along the way, the rate dropped significantly after Chernobyl (April 1986) and is expected to be roughly stable around a level of 0.003, suggesting an average of just over one event per year across the current global fleet. The distribution of costs appears to have changed following the Three Mile Island major accident (March 1979). The median cost became approximately 3.5 times smaller, but an extremely heavy tail emerged, being well described by a Pareto distribution with parameter α = 0.5–0.6. For instance, the cost of the two largest events, Chernobyl and Fukushima (March 2011), is equal to nearly five times the sum of the 173 other events. We also document a significant runaway disaster regime in both radiation release and cost data, which we associate with the “dragon‐king” phenomenon. Since the major accident at Fukushima (March 2011) occurred recently, we are unable to quantify an impact of the industry response to this disaster. Excluding such improvements, in terms of costs, our range of models suggests that there is presently a 50% chance that (i) a Fukushima event (or larger) occurs every 60–150 years, and (ii) that a Three Mile Island event (or larger) occurs every 10–20 years. Further—even assuming that it is no longer possible to suffer an event more costly than Chernobyl or Fukushima—the expected annual cost and its standard error bracket the cost of a new plant. This highlights the importance of improvements not only immediately following Fukushima, but also deeper improvements to effectively exclude the possibility of “dragon‐king” disasters. Finally, we find that the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) is inconsistent in terms of both cost and radiation released. To be consistent with cost data, the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters would need to have between an INES level of 10 and 11, rather than the maximum of 7.

Suggested Citation

  • Spencer Wheatley & Benjamin Sovacool & Didier Sornette, 2017. "Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents and Accidents," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 99-115, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:1:p:99-115
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12587
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12587?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Gilbert, Alex & Nugent, Daniel, 2014. "Risk, innovation, electricity infrastructure and construction cost overruns: Testing six hypotheses," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 906-917.
    2. Minh Ha-Duong & Venance Journé, 2014. "Calculating nuclear accident probabilities from empirical frequencies," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 249-258, June.
    3. Burgherr, Peter & Eckle, Petrissa & Hirschberg, Stefan, 2012. "Comparative assessment of severe accident risks in the coal, oil and natural gas chains," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 97-103.
    4. Ansar, Atif & Flyvbjerg, Bent & Budzier, Alexander & Lunn, Daniel, 2014. "Should we build more large dams? The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 43-56.
    5. Didier SORNETTE, 2009. "Dragon-Kings, Black Swans and the Prediction of Crises," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 09-36, Swiss Finance Institute.
    6. Declan Butler, 2011. "Nuclear safety chief calls for reform," Nature, Nature, vol. 472(7343), pages 274-274, April.
    7. Didier SORNETTE, 2015. "A Civil Super-Manhattan Project in Nuclear Research for a Safer and Prosperous World," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 15-14, Swiss Finance Institute.
    8. Hallegatte, Stephane & Shah, Ankur & Lempert, Robert & Brown, Casey & Gill, Stuart, 2012. "Investment decision making under deep uncertainty -- application to climate change," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6193, The World Bank.
    9. Terje Aven, 2013. "On How to Deal with Deep Uncertainties in a Risk Assessment and Management Context," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(12), pages 2082-2091, December.
    10. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2008. "The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907-2007," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 1802-1820, May.
    11. Spencer WHEATLEY & Didier SORNETTE, 2015. "Multiple Outlier Detection in Samples with Exponential & Pareto Tails: Redeeming the Inward Approach & Detecting Dragon Kings," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 15-28, Swiss Finance Institute.
    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. Guo, Jian-Xin & Zhu, Kaiwei & Tan, Xianchun & Gu, Baihe, 2021. "Low-carbon technology development under multiple adoption risks," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    2. Stephen Jarvis & Olivier Deschenes & Akshaya Jha, 2022. "The Private and External Costs of Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(3), pages 1311-1346.
    3. Kim, Dowon & Ryu, Heelang & Lee, Jiwoong & Kim, Kyoung-Kuk, 2022. "Balancing risk: Generation expansion planning under climate mitigation scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 665-679.
    4. Bizet, Romain & Bonev, Petyo & Lévêque, François, 2022. "Are Older Nuclear Reactors Less Safe? Evidence from France," Economics Working Paper Series 2216, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    5. Chen, Shi & Huang, Fu-Wei & Lin, Jyh-Horng, 2023. "Green technology choices under the cap-and-trade mechanism with insurer green finance in a dragon-king environment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    6. John Downer & M. V. Ramana, 2021. "Empires built on sand: On the fundamental implausibility of reactor safety assessments and the implications for nuclear regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1304-1325, October.
    7. Fanny Dellinger & Margit Schratzenstaller, 2018. "An EU-wide Nuclear Power Tax: Rationale and Possible Effects," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 8(6), pages 346-353.
    8. Choi, Donghyun & Kim, Yeong Jae, 2023. "Local and global experience curves for lumpy and granular energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    9. Glette-Iversen, Ingrid & Aven, Terje, 2021. "On the meaning of and relationship between dragon-kings, black swans and related concepts," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    10. Ayoub, Ali & Stankovski, Andrej & Kröger, Wolfgang & Sornette, Didier, 2021. "Precursors and startling lessons: Statistical analysis of 1250 events with safety significance from the civil nuclear sector," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    11. Bizet, Romain & Bonev, Petyo & Leveque, Francois, 2020. "The effect of local monitoring on nuclear safety and compliance: Evidence from France," Economics Working Paper Series 2014, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    12. Hyunsoo Lee & Woo Chang Cha, 2019. "Virtual Reality-Based Ergonomic Modeling and Evaluation Framework for Nuclear Power Plant Operation and Control," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, May.
    13. Christian C. Blanco & Felipe Caro & Charles J. Corbett, 2019. "Managing Safety‐Related Disruptions: Evidence from the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2197-2213, October.
    14. Bizet, Romain & Bonev, Petyo & Lévêque, François, 2022. "The effect of local monitoring on nuclear safety and compliance: Evidence from France," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    15. Li, Jing & Renuart, Bryanna, 2023. "Environmental Impact of 2011 Germany's Nuclear Shutdown: A Synthetic Control Study," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335434, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Kryman, Matthew & Laine, Emily, 2015. "Profiling technological failure and disaster in the energy sector: A comparative analysis of historical energy accidents," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(P2), pages 2016-2027.
    2. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Walter, Götz, 2018. "Major hydropower states, sustainable development, and energy security: Insights from a preliminary cross-comparative assessment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 1074-1082.
    3. Julia Reis & Julie Shortridge, 2020. "Impact of Uncertainty Parameter Distribution on Robust Decision Making Outcomes for Climate Change Adaptation under Deep Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 494-511, March.
    4. Oyewo, Ayobami Solomon & Solomon, A.A. & Bogdanov, Dmitrii & Aghahosseini, Arman & Mensah, Theophilus Nii Odai & Ram, Manish & Breyer, Christian, 2021. "Just transition towards defossilised energy systems for developing economies: A case study of Ethiopia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 346-365.
    5. Burgherr, Peter & Hirschberg, Stefan, 2014. "Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(S1), pages 45-56.
    6. Brookes, Naomi J. & Locatelli, Giorgio, 2015. "Power plants as megaprojects: Using empirics to shape policy, planning, and construction management," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 57-66.
    7. Jenkins, G. & Olasehinde-Williams, G. & Baurzhan, S., 2022. "Is there a net economic loss from employing reference class forecasting in the appraisal of hydropower projects?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    8. Ayobami Solomon Oyewo & Javier Farfan & Pasi Peltoniemi & Christian Breyer, 2018. "Repercussion of Large Scale Hydro Dam Deployment: The Case of Congo Grand Inga Hydro Project," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-30, April.
    9. Giorgio Locatelli, 2018. "Why are Megaprojects, Including Nuclear Power Plants, Delivered Overbudget and Late? Reasons and Remedies," Papers 1802.07312, arXiv.org.
    10. Hirschberg, Stefan & Bauer, Christian & Burgherr, Peter & Cazzoli, Eric & Heck, Thomas & Spada, Matteo & Treyer, Karin, 2016. "Health effects of technologies for power generation: Contributions from normal operation, severe accidents and terrorist threat," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 373-387.
    11. Marco Cinelli & Matteo Spada & Miłosz Kadziński & Grzegorz Miebs & Peter Burgherr, 2019. "Advancing Hazard Assessment of Energy Accidents in the Natural Gas Sector with Rough Set Theory and Decision Rules," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, November.
    12. Callegari, C. & Szklo, A. & Schaeffer, R., 2018. "Cost overruns and delays in energy megaprojects: How big is big enough?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 211-220.
    13. Wreford, Anita & Topp, Cairistiona F.E., 2020. "Impacts of climate change on livestock and possible adaptations: A case study of the United Kingdom," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    14. Scott, Ryan P. & Scott, Tyler A., 2019. "Investing in collaboration for safety: Assessing grants to states for oil and gas distribution pipeline safety program enhancement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 332-345.
    15. Siler-Evans, Kyle & Hanson, Alex & Sunday, Cecily & Leonard, Nathan & Tumminello, Michele, 2014. "Analysis of pipeline accidents in the United States from 1968 to 2009," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 257-269.
    16. 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.
    17. Annika Styczynski & Jedamiah Wolf & Somdatta Tah & Arnab Bose, 2014. "When decision-making processes fail: an argument for robust climate adaptation planning in the face of uncertainty," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 478-491, December.
    18. Backhaus, Klaus & Gausling, Philipp & Hildebrand, Luise, 2015. "Comparing the incomparable: Lessons to be learned from models evaluating the feasibility of Desertec," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 905-913.
    19. Quentin Perrier, 2017. "The French Nuclear Bet," Working Papers 2017.18, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    20. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:1:p:99-115. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.