IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v159y2021ics0301421521004195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating nuclear proliferation and security risks in emerging markets using Bayesian Belief Networks

Author

Listed:
  • Carless, Travis S.
  • Redus, Kenneth
  • Dryden, Rachel

Abstract

An estimated 28 countries are interested in introducing nuclear power into their electric grid mix. The sudden influx of new nuclear power plants into emerging nuclear energy countries can present further nuclear proliferation and security risks. These risks can be even more prevalent for nations with political instability and limited resources to adequately support a robust nuclear regulatory infrastructure. This paper estimates the nuclear proliferation and security risks associated with the deployment of Generation III + nuclear power plants and Small Modular Reactors to emerging nuclear energy countries using expert judgment in conjunction with Bayesian Belief Networks. On average, Turkey is the most likely to divert nuclear material to develop a nuclear weapon (46% with an rsd of 0.50), divert civilian nuclear knowledge and technology for military use (38% with an rsd of 0.61), and to have their nuclear material stolen by non-state actors (39% with an rsd of 0.65). This is followed by Saudi Arabia at 38% (0.66 rsd), 39% (0.64 rsd), 32% (0.83 rsd), respectively. Reactor type has minimal impact on risk, while nations that pursue domestic enrichment and reprocessing has the greatest impact. In scenarios where emerging nuclear energy countries pursue domestic enrichment and reprocessing, the nuclear proliferation and security risks increase between 16% and 18%, on average. Lower-risk countries that engage in domestic enrichment and reprocessing can have comparable nuclear proliferation and security risks as Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Suggested Citation

  • Carless, Travis S. & Redus, Kenneth & Dryden, Rachel, 2021. "Estimating nuclear proliferation and security risks in emerging markets using Bayesian Belief Networks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:159:y:2021:i:c:s0301421521004195
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521004195
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112549?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
    ---><---

    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. Patrick Cox & Jörg Niewöhner & Nick Pidgeon & Simon Gerrard & Baruch Fischhoff & Donna Riley, 2003. "The Use of Mental Models in Chemical Risk Protection: Developing a Generic Workplace Methodology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 311-324, April.
    2. John Quigley & Abigail Colson & Willy Aspinall & Roger M. Cooke, 2018. "Elicitation in the Classical Model," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Luis C. Dias & Alec Morton & John Quigley (ed.), Elicitation, chapter 0, pages 15-36, Springer.
    3. Kara Morgan, 2005. "Development of a Preliminary Framework for Informing the Risk Analysis and Risk Management of Nanoparticles," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1621-1635, December.
    4. Ann Bostrom & Cynthia J. Atman & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Evaluating Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part II," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 789-798, October.
    5. Cynthia J. Atman & Ann Bostrom & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Designing Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part I," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 779-788, October.
    6. Alessandra Babuscia & Kar-Ming Cheung, 2014. "An approach to perform expert elicitation for engineering design risk analysis: methodology and experimental results," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 177(2), pages 475-497, February.
    7. T. Ganguly & K. J. Wilson & J. Quigley & R. M. Cooke & Alessandra Babuscia & Kar-Ming Cheung, 2014. "Reaction to ‘An approach to perform expert elicitation for engineering design risk analysis: methodology and experimental results’," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 177(4), pages 981-985, October.
    8. Heising, Carolyn D., 1982. "Quantification of nuclear diversion risks Promises and problems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 101-108, June.
    9. Sidel, V.W. & Levy, B.S., 2007. "Proliferation of nuclear weapons: Opportunities for control and abolition," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 97(9), pages 1589-1594.
    10. Uusitalo, Laura, 2007. "Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 203(3), pages 312-318.
    11. Jonas Siegel & Elisabeth A. Gilmore & Nancy Gallagher & Steve Fetter, 2018. "An Expert Elicitation of the Proliferation Resistance of Using Small Modular Reactors (SMR) for the Expansion of Civilian Nuclear Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 242-254, February.
    12. Abigail R Colson & Roger M Cooke, 2018. "Expert Elicitation: Using the Classical Model to Validate Experts’ Judgments," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 113-132.
    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. Stevan Djenadic & Milos Tanasijevic & Predrag Jovancic & Dragan Ignjatovic & Dejan Petrovic & Ugljesa Bugaric, 2022. "Risk Evaluation: Brief Review and Innovation Model Based on Fuzzy Logic and MCDM," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-26, March.

    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. Cameron J. Williams & Kevin J. Wilson & Nina Wilson, 2021. "A comparison of prior elicitation aggregation using the classical method and SHELF," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(3), pages 920-940, July.
    2. Jörg Niewöhner & Patrick Cox & Simon Gerrard & Nick Pidgeon, 2004. "Evaluating the Efficacy of a Mental Models Approach for Improving Occupational Chemical Risk Protection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 349-361, April.
    3. Catherine E. LePrevost & Margaret R. Blanchard & W. Gregory Cope, 2011. "The Pesticide Risk Beliefs Inventory: A Quantitative Instrument for the Assessment of Beliefs about Pesticide Risks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-13, June.
    4. Yan Cao & William L. McGill, 2013. "LinkIT: A Ludic Elicitation Game for Eliciting Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1066-1082, June.
    5. Parnali Dhar‐Chowdhury & C. Emdad Haque & S. Michelle Driedger, 2016. "Dengue Disease Risk Mental Models in the City of Dhaka, Bangladesh: Juxtapositions and Gaps Between the Public and Experts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 874-891, May.
    6. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    7. Wilson, Kevin J., 2017. "An investigation of dependence in expert judgement studies with multiple experts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 325-336.
    8. Branden B. Johnson, 1999. "Ethical Issues in Risk Communication: Continuing the Discussion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 335-348, June.
    9. Schoch-Spana, Monica & Ravi, Sanjana J. & Martin, Elena K., 2022. "Modeling epidemic recovery: An expert elicitation on issues and approaches," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    10. Matthew D. Wood & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1333-1348, August.
    11. Jeremy Rohmer & Eric Chojnacki, 2021. "Forecast of environment systems using expert judgements: performance comparison between the possibilistic and the classical model," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 131-146, March.
    12. Elena Verdolini & Laura Díaz Anadón & Erin Baker & Valentina Bosetti & Lara Aleluia Reis, 2018. "Future Prospects for Energy Technologies: Insights from Expert Elicitations," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 133-153.
    13. Peter Taylor‐Gooby & Jens O. Zinn, 2006. "Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 397-411, April.
    14. Vicki Bier, 2020. "The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2207-2217, November.
    15. Misuri, Alessio & Landucci, Gabriele & Cozzani, Valerio, 2020. "Assessment of safety barrier performance in Natech scenarios," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    16. Klaus Wagner, 2007. "Mental Models of Flash Floods and Landslides," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 671-682, June.
    17. Milford, James & Henrion, Max & Hunter, Chad & Newes, Emily & Hughes, Caroline & Baldwin, Samuel F., 2022. "Energy sector portfolio analysis with uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 306(PA).
    18. Peter Harrison Howard & Derek Sylvan, 2020. "Wisdom of the experts: Using survey responses to address positive and normative uncertainties in climate-economic models," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 213-232, September.
    19. Tim Harries, 2012. "The Anticipated Emotional Consequences of Adaptive Behaviour—Impacts on the Take-up of Household Flood-Protection Measures," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(3), pages 649-668, March.
    20. Hathout, Michel & Vuillet, Marc & Carvajal, Claudio & Peyras, Laurent & Diab, Youssef, 2019. "Expert judgments calibration and combination for assessment of river levee failure probability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 377-392.

    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:159:y:2021:i:c:s0301421521004195. 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.