IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v74y2014is1ps45-s56.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector

Author

Listed:
  • Burgherr, Peter
  • Hirschberg, Stefan

Abstract

Comparative assessment of accident risks in the energy sector is a key aspect in a comprehensive evaluation of sustainability and energy security concerns. Safety performance of energy systems can have important implications on the environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainability as well as availability, acceptability and accessibility aspects of energy security. Therefore, this study provides a broad comparison of energy technologies based on the objective expression of accident risks for complete energy chains. For fossil chains and hydropower the extensive historical experience available in PSI׳s Energy-related Severe Accident Database (ENSAD) is used, whereas for nuclear a simplified probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) is applied, and evaluations of new renewables are based on a combination of available data, modeling, and expert judgment. Generally, OECD and EU 27 countries perform better than non-OECD. Fatality rates are lowest for Western hydropower and nuclear as well as for new renewables. In contrast, maximum consequences can be by far highest for nuclear and hydro, intermediate for fossil, and very small for new renewables, which are less prone to severe accidents. Centralized, low-carbon technology options could generally contribute to achieve large reductions in CO2-emissions; however, the principal challenge for both fossil with Carbon Capture and Storage and nuclear is public acceptance. Although, external costs of severe accidents are significantly smaller than those caused by air pollution, accidents can have disastrous and long-term impacts. Overall, no technology performs best or worst in all respects, thus tradeoffs and priorities are needed to balance the conflicting objectives such as energy security, sustainability and risk aversion to support rationale decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Burgherr, Peter & Hirschberg, Stefan, 2014. "Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(S1), pages 45-56.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:74:y:2014:i:s1:p:s45-s56
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151400072X
    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. Dietz, Simon & Neumayer, Eric, 2007. "Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 617-626, March.
    2. Burgherr, Peter & Hirschberg, Stefan, 2008. "Severe accident risks in fossil energy chains: A comparative analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 538-553.
    3. Larsson, Simon & Fantazzini, Dean & Davidsson, Simon & Kullander, Sven & Höök, Mikael, 2014. "Reviewing electricity production cost assessments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 170-183.
    4. Molyneaux, Lynette & Wagner, Liam & Froome, Craig & Foster, John, 2012. "Resilience and electricity systems: A comparative analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 188-201.
    5. Johansson, Bengt, 2013. "A broadened typology on energy and security," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 199-205.
    6. repec:eee:reensy:v:105:y:2012:i:c:p:97-103 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Winzer, Christian, 2012. "Conceptualizing energy security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 36-48.
    8. Mabel, M. Carolin & Raj, R. Edwin & Fernandez, E., 2010. "Adequacy evaluation of wind power generation systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 5217-5222.
    9. Aoki, Masahiko & Rothwell, Geoffrey, 2013. "A comparative institutional analysis of the Fukushima nuclear disaster: Lessons and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 240-247.
    10. Coaffee, Jon, 2008. "Risk, resilience, and environmentally sustainable cities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 4633-4638, December.
    11. Hueting, Roefie & Reijnders, Lucas, 2004. "Broad sustainability contra sustainability: the proper construction of sustainability indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3-4), pages 249-260, October.
    12. Delzeit, R. & Holm-Müller, K., 2009. "Steps to discern sustainability criteria for a certification scheme of bioethanol in Brazil: Approach and difficulties," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 662-668.
    13. Heinz-Herbert Noll, 2002. "Towards a European System of Social Indicators: Theoretical Framework and System Architecture," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 47-87, June.
    14. von Hippel, David & Suzuki, Tatsujiro & Williams, James H. & Savage, Timothy & Hayes, Peter, 2011. "Energy security and sustainability in Northeast Asia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 6719-6730.
    15. Rabl, Ari & Rabl, Veronika A., 2013. "External costs of nuclear: Greater or less than the alternatives?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 575-584.
    16. 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.
    17. Rentizelas, Athanasios & Georgakellos, Dimitrios, 2014. "Incorporating life cycle external cost in optimization of the electricity generation mix," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 134-149.
    18. Nilsen, Heidi Rapp, 2010. "The joint discourse 'reflexive sustainable development' -- From weak towards strong sustainable development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 495-501, January.
    19. Felder, Frank A., 2009. "A critical assessment of energy accident studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5744-5751, December.
    20. Brook, Barry W., 2012. "Could nuclear fission energy, etc., solve the greenhouse problem? The affirmative case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 4-8.
    21. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2013. "An international assessment of energy security performance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 148-158.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. Szklo, Alexandre & Schaeffer, Roberto, 2007. "Fuel specification, energy consumption and CO2 emission in oil refineries," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1075-1092.
    25. Yusta, Jose M. & Correa, Gabriel J. & Lacal-Arántegui, Roberto, 2011. "Methodologies and applications for critical infrastructure protection: State-of-the-art," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6100-6119, October.
    26. Chester, Lynne, 2010. "Conceptualising energy security and making explicit its polysemic nature," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 887-895, February.
    27. P.C.R. Gray & P. M. Wiedemann, 1999. "Risk management and sustainable development: mutual lessons from approaches to the use of indicators," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(3), pages 201-218, July.
    28. 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.
    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. Hughes, Larry & de Jong, Moniek & Wang, Xiao Qin, 2016. "A generic method for analyzing the risks to energy systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 895-908.
    2. Modica, Marco, 2017. "Does the construction of biogas plants affect local property values?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 169-172.
    3. repec:eee:enepol:v:106:y:2017:i:c:p:155-168 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Shih, Yi-Hsuan & Shi, Nian-Xun & Tseng, Chao-Heng & Pan, Shu-Yuan & Chiang, Pen-Chi, 2016. "Socioeconomic costs of replacing nuclear power with fossil and renewable energy in Taiwan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 369-381.
    5. repec:eee:energy:v:150:y:2018:i:c:p:1018-1030 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:eee:ecolec:v:141:y:2017:i:c:p:245-260 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:eee:energy:v:154:y:2018:i:c:p:277-288 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Sascha Samadi, 2017. "The Social Costs of Electricity Generation—Categorising Different Types of Costs and Evaluating Their Respective Relevance," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(3), pages 1-37, March.
    9. J. Micha Steinhäuser & Klaus Eisenack, 2015. "Spatial incidence of large-scale power plant curtailment costs," Working Papers V-379-15, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Jul 2015.
    10. Treyer, Karin & Bauer, Christian & Simons, Andrew, 2014. "Human health impacts in the life cycle of future European electricity generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(S1), pages 31-44.
    11. repec:eee:reensy:v:145:y:2016:i:c:p:373-387 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.

    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:74:y:2014:i:s1:p:s45-s56. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.