IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Climate Change Uncertainty Quantification: Lessons Learned from the Joint EU-USNRC Project on Uncertainty Analysis of Probabilistic Accident Consequence Codes


  • Cooke, Roger M.

    () (Resources for the Future)

  • Kelly, G.N.


Between 1990 and 2000 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Commission of the European Communities conducted a joint uncertainty analysis of accident consequences for nuclear power plants. This study remains a benchmark for uncertainty analysis of large models involving high risks with high public visibility, and where substantial uncertainty exists. The study set standards with regard to structured expert judgment, performance assessment, dependence elicitation and modeling and uncertainty propagation of high dimensional distributions with complex dependence. The integrated assessment models for the economic effects of climate change also involve high risks and large uncertainties, and interest in conducting a proper uncertainty analysis is growing. This article reviews the EU-USNRC effort and extracts lessons learned, with a view toward informing a comparable effort for the economic effects of climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • Cooke, Roger M. & Kelly, G.N., 2010. "Climate Change Uncertainty Quantification: Lessons Learned from the Joint EU-USNRC Project on Uncertainty Analysis of Probabilistic Accident Consequence Codes," Discussion Papers dp-10-29, Resources For the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-10-29

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


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

    Cited by:

    1. Werner, Christoph & Bedford, Tim & Cooke, Roger M. & Hanea, Anca M. & Morales-NĂ¡poles, Oswaldo, 2017. "Expert judgement for dependence in probabilistic modelling: A systematic literature review and future research directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 801-819.

    More about this item


    uncertainty analysis; expert judgment; expert elicitation; probabilistic inversion; dependence modeling; nuclear safety;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:rff:dpaper:dp-10-29. 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: (Webmaster). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.