Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Wheatley, Spencer; Sovacool, Benjamin; Sornette, Didier (2016)
Publisher: Wiley
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Safety analysis, Nuclear incidents and accidents, Quantitative risk analysis
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.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Lee JC, McCormick, NJ. Risk and Safety Analysis of Nuclear Systems. Newark, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
    • 2. International Atomic Energy Agency, Development and Application of Level 1 Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants. IAEA Safety Standards No. SSG-3, Specific Safety Guide, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2010.
    • 3. International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA Safety Standards for Protecting People and the Environment, Development and Application of Level 2 Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants. Specific Safety Guide, No. SSG-4, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2010.
    • 4. International Atomic Energy Agency, Procedures for Conducting Probabilistic Safety Assessments of Nuclear Power Plants (Level 3), Off-site Consequences and Estimation of Risks to the Public. Specific Safety Guide, No 50-P-12, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1996.
    • 5. Sornette D, Maillart T, Kr o¨ger W. Exploring the limits of safety analysis in complex technological systems. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2013; 6:59-66.
    • 6. Kr o¨ger W, Sornette D. Reflections on limitations of current PSA methodology. ANS PSA 2013 International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Analysis, Columbia, SC, USA, September 22-26, 2013.
    • 7. Lochbaum D. Nuclear plants risk studies: Failing the grade. Union of Concerned Scientists Report, 2000.
    • 8. Butler D. Nuclear safety chief calls for reform. Nature, 2011. Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/ 110418/full/472274a.html, Accessed April 1, 2015.
    • 9. Hofert M, W u¨thrich MV. Statistical review of nuclear power accidents. Asia-Pacific Journal of Risk and Insurance, 2013; 7(1):1-18.
    • 10. Smythe D. An objective nuclear accident magnitude scale for quantification of severe and catastrophic events. Physics Today: Points of View, 2011. Available at: http://scitation. aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT. 4.0509, Accessed April 1, 2015.
    • 11. Ha-Duong M, Journe V. Calculating nuclear accident probabilities from empirical frequencies. Environment Systems and Decisions, 2014; 34(2):249-258.
    • 12. Escobar-Rangel L, Leveque F. How Fukushima Dai-ichi core meltdown changed the probability of nuclear accidents. Safety Science, 2014; 64:90-98.
    • 13. Brumfiel G. Nuclear agency faces reform calls. Nature, 2011; 472:397-398.
    • 14. Rogers S. Nuclear power plant accidents: Listed and ranked since 1952. Guardian, March 18, 2011. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuc lear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank, Accessed April 1, 2015.
    • 15. Mosleh A. Delivering on the promise: PRA, real decisions, and real events. PSAM11 - ESREL 2012 Helsinki, Finland, Plenary Talk, June 29, 2012.
    • 16. Durga Rao K, Kushwaha HS, Verma A, Srividya A. Quantification of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties in level-1 probabilistic safety assessment studies. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2007; 92(7):947-956.
    • 17. Ferson S, Ginzburg LR. Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 1996; 54(2):133-144.
    • 18. Linkov I, Anklam E, Collier ZA, DiMase D, Renn O. Risk-based standards: Integrating topdown and bottomup approaches. Environment Systems and Decisions, 2014; 34(1): 134-137.
    • 19. Idaho National Laboratory. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Probabilistic Risk Assessment White Paper, INL/EXT-11- 21270. Idaho National Laboratory, Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project Idaho Falls, ID, 2011.
    • 20. Laaksonen J. Thoughts in the aftermath of accident at the Fukushima Daiichi NPP. PSAM11 - ESREL 2012 Helsinki, Finland, June 26, 2012.
    • 21. Butler D. Nuclear neighbours. Nature, 2011. Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110421/full/472400a/box/3. html, Accessed April 1, 2015.
    • 22. Burgherr P, Eckle P, Hirschberg S. Comparative assessment of severe accident risks in the coal, oil and natural gas chains. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2012; 105:97-103.
    • 23. Hirschberg S, Burgherr P, Spiekerman G, Dones R. Severe accidents in the energy sector: Comparative perspective. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2004; 111(1):57-65.
    • 24. Flyvbjerg B, Holm M, Buhl S. Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie? Journal of the American Planning Association, 2002; 68(3):279-295.
    • 25. Flyvbjerg B, Holm M, Buhl S. What causes cost overrun in transport infrastructure projects? Transport Reviews, 2004; 24(1):3-18.
    • 26. Ansar A, Flyvbjerg B, Budzier A, Lunn D. Should we build more large dams? The actual costs of mega-dam development. Energy Policy, 2014; 69:43-56.
    • 27. Sovacool BK, Nugent D, Gilbert A. An international comparative assessment of construction cost overruns for electricity infrastructure. Energy Research & Social Science, 2014; 3:152- 160.
    • 28. Sovacool BK, Gilbert A, Nugent D. Risk, innovation, electricity infrastructure and construction cost overruns: Testing six hypotheses. Energy, 2014; 74:906-917.
    • 29. International Atomic Energy Association. INES User Manual, 2013. Available at: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/ Publications/PDF/INES2013web.pdf, Accessed April 1, 2015.
    • 30. Appelbaum, B. As U.S. agencies put more value on a life, businesses fret. New York Times, Feb 16, 2011.
    • 31. Sovacool BK. The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907 to 2007. Energy Policy, 2008; 35(5):1802-1820.
    • 32. Wheatley S, Sornette D, Sovacool B. Nuclear events database, 2016. Available at: https://innovwiki.ethz.ch/index.php/ Nuclear_events_database, Accessed April 1, 2015.
    • 33. International Atomic Energy Association. Measures to Strengthen International Cooperation in Nuclear, Radiation and Waste Safety. Specific Safety Guide, No 50-P-12. 1996. Available at: https://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/ GC/GC40/GC40InfDocuments/English/gc40inf-5_en.pdf, Accessed April 1, 2015.
    • 34. Hs u¨ K. Nuclear risk evaluation. Nature, 1987; 328:22.
    • 35. Seng o¨r AMC. Evaluating nuclear accidents. Nature, 1988; 335.6189:391.
    • 36. Seng o¨r AMC. Predicting the threat of nuclear disasters. Nature, 2011; 472.7342:169-169.
    • 37. International Atomic Energy Association. Nuclear power reactors in the world 2010. Reference data series no. 2. 2010 Edition, 2010.
    • 38. Schneider M, Froggatt A. World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013. Mycle Schneider Consulting, 2013.
    • 39. European Commission, The different generations of nuclear technology, 2015. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/ research/energy/euratom/index_en.cfm?pg=fission§ion= generation, Accessed April 1, 2015.
    • 40. Aven T. On how to deal with deep uncertainties in a risk assessment and management context. Risk Analysis, 2013; 33(12):2082-2091.
    • 41. Ferson S, Ginzburg L, Akcakaya R. Whereof one cannot speak: When input distributions are unknown. Risk Analysis, 1996. Available at: www.ramas.com/whereof.pdf, Accessed January 1, 2016.
    • 42. IRSN. BEMUSE project, 2015. Available at: http://www. irsn.fr/EN/Research/Research-organisation/Researchprogrammes/BEMUSE/Pages/BEMUSE-project-4481.aspx, Accessed April 1, 2015.
    • 43. Hirschberg S, Bauer C, Burgherr P, Cazzoli E, Heck T, Spada M, Treyer K. Health effects of technologies for power generation: Contributions from normal operation, severe accidents and terrorist threat. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2015; 145:373-387.
    • 44. Kandlikar M, Risbey J, Dessai S. Representing and communicating deep uncertainty in climate-change assessments. Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 2005; 337(4):443-455.
    • 45. Hallegatte S, Shah A, Brown C, Lempert R, Gill S. Investment decision making under deep uncertainty: Application to climate change. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6193, 2012.
    • 46. Karvetski CW, Lambert JH. Evaluating deep uncertainties in strategic priority-setting with an application to facility energy investments. Systems Engineering, 2012; 15(4):483- 493.
    • 47. Ohlsson E, Johansson B. Non-Life Insurance Pricing with Generalized Linear Models. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2010.
    • 48. Stephens MA. EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some comparisons. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1974; 69.347:730-737.
    • 49. Sornette D. Dragon-kings, black swans and the prediction of crises. International Journal of Terraspace Science and Engineering, 2009; 2(1):1-18.
    • 50. Sornette D, Ouillon G. Dragon-kings: Mechanisms, statistical methods and empirical evidence. European Physical Journal Special Topics, 2012; 205:1-26.
    • 51. Kovalenko T, Sornette D. Dynamical diagnosis and solutions for resilient natural and social systems. Planet Risk, Global Risk Forum Davos, 2013; 1(1):7-33.
    • 52. Sornette D. Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences: Chaos, Fractals, Selforganization and Disorder: Concepts and Tools. Berlin: Springer Science & Business, 2006.
    • 53. Deemer W, Votaw D. Estimation of parameters of truncated or censored exponential distributions. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1955; 26(3):498-504.
    • 54. Taleb NN. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable Events. New York: Random House, 2010.
    • 55. Aven T. On the meaning of a black swan in a risk context. Safety Science, 2013; 57:44-51.
    • 56. Balakrishnan K. Exponential Distribution: Theory, Methods and Applications. Amsterdam: CRC Press, 1996.
    • 57. Subramaniam L, Kumar N. Multiple outlier test for upper outliers in an exponential sample. Journal of Applied Statistics, 2012; 39.6:1323-1330.
    • 58. Pisarenko V, Sornette D. Robust statistical tests of dragonkings beyond power law distributions. European Physical Journal-Special Topics, 2011; 205(1):95-115.
    • 59. Wheatley S, Sornette D. Multiple outlier detection in samples with exponential & pareto tails: Redeeming the inward approach & detecting dragon kings. Submitted to Journal of Applied Statistics, 2015. Available at: http://arxiv. org/pdf/1507.08689.pdf, Accessed April 1, 2015.
    • 60. Redner R, Walker H. Mixture densities, maximum likelihood and the EM algorithm. SIAM Review, 1984; 26.2:195- 239.
    • 61. Bilmes J. A gentle tutorial of the EM algorithm and its application to parameter estimation for Gaussian mixture and hidden Markov models. International Computer Science Institute, 1998; 4.510:126.
    • 62. Wilks S. The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1938; 9.1:60-62.
    • 63. Mikosch T. Non-Life Insurance Mathematics, 2nd printing. Berlin: Springer, 2006.
    • 64. World Nuclear Association. Economics of Nuclear Power, 2015. Available at: www.world-nuclear.org/info/EconomicAspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power, Accessed April 1, 2015.
    • 65. Sovacool BK, Dworkin MH. Global Energy Justice: Problems, Principles, and Practices. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
    • 66. Sornette D. A civil super-apollo project in nuclear research for a safer and prosperous world. Energy Research & Social Science, 2015; 8:60-65.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article