Risk of another Chernobyl or Fukushima type accident plausible, experts say

September 19, 2016, University of Sussex
Risk of another Chernobyl or Fukushima type accident plausible, experts say
In a new analysis of nuclear accidents, researchers at the University of Sussex and ETH Zurich provide a cost in US dollars for each incident. Credit: University of Sussex

A team of risk experts who have carried out the biggest-ever analysis of nuclear accidents warn that the next disaster on the scale of Chernobyl or Fukushima may happen much sooner than the public realizes.

Researchers at the University of Sussex, in England, and ETH Zurich, in Switzerland, have analysed more than 200 , and – estimating and controlling for effects of industry responses to previous disasters – provide a grim assessment of the risk of nuclear power.

Their worrying conclusion is that, while nuclear accidents have substantially decreased in frequency, this has been accomplished by the suppression of moderate-to-large events. They estimate that Fukushima- and Chernobyl-scale disasters are still more likely than not once or twice per century, and that accidents on the scale of the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island in the USA (a damage cost of about 10 Billion USD) are more likely than not to occur every 10-20 years.

As Dr Spencer Wheatley, the lead author, explains: "We have found that the risk level for nuclear power is extremely high.

"Although we were able to detect the positive impact of the industry responses to accidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, these did not sufficiently remove the possibility of extreme disasters such as Fukushima. To remove such a possibility would likely require enormous changes to the current fleet of reactors, which is predominantly second-generation technology."

The studies, published in two papers in the journals Energy Research & Social Science and Risk Analysis, put fresh pressure on the nuclear industry to be more transparent with data on incidents.

"Flawed and woefully incomplete" public data from the nuclear industry is leading to an over-confident attitude to risk, the study warns. The research team points to the fact that their own independent analysis contains three times as much data as that provided publicly by the industry itself. This is probably because the International Atomic Energy Agency, which compiles the reports, has a dual role of regulating the sector and promoting it.

The research team for this new study gathered their data from reports, academic papers, press releases, public documents and newspaper articles. The result is a dataset that is unprecedented – being twice the size of the next largest independent analysis. Further, the authors emphasize that the dataset is an important resource that needs to be continually developed and shared with the public.

Professor Benjamin Sovacool of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex, who co-authored the studies, says: "Our results are sobering. They suggest that the standard methodology used by the International Atomic Energy Agency to predict accidents and incidents – particularly when focusing on consequences of extreme events – is problematic.

"The next nuclear accident may be much sooner or more severe than the public realizes."

The team also call for a fundamental rethink of how accidents are rated, arguing that the current method (the discrete seven-point INES scale) is highly imprecise, poorly defined, and often inconsistent.

In their new analysis, the research team provides a cost in US dollars for each incident, taking into account factors such as destruction of property, the cost of emergency response, environmental remediation, evacuation, fines, and insurance claims. And for each death, they added a cost of $6 million, which is the figure used by the US government to calculate the value of a human life.

That new analysis showed that the Fukushima accident in 2011 and the Chernobyl accident in 1986 cost a combined $425 billion - five times the sum of all the other events put together.

However, these two extremes are rated 7 - the maximum severity level - on the INES scale. Fukushima alone would need a score of between 10 and 11 to represent the true magnitude of consequences.

Further, the authors emphasize that such frequency-severity statistical analysis of holistic consequences should be used as a complementary tool to the industry standard Probabilistic Safety Assessment, especially when aggregate consequences are of interest.

Professor Sovacool adds: "The results suggest that catastrophic accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are not relics of the past.

"Even if we introduce new nuclear technology, as long as older facilities remain operational—likely, given recent trends to extend permits and relicense existing reactors—their risks, and the aggregate risk of operating the global nuclear fleet, remain."

Finally, the authors emphasize that this work is not comparative in nature, i.e. it does not quantify the risks of other energy sources. It provides a risk assessment for alone, thus informing a single criterion, for a single power source, in the selection of a portfolio of multiple power sources, where many criteria must be considered.

Fellow co-author Professor Didier Sornette stresses: "While our studies seem damning of the nuclear industry, other considerations and potential for improvement may actually make nuclear energy attractive in the future."

The 15 most costly nuclear events analysed by the team are:

  1. Chernobyl, Ukraine (1986) - $259 billion
  2. Fukushima, Japan (2011) - $166 billion
  3. Tsuruga, Japan (1995) - $15.5 billion
  4. TMI, Pennsylvania, USA (1979) - $11 billion
  5. Beloyarsk, USSR (1977) - $3.5 billion
  6. Sellafield, UK (1969) - $2.5 billion
  7. Athens, Alabama, USA (1985) - $2.1 billion
  8. Jaslovske Bohunice, Czechoslovakia (1977) - $2 billion
  9. Sellafield, UK (1968) - $1.9 billion
  10. Sellafield, UK (1971) – $1.3 billion
  11. Plymouth, Massachusetts, USA (1986) - $1.2 billion
  12. Chapelcross, UK (1967) - $1.1 billion
  13. Chernobyl, Ukraine (1982) - $1.1 billion
  14. Pickering, Canada (1983) - $1 billion
  15. Sellafield, UK (1973) - $1 billion

Explore further: Lessons of Chernobyl disaster, 30 years on

More information: An open-source database of all 216 analysed nuclear events is available online, containing dates, locations, cost in US dollars, and official magnitude ratings. This is the largest public database of nuclear accidents ever compiled: innovwiki.ethz.ch/index.php/Nu … lear_events_database

Spencer Wheatley et al. Reassessing the safety of nuclear power, Energy Research & Social Science (2016). DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.026

Spencer Wheatley et al. Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents and Accidents, Risk Analysis (2016). DOI: 10.1111/risa.12587

Related Stories

Lessons of Chernobyl disaster, 30 years on

April 20, 2016

Ukraine next week marks the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, when human error and flawed Soviet reactor technology led to the world's worst nuclear accident.

Swiss nuclear shutdown to cost $22.5bn: study

November 24, 2011

Shutting down Switzerland's five nuclear power stations will cost about 20.7 billion Swiss francs (16.8 billion euros, $22.5 billion) and take about 20 years, Swiss authorities said on Thursday.

Lessons from Fukushima

August 17, 2016

When you're an operator or engineer at a nuclear power plant, there are things you want to know long before you're faced with an emergency.

Fukushima: Reflections six months on

September 20, 2011

When the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent tsunami hit the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station on March 11, 2011, the world witnessed the largest nuclear incident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. In a special Fukushima ...

Recommended for you

Pushing lithium ion batteries to the next performance level

December 13, 2018

Conventional lithium ion batteries, such as those widely used in smartphones and notebooks, have reached performance limits. Materials chemist Freddy Kleitz from the Faculty of Chemistry of the University of Vienna and international ...

Uber filed paperwork for IPO: report

December 8, 2018

Ride-share company Uber quietly filed paperwork this week for its initial public offering, the Wall Street Journal reported late Friday.

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2016
"The next nuclear accident may be much sooner or more severe than the public realizes."

""The next dam collapse may be much sooner or more severe than the public realizes."

"The next economic collapse may be much sooner or more severe than the public realizes."

"The next terror attack may be much sooner or more severe than the public realizes."

"The next tsunami may be much sooner or more severe than the public realizes."

"The next hurricane katrina may be much sooner or more severe than the public realizes."

"The next war may be much sooner or more severe than the public realizes."

"The next famine may be much sooner or more severe than the public realizes."

"The next pandemic may be much sooner or more severe than the public realizes."

"The next tunguska eventt may be much sooner or more severe than the public realizes."

-Such warnings get lost in the noise.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2016
As Dr Spencer Wheatley, the lead author, explains: "We have found that the risk level for nuclear power is extremely high."
-----------------------------------

That is all we need to know.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.