ETH Zurich, Department of Management, Technology and Economics, Switzerland.
Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK.
Risk Anal. 2017 Jan;37(1):99-115. doi: 10.1111/risa.12587. Epub 2016 Mar 22.
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.
我们对核能系统的风险进行了统计研究。本研究提供并分析了一个两倍于以往核事故和事件最佳数据集的数据,比较了三种严重程度的度量标准:国际核事件分级表、核事故辐射释放的核事故规模以及美元成本。以每台反应堆每年超过 2000 万美元的成本计算,核事故发生率自 20 世纪 70 年代以来一直呈下降趋势,直到现在。在此过程中,切尔诺贝利事件(1986 年 4 月)之后,发生率显著下降,预计当前全球核电机组的平均每年将发生一起以上的事故。成本分布似乎在三哩岛重大事故(1979 年 3 月)之后发生了变化。中位数成本约减少了三分之二,但出现了一个非常重的尾部,可用参数α=0.5-0.6 的帕累托分布很好地描述。例如,切尔诺贝利和福岛(2011 年 3 月)这两个最大事件的成本几乎是其他 173 个事件总成本的五倍。我们还记录了辐射释放和成本数据中存在的显著失控灾害,我们将其与“龙王”现象联系起来。由于福岛(2011 年 3 月)的重大事故发生在最近,我们无法量化该事故对行业应对措施的影响。不包括这种改进,就成本而言,我们的模型范围表明,目前有 50%的可能性出现以下情况:(i) 每 60-150 年发生一次福岛事件(或更大),以及 (ii) 每 10-20 年发生一次三哩岛事件(或更大)。更进一步,即使假设遭受的损失比切尔诺贝利或福岛更大的事件不再可能发生,预期的年度成本及其标准误差也在新工厂的成本范围内。这突出表明,不仅在福岛之后,而且在更深入的改进方面,提高安全性以有效排除“龙王”灾害的可能性至关重要。最后,我们发现国际核事件分级表(INES)在成本和辐射释放方面都不一致。为了与成本数据保持一致,切尔诺贝利和福岛灾难的 INES 级别需要在 10-11 之间,而不是最高的 7 级。