5 Conclusions
Regarding the estimation of the probabilities of nuclear accidents, two directions of
research could be worthwhile. First, more research seems necessary to get a better
knowledge on the uncertainties related to these probabilities. It includes uncertainties propagation in PSAs event trees, combinations of observed frequencies and
PSAs and the use of new probability axiomatic such as imprecise probability
theory. Second, more research is needed on methodologies that could help
law-makers to make decision based both on probabilities as perceived by individuals and probabilities as calculated by experts.
This paper also raises two research questions regarding the cost of nuclear
damage. The first is whether assessing the cost of nuclear accidents using the
figures derived from past events is a robust method. As it fails to account for safety
enhancements, progress in mitigation technologies, and learning from past catastrophes; it can drive cost assessments upwards, provide pessimistic numbers and
entail overinvestments in safety or an unbalanced electricity technology mix. The
second question is whether cost assessments should only focus on ex ante policy
making and ex post compensations. We believe that cost assessments should also be
used in order to improve mitigation policies.
References
1. W.D. d’Haeseleer, Synthesis on the Economics of Nuclear Energy (Study for the European
Commission, DG Energy, 2013)
2. T.B. Cochran, M.G. McKinzie, World Federation of Scientists’ International Seminars on
Planetary Emergencies (Ettore Majorana Centre, Erice, 2011)
3. François Lévêque, The Economics and Uncertainties of Nuclear Power (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2014)
4. L.E. Rangel, F. Lévêque, How Fukushima Dai-ichi core meltdown changed the probability of
nuclear accidents? Saf. Sci. 64, 90–98 (December 21, 2013)
5. D. Bernouilli, Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica 22,
23–36 (1954)
6. Itzhak Gilboa, Theory of Decision under Uncertainties (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2009)
7. M. Allais, Fondements d’une théorie positive des choix comportant un risque et critique des
postulats et axiomes de l’École américaine, vol. XL (Colloques internationaux du CNRS,
Paris, 1953), pp. 257–332.
8. D. Ellsberg, Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Q. J. Econ. 75, 4 (1961)
9. J.M. Keynes, A Treatise on Probability. (Macmillan, London, 1921)
10 Massimo Marinacci, Model uncertainty. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 13(6), 1022–1100 (2015)
11. Daniel Kahnemann, Amos Tversky, Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica 47, 263–291 (1979)
12. Nuclear Energy Agency, Comparing nuclear accident risks with those from other sources
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, 2010)
13. Jan Horst Keppler, The economic cost of the nuclear phase-out in Germany. NEA News 30,
8–14 (2012)
94
R. Bizet and F. Lévêque
Regarding the estimation of the probabilities of nuclear accidents, two directions of
research could be worthwhile. First, more research seems necessary to get a better
knowledge on the uncertainties related to these probabilities. It includes uncertainties propagation in PSAs event trees, combinations of observed frequencies and
PSAs and the use of new probability axiomatic such as imprecise probability
theory. Second, more research is needed on methodologies that could help
law-makers to make decision based both on probabilities as perceived by individuals and probabilities as calculated by experts.
This paper also raises two research questions regarding the cost of nuclear
damage. The first is whether assessing the cost of nuclear accidents using the
figures derived from past events is a robust method. As it fails to account for safety
enhancements, progress in mitigation technologies, and learning from past catastrophes; it can drive cost assessments upwards, provide pessimistic numbers and
entail overinvestments in safety or an unbalanced electricity technology mix. The
second question is whether cost assessments should only focus on ex ante policy
making and ex post compensations. We believe that cost assessments should also be
used in order to improve mitigation policies.
References
1. W.D. d’Haeseleer, Synthesis on the Economics of Nuclear Energy (Study for the European
Commission, DG Energy, 2013)
2. T.B. Cochran, M.G. McKinzie, World Federation of Scientists’ International Seminars on
Planetary Emergencies (Ettore Majorana Centre, Erice, 2011)
3. François Lévêque, The Economics and Uncertainties of Nuclear Power (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2014)
4. L.E. Rangel, F. Lévêque, How Fukushima Dai-ichi core meltdown changed the probability of
nuclear accidents? Saf. Sci. 64, 90–98 (December 21, 2013)
5. D. Bernouilli, Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica 22,
23–36 (1954)
6. Itzhak Gilboa, Theory of Decision under Uncertainties (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2009)
7. M. Allais, Fondements d’une théorie positive des choix comportant un risque et critique des
postulats et axiomes de l’École américaine, vol. XL (Colloques internationaux du CNRS,
Paris, 1953), pp. 257–332.
8. D. Ellsberg, Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Q. J. Econ. 75, 4 (1961)
9. J.M. Keynes, A Treatise on Probability. (Macmillan, London, 1921)
10 Massimo Marinacci, Model uncertainty. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 13(6), 1022–1100 (2015)
11. Daniel Kahnemann, Amos Tversky, Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica 47, 263–291 (1979)
12. Nuclear Energy Agency, Comparing nuclear accident risks with those from other sources
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, 2010)
13. Jan Horst Keppler, The economic cost of the nuclear phase-out in Germany. NEA News 30,
8–14 (2012)
94
R. Bizet and F. Lévêque