calculation of the adequate insurance premium that the nuclear industry would need to
pay to fully cover the accident risk. This study also reviewed some existing assessments [15]. The D’Haeseleer report for the European commission also provides a
comprehensive review of studies that assess the external cost of nuclear accidents [1].
Finally, the IRSN
8 published in 2013 an assessment of the cost of severe and major
accidents in which other studies were reviewed [16]. Those four reviews reference
numerous studies and give a thorough overview of the state of the art literature on the
evaluation of the costs of nuclear accidents. As we do not wish to tackle here the
question of the probability of nuclear accidents, Table 1 below only presents the
studies that assess the cost of nuclear accidents before weighting.
9
Table 1 shows high discrepancies. How can one assess the cost of nuclear
accidents at approximately €10 billion [17], while others announce a cost of more
than a trillion Euros [21]? First, it can be noticed that all studies do not assess the
same cost. Some only focus on the damage to the population (health and food
costs), while others try to assess the total impact of the accident on the economy.
Yet, this cannot be the only cause of these differences. Indeed, even within cost
sections (health, food…), there is little consensus as to which cost section represents the highest share of the total cost. The comparison between the “IRSN-major”
[16] and the assessment from the German Renewable Energy Federation [15]
embodies this observation: even though it only assesses health, food and production
costs, the German study calculates a total cost ten times superior to the IRSN figure,
which accounts for a larger panel of consequences.
3.2 The Assessments of the Costs of Other Hazards Exhibit
Similar Discrepancies
This is not specific to nuclear power: other hazardous activities exhibit the same
kind of discrepancies. In 1995, Elvik studied the assessments of the cost of car
accidents in twenty countries. This work was motivated by the observation of large
disparities in the evaluation of this cost: while the Netherlands were evaluating the
total cost of a car accident at U.S. $0.12 million, Switzerland estimated it at U.S.
$2.5 million [25]. This study argued that the deviation was caused by the lack of
common methodology in the assessment of the cost and the consideration by only a
limited number of countries of the value of the lost quality of life.
The estimations of the damage caused by oil spills are also prone to large
disparities. In 1995, Cohen assessed the damage of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. She
claimed that the upper bound of the estimation of the damage caused by the oil spill
in the first two years following the disaster was U.S. $155 million [26]. In 2003,
8
The IRSN is France’s technical support organization for the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN).
9
The cost of a nuclear accident can be weighted by an electrical output to yield an external cost or
by a probability to yield an expected cost.
The Economic Assessment of the Cost of Nuclear Accidents
87
pay to fully cover the accident risk. This study also reviewed some existing assessments [15]. The D’Haeseleer report for the European commission also provides a
comprehensive review of studies that assess the external cost of nuclear accidents [1].
Finally, the IRSN
8 published in 2013 an assessment of the cost of severe and major
accidents in which other studies were reviewed [16]. Those four reviews reference
numerous studies and give a thorough overview of the state of the art literature on the
evaluation of the costs of nuclear accidents. As we do not wish to tackle here the
question of the probability of nuclear accidents, Table 1 below only presents the
studies that assess the cost of nuclear accidents before weighting.
9
Table 1 shows high discrepancies. How can one assess the cost of nuclear
accidents at approximately €10 billion [17], while others announce a cost of more
than a trillion Euros [21]? First, it can be noticed that all studies do not assess the
same cost. Some only focus on the damage to the population (health and food
costs), while others try to assess the total impact of the accident on the economy.
Yet, this cannot be the only cause of these differences. Indeed, even within cost
sections (health, food…), there is little consensus as to which cost section represents the highest share of the total cost. The comparison between the “IRSN-major”
[16] and the assessment from the German Renewable Energy Federation [15]
embodies this observation: even though it only assesses health, food and production
costs, the German study calculates a total cost ten times superior to the IRSN figure,
which accounts for a larger panel of consequences.
3.2 The Assessments of the Costs of Other Hazards Exhibit
Similar Discrepancies
This is not specific to nuclear power: other hazardous activities exhibit the same
kind of discrepancies. In 1995, Elvik studied the assessments of the cost of car
accidents in twenty countries. This work was motivated by the observation of large
disparities in the evaluation of this cost: while the Netherlands were evaluating the
total cost of a car accident at U.S. $0.12 million, Switzerland estimated it at U.S.
$2.5 million [25]. This study argued that the deviation was caused by the lack of
common methodology in the assessment of the cost and the consideration by only a
limited number of countries of the value of the lost quality of life.
The estimations of the damage caused by oil spills are also prone to large
disparities. In 1995, Cohen assessed the damage of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. She
claimed that the upper bound of the estimation of the damage caused by the oil spill
in the first two years following the disaster was U.S. $155 million [26]. In 2003,
8
The IRSN is France’s technical support organization for the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN).
9
The cost of a nuclear accident can be weighted by an electrical output to yield an external cost or
by a probability to yield an expected cost.
The Economic Assessment of the Cost of Nuclear Accidents
87