A civil super-Apollo project in nuclear research for a safer and prosperous world

Sornette, Didier

doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.04.007

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Didier Sornette observes, the 'historically unique task of husbandry of nuclear materials and of the waste of civil and military uses [will remain] for centuries, tens of millennia and up to millions of years, depending on the nature of the radioactive elements'. In this regard, the development of nuclear infrastructures can easily yield a distinctive kind of positive feedback under which commitments are inherently self-reinforcing, with indefinite implications from which it can look like 'there is no way to turn back' (Sornette, 2015).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Nuclear energy and path dependence in Europe’s ‘Energy union’: coherence or continued divergence?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its initial adoption, the EU's 2020 Strategy-to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, increase the share of renewable energy to at least 20% of consumption, and achieve energy savings of 20% or more by 2020-has witnessed substantial albeit uneven progress. This article addresses the question of what role nuclear power generation has played, and can or should play in future, towards attaining the EU 2020 Strategy, particularly with reference to decreasing emissions and increasing renewables. It also explores the persistent diversity in energy strategies among member states. To do so, it first surveys the current landscape of nuclear energy use and then presents the interrelated concepts of path dependency, momentum, and lock-in. The article proceeds to examine five factors that help explain national nuclear divergence: technological capacity and consumption; economic cost; security and materiality; national perceptions; and political, ideological and institutional factors. This divergence reveals a more general weakness in the 2020 Strategy's underlying assumptions. Although energy security-defined as energy availability, reliability, affordability, and sustainability-remains a vital concern for all member states, the 2020 Strategy does not explicitly address questions of political participation, control, and power. The inverse relationship identified here-between intensity of nuclear commitments, and emissions mitigation and uptake of renewable sources-underscores the importance of increasing citizens' levels of energy policy awareness and participation in policy design. Policy relevance This article highlights the significance of non-market forces in shaping the EU's energy markets. It finds that intensities of national commitment to nuclear power tend to be inversely related to degrees of success in achieving EU climate policy goals. While the nuclear sector is increasingly economically uncompetitive and appears to be in decline for the EU as a whole, an abiding political challenge remains one of increasing interests and incentives in popular participation and interest in energy systems management.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Nuclear energy and path dependence in Europe’s ‘Energy union’: coherence or continued divergence?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, performing a rigorous empirically‐based comparative analysis of the risks of nuclear versus other forms of energy providers is absolutely essential to avoid falling in the traps of media hypes and availability biases, in the goal of a better steering of our societies. Furthermore, such an analysis should, on one hand, take into consideration the costs of the disposal of nuclear wastes, while on the other hand recognize that humankind is confronted with a “nuclear stewardship curse,” whereby existing nuclear byproducts/waste need to be securely managed over immense time scales …”

Section: Discussion and Policy Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, such an analysis should, on one hand, take into consideration the costs of the disposal of nuclear wastes, while on the other hand recognize that humankind is confronted with a "nuclear stewardship curse," whereby existing nuclear byproducts/waste need to be securely managed over immense time scales. (66)…”

Section: Discussion and Policy Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents and Accidents

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

European energy politics after Ukraine: The road ahead

Osička

Černoch²

2022

Energy Research & Social Science

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A civil super-Apollo project in nuclear research for a safer and prosperous world

Cited by 5 publications

References 13 publications

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Nuclear energy and path dependence in Europe’s ‘Energy union’: coherence or continued divergence?

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Nuclear energy and path dependence in Europe’s ‘Energy union’: coherence or continued divergence?

Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents and Accidents

European energy politics after Ukraine: The road ahead

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About