Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector

• Accident risks are compared across a broad range of energy technologies.
• Analysis of historical experience was based on the comprehensive database ENSAD.
• OECD and EU 27 performed significantly better than non-OECD countries.
• External costs of accidents are very small, but impacts can still be enormous.
• No technology performs best for all risk indicators; thus tradeoffs are inevitable.

Comparative assessment of accident risks in the energy sector is a key aspect in a comprehensive evaluation of sustainability and energy security concerns. Safety performance of energy systems can have important implications on the environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainability as well as availability, acceptability and accessibility aspects of energy security. Therefore, this study provides a broad comparison of energy technologies based on the objective expression of accident risks for complete energy chains. For fossil chains and hydropower the extensive historical experience available in PSI׳s Energy-related Severe Accident Database (ENSAD) is used, whereas for nuclear a simplified probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) is applied, and evaluations of new renewables are based on a combination of available data, modeling, and expert judgment. Generally, OECD and EU 27 countries perform better than non-OECD. Fatality rates are lowest for Western hydropower and nuclear as well as for new renewables. In contrast, maximum consequences can be by far highest for nuclear and hydro, intermediate for fossil, and very small for new renewables, which are less prone to severe accidents. Centralized, low-carbon technology options could generally contribute to achieve large reductions in CO2-emissions; however, the principal challenge for both fossil with Carbon Capture and Storage and nuclear is public acceptance. Although, external costs of severe accidents are significantly smaller than those caused by air pollution, accidents can have disastrous and long-term impacts. Overall, no technology performs best or worst in all respects, thus tradeoffs and priorities are needed to balance the conflicting objectives such as energy security, sustainability and risk aversion to support rationale decision making.