5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014 Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice 24-28 August 2014 in Davos, Switzerland

1. Wir schaffen Wissen – heute für morgen
Paul Scherrer Institut
Peter Burgherr & Matteo Spada
Comparative risk assessment of energy technologies in
the context of energy security, critical infrastructure
protection and sustainability
IDRC Davos 2014
Davos, Switzerand, 24-28 August 2014
IDRC Davos, 24-28 August 2014

2. Content
• Comparative Risk Assessment in the Energy Sector
• Energy-Related Severe Accident Database (ENSAD)
• Technology Performance : Aggregated Risk Indicators
• Energy Supply Scenarios: Climate Policy vs. Risk Reduction
Burgherr et al.: Comparative Risk
Assessment
• Risk Definitions
• Case Study Applications
• Conclusions
IDRC Davos, 24-28 August 2014 2

3. • Risk is the potential for realization of unwanted, adverse
consequences to human life, health, property, or the
environment. (Society for Risk Analysis)
• Security Risk: Risk (R) = [ Threat (T) x Vulnerability (V) ] x
Consequence (C)
Burgherr et al.: Comparative Risk
Assessment
Risk Definitions
Frequency
• Classical Risk Formula: Risk (R) = Probability (p) x
Consequences (C)
• Estimate likelihoods
• Estimate impacts
Consequence
HIGH
RISK
Threat: likelihood that a
specific accident or attack
will occur
(severe accident, terrorist
attack, vandalism/sabotage,
theft, hacking, kidnapping /
assassination)
IDRC Davos, 24-28 August 2014 3
Vulnerability: likelihood
that various types of
safeguards fail
(availability, accessibility,
security,
importance of target)
Consequence: magnitude of negative effects in case of accident or successful
attack
(fire/explosion, release, casualties, environmental impact, economic impact, national
security, symbolic effects)

4. Comparative Risk Assessment
• Comparative assessment of accident risks is a central aspect in
a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of energy
technologies (Fritzsche 1989; Inhaber 2004; Rasmussen 1981)
• In the past 40 years catastrophic accidents affected the entire
• Society is often risk averse towards low-probability high-consequence
events, but at the same time a lack of urgency
can be observed among the public and decision makers (Garrick,
2008)
• No adequate treatment of energy accidents in terms of
To close this gap, the PSI initiated in the early 1990s
a long-term research activity, at the core of which is the
ENergy-related Severe Accident Database (ENSAD)
Burgherr et al.: Comparative Risk
Assessment
energy-related business and industry (Sutton, 2012)
completeness and data quality (Fritsche, 1992)
IDRC Davos, 24-28 August 2014 4

5. Risk Assessment in a Broader Context
Burgherr et al.: Comparative Risk
Assessment
• Adequate supply of energy
at a reasonable cost (IEA)
• 4 A’s: availability, acceptability,
accessibility, affordability
IDRC Davos, 24-28 August 2014 5
Burgherr et al., 2014
• Environment, economy, society
• Intra- and inter-generational equity
• Inter-connectedness
• Inter-dependent
• Multiple threats
• Cascading effects

6. Risk Assessment in a Broader Context
Burgherr et al.: Comparative Risk
Assessment
IDRC Davos, 24-28 August 2014 6
Burgherr et al., 2014
- High complexity
- Many stakeholders
- Uncertainties
- Extreme events
- Tradeoffs
- Compromises
- Robust solutions
- Priority setting
Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis

7. Overview of Accidents in the Energy Sector
Burgherr et al.: Comparative Risk
Assessment
Lightning struck
oil storage tank
Kocaeli earthquake (Tur),
fire at refinery
Deepwater Horizon
(USA)
IDRC Davos, 24-28 August 2014 7
Fire/explosion at LNG
facility (Algeria)
Prestige, Galicia (Spain)
Explosion of tapped gasoline
pipeline, Nigeria
Silane explosion
In PV plant
Wind turbine collapse
Coal mine explosion
Refinery fire/explosion
Gas pipeline
explosion
LPG explosion
Biodiesel plant explosion
Dam failure
Induced seismicity
at geothermal well
Fukushima

8. Approach for Comparative Risk Assessment
• Full energy chains because accidents
can occur at all stages
• Evaluation period: ENSAD contains
accident data for more than four
decades  1970–2008 (2009-13 to be
published; 2014 pending)
• Data normalization to ensure
comparison across different energy
chains  GWeyr
• Regional aggregation at different
spatial scales
Burgherr et al.: Comparative Risk
Assessment
Burgherr et al. 2013
IDRC Davos, 24-28 August 2014 8
 individual countries, country groups

9. Severe Accident Definition and Consequence
Indicators
Burgherr et al.: Comparative Risk
Assessment
Risk
description
Impact Category ENSAD severity
IDRC Davos, 24-28 August 2014 9
threshold
Consequence
indicator
Human
health
Fatalities
Injuries
≥ 5
≥ 10
Fatalities per
GWeyr
Injured per GWeyr
Societal Evacuees
Food consumption ban
≥ 200
yes
Evacuees per
GWeyr
Nominal scale
Environment
al
Release of hydrocarbons
Land/water contamination
≥ 10’000 t
≥ 25 km2
Tonne per GWeyr
km2 per GWeyr
Economic Economic loss ≥ 5 Mio USD
(2000)
USD per GWeyr
Upstream:
exploration
and extraction
Midstream:
transport and storage
Downstream:
refining and distribution
of products Power generation

10. Burgherr et al.: Comparative Risk
Assessment
Historical Development of ENSAD
IDRC Davos, 24-28 August 2014 10
Burgherr et al. 2013

11. Burgherr et al.: Comparative Risk
Assessment
Fatality Risk Indicators
IDRC Davos, 24-28 August 2014 11
Burgherr & Hirschberg, 2014
• Among centralized
technologies expected
accident risks are lowest for
hydro and nuclear in Western
countries, while fossil chains
exhibit highest risks.
• Maximum consequences can
be by far highest for nuclear
and hydro, intermediate for
fossil chains and very small
for new renewables.
• Decentralized energy systems
appear to be less sensitive to
severe accidents, however,
current analyses for new
renewables have limited
scope and do not include
probabilistic modeling of
hypothetical accidents.
Fatality Rates
Maximum Consequences

12. Overall Accident Risk of Different Energy Supply
Scenarios
• Achievement of climate policy goals can often as a secondary benefit
contribute to reductions in overall severe accident risks, however specific
stakeholder preferences may affect the portfolio of available low-carbon
technologies.
• For example, risk aversion could impede the utilization of nuclear as well as
fossil fuels in combination with carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems.
• Large-scale deployment of new renewables could be affected due to various
concerns, such as landscape disturbance, noise or ecological effects for
wind power, or geopolitical aspects when large renewable capacities are
Burgherr et al.: Comparative Risk
installed in less stable regions (e.g. North Africa).
Assessment
IDRC Davos, 24-28 August 2014 12
Burgherr et al., 2012
EU27 scenarios 2035 (IEA WEO,
2011):
• Current Policies: no change in
actual government policies.
• New Policies scenario: existing
policies and declared intentions.
• 450 Scenario: constraining average
global temperature increase to 2
degree C.
Risk indicators:
• 6 indicators representing expected
risk and maximum consequences
for fatalities, land contamination,
and tanker spill.
Exploratory MCDA :
• Indicator weights from 0 to 1 in 0.1
steps (2898 stakeholder profiles).

13. • ENSAD provides a comprehensive and consistent basis of
accident data for the objective and quantitative analysis of severe
accident risks for a variety of energy technologies.
• The evaluation of a broad set of risk indicators is essential
because stakeholders and decision-makers may focus on
different aspects of risk (e.g. human health vs. environment) or a
combination of objectively quantifiable and subjectively perceived
risk factors.
• Overall, no technology performs best or worst in all respects, i.e.,
trade-offs and compromises are necessary to ensure a
sustainable and secure energy supply.
Burgherr et al.: Comparative Risk
Assessment
Conclusions
• There is no agreed definition of the concept of risk.
IDRC Davos, 24-28 August 2014 13

14. IDRC Davos, 24-28 August 2014 Burgherr et al.: Comparative Risk
Assessment
Thank you for your attention!
Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI)
Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis (LEA)
Technology Assessment Group (TAG)
http://www.psi.ch/ta
peter.burgherr@psi.ch