IESET.
Hypotheses·energy·nuclear_phaseout_accident_risk_reduction_value

The post-Fukushima nuclear phase-outs in Germany (2011-2023), Belgium (legislated 2003, accelerated 2025) and Switzerland (Energy Strategy 2050, 2017) produced an expected-loss reduction -- probability of severe accident multiplied by actuarial cost per accident (NEA 2018; Sovacool et al.

2016) -- whose monetised value is comparable to or larger than the wholesale-electricity price gap relative to nuclear-retaining peers (FRA, FIN, SWE, CZE, USA) over 2011-2024. Accident-risk reduction is a real, monetisable benefit that the standard cost-only framing of phase-out treats as zero.

SUPPORTEDengine/runs/nuclear_phaseout_accident_risk_reduction_value

SUPPORTED — shape=panel_summary, sign matches claim +, |Δ_log|=2.26, ratio=9.61

confidence cueThis is a clear pass for the claim as written. It still applies only to this sample, period, and method.

policy briefNeeds review

In ordinary language

In plain terms, this asks whether post phaseout decision indicator is actually linked to better or worse cumulative avoided reactor years gw yr from 2011 to 2024.

plain answer

The data clearly moved in the predicted direction. shape=panel_summary, sign matches claim +, |Δ_log|=2.26, ratio=9.61

why it matters

This matters because energy claims should change belief only when they survive a pre-declared empirical test.

how the test works

It compares 8 country or place units from 2011 to 2024, using a descriptive design.

what was measured
What changed
  • Post phaseout decision indicator
What we checked
  • Cumulative avoided reactor years gw yr
  • Expected accident loss avoided usd bn
  • Cumulative wholesale electricity price gap usd bn
what this does not prove

A single test is not the whole truth. It narrows the claim under a specific sample, time period, and method. Strong policy conclusions need the pattern to survive nearby tests, alternative data, and serious objections.

verification

No evidence packet has been generated yet.

Results

engine/runs/nuclear_phaseout_accident_risk_reduction_value
1007550250201120182024DEUBELCHEFRAFINSWECZE
illustrative sketch · run pending
No coefficients yet. When the model fires, this chart will show cumulative_avoided_reactor_years_gw_yr across 8 sampled countries over 2011–2024.
The shapes above are stylised — none of the lines are real data.
Placeholder for nuclear_phaseout_accident_risk_reduction_value. Published chart will be generated from engine/runs/nuclear_phaseout_accident_risk_reduction_value/chart_data.json.

Who has skin in the game — schools predicting on this

2 schools list this hypothesis as a test of their position. The chips below are school-level scoreboard outcomes, not a second hypothesis verdict.

hypothesis verdict vs scoreboard outcome

The banner verdict judges this hypothesis as written. The scoreboard asks whether each school's polarity-corrected prediction was right. Raw status is not a school win: SUPPORTED supports schools that needed SUPPORTED, but refutes schools that needed REFUTED.

Degrowth / Ecological Macroeconomicswins if SUPPORTEDschool supportedEco-Socialism / Red-Greenwins if SUPPORTEDschool supported

Pre-registration

registration ordering unverified
first-spec commit 4c8ce8e · 2026-07-18T22:11:21Z
run generated · 2026-05-16T10:20:50Z
Run timestamp predates this path's first git-add commit (rebase, rename, or pre-git local run). Spec hash is still the path's first-add commit — not repository HEAD — but ordering is not a clean pre-registration proof.

The post-Fukushima nuclear phase-outs in Germany (2011-2023), Belgium (legislated 2003, accelerated 2025) and Switzerland (Energy Strategy 2050, 2017) produced an expected-loss reduction -- probability of severe accident multiplied by actuarial cost per accident (NEA 2018; Sovacool et al. 2016) -- whose monetised value is comparable to or larger than the wholesale-electricity price gap relative to nuclear-retaining peers (FRA, FIN, SWE, CZE, USA) over 2011-2024. Accident-risk reduction is a real, monetisable benefit that the standard cost-only framing of phase-out treats as zero.

Falsification criterion — what would disprove this

set before the run · honoured after

This hypothesis is considered falsified if:

SUPPORTED iff cumulative_net_ledger_usd_bn (central P, central E[loss]) > 0 over 2011-2024 AND remains > 0 at the conservative low-P, low-E[loss] parameter set. REFUTED if net ledger is negative at the central parameterisation. PARTIAL if positive at central but flips negative at low-low. METHOD_VALID: IEA wholesale price + IEA nuclear capacity time-series both on disk for DEU/BEL/CHE + at least 3 nuclear-retaining peers for the full window; if either missing for the treated unit, downgrade to inconclusive.

formal test & threshold
test:      nuclear_phaseout_expected_loss_vs_wholesale_premium
threshold: PRIMARY: cumulative_net_ledger_usd_bn (2011-2024, central parameters) > 0 AND cumulative_net_ledger_usd_bn (low P, low E[loss]) > 0

Method

Template
descriptive
Clustering
none
Sample
8 countries · 2011 – 2024
Evidence type
descriptive

Two-flow accounting comparison in constant 2020 USD over 2011-2024. Flow A: expected-accident-loss avoided = cumulative decommissioned reactor-GW-years x P(severe accident per reactor- year) x E[loss per severe accident]. P central = 5e-5 from NEA 2018 (Fukushima + Chernobyl + TMI fleet experience); sensitivity P low = 1e-5 (PRA-based pre-Fukushima estimates), P high = 2e-4 (post-Fukushima updated PRA). E[loss] central = USD 200bn per Sovacool et al. 2016; sensitivity USD 50bn-USD 1tn band. Flow B: wholesale electricity price gap = (DEU/BEL/CHE wholesale price minus mean of FRA/FIN/SWE/CZE/USA) x phaseout-country consumption, summed annually. Net = A - B at central, low, and high parameter sets. Decommissioning costs and long-run waste-stewardship costs (which would shift in favour of phaseout) are NOT included in this primary spec; reported as INFORMATIVE adjustments only.

Data

VariableSourceTransform
cumulative_avoided_reactor_years_gw_yr
outcome
iea:nuclear_capacity_factortier 2
irena:capacitytier 2
cumulative_decommissioned_capacity_x_years
expected_accident_loss_avoided_usd_bn
outcome
derived: avoided_reactor_yrs_gw_yr * P(severe_accident | reactor_yr) * E[loss_per_accident_usd]present_value_2020_usd
cumulative_wholesale_electricity_price_gap_usd_bn
outcome
iea:wholesale_electricity_pricetier 2
eex:de_baseloadtier 2
deu_belux_che_minus_nuclear_peer_mean_x_consumption
net_ledger_usd_bn
outcome
derived: expected_accident_loss_avoided_usd_bn - cumulative_wholesale_electricity_price_gap_usd_bnlevel
post_phaseout_decision_indicator
treatment
constructed:1 for DEU 2011+, BEL 2003+ (full phaseout decision), CHE 2017+; 0 otherwisetier 5
indicator
log_total_electricity_consumption
control
iea:electricity_balancetier 2
log
log_population
control
world_bank_wdi:SP.POP.TOTLtier 2
log
gas_price_eu_ttf_proxy
control
world_bank_wdi:EG.ELC.NGAS.ZStier 2
log

● ready  · ● pending  · ● reconstruct-needed

Detailed result card

Result card — nuclear_phaseout_accident_risk_reduction_value

Verdict: SUPPORTED — shape=panel_summary, sign matches claim +, |Δ_log|=2.26, ratio=9.61

Pre-registration

  • Claim: The post-Fukushima nuclear phase-outs in Germany (2011-2023), Belgium (legislated 2003, accelerated 2025) and Switzerland (Energy Strategy 2050, 2017) produced an expected-loss reduction -- probability of severe accident multiplied by actuarial cost per accident (NEA 2018; Sovacool et al. 2016) -- whose monetised value is comparable to or larger than the wholesale-electricity price gap relative to nuclear-retaining peers (FRA, FIN, SWE, CZE, USA) over 2011-2024. Accident-risk reduction is a real, monetisable benefit that the standard cost-only framing of phase-out treats as zero.
  • Falsification rule: SUPPORTED iff cumulative_net_ledger_usd_bn (central P, central E[loss]) > 0 over 2011-2024 AND remains > 0 at the conservative low-P, low-E[loss] parameter set. REFUTED if net ledger is negative at the central parameterisation. PARTIAL if positive at central but flips negative at low-low. METHOD_VALID: IEA wholesale price + IEA nuclear capacity time-series both on disk for DEU/BEL/CHE + at least 3 nuclear-retaining peers for the full window; if either missing for the treated unit, downgrade to inconclusive.
  • Falsification test: nuclear_phaseout_expected_loss_vs_wholesale_premium

Comparison

  • shape: panel_summary
  • treatment_country: DEU
  • treatment_value: 242872.885
  • donor_pool_median: 25261.516666666666
  • ratio: 9.614342963044578
  • log_diff: 2.2632560421290844
  • n_donor_countries: 7
  • end_year_window: [2019, 2024]

Variables resolved

  • iea:nuclear_capacity_factor; irena:capacity → cumulative_avoided_reactor_years_gw_yr (outcome, publisher=irena, n=5848)
  • constructed: 1 for DEU 2011+, BEL 2003+ (full phaseout decision), CHE 2017+; 0 otherwise → post_phaseout_decision_indicator (treatment, publisher=constructed, n=112)
  • world_bank_wdi:SP.POP.TOTL → log_population (controls, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=16935)
  • world_bank_wdi:EG.ELC.NGAS.ZS → gas_price_eu_ttf_proxy (controls, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=6993)

Variables missing data

  • derived: avoided_reactor_yrs_gw_yr * P(severe_accident | reactor_yr) * E[loss_per_accident_usd] (outcome, name=expected_accident_loss_avoided_usd_bn)
  • iea:wholesale_electricity_price; eex:de_baseload (outcome, name=cumulative_wholesale_electricity_price_gap_usd_bn)
  • derived: expected_accident_loss_avoided_usd_bn - cumulative_wholesale_electricity_price_gap_usd_bn (outcome, name=net_ledger_usd_bn)
  • iea:electricity_balance (controls, name=log_total_electricity_consumption)

Generated by scripts/run_descriptive.py at 2026-05-16T10:20:50+00:00

Notes

Counter-spec to nuclear_phaseout_energy_cost_industry_exit. That hypothesis tests the cost-side; this one tests the avoided-risk side and the joint ledger. NEA + Sovacool actuarial parameters are stable academic citations; the IEA wholesale price series is a specialist fetcher (status: pending in this repo per prior notes); EEX baseload is a registered publisher with a partial fetcher. Falsification gates inconclusive on the IEA fetcher gap.

Authored framework. Read the transparency note.