4 ms·
Your reference has absolutely nothing to do with economic effects. Chernobyl costs for new "sarcophagus": 1.5bn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Sa
by the_duke 9y ago
Your reference has absolutely nothing to do with economic effects.
Chernobyl costs for new "sarcophagus": 1.5bn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement, sources on bottom)
Fukushima cost: 188bn + (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs/japan-nearly-doubles-fukushima-disaster-related-cost-to-188-billion-idUSKBN13Y047 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs/jap...)
Costs for decomissioning a nuclear power plant in the US: up to 500mil (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommissioning.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommissi...) (which needs total cost and revenue to put it in perspective, but it gives a sense of the scale and difficulty of decommissioning and storage.
- ageofwant 9y agoIt has everything to do with the economic costs. There is no other reason other than perceived threat to human life that drives that cost. How is that not obvious ? That paper, and others like it, demonstrates that radiation is much more benign than generally believed, and that level of resources spent on threads that don't exists, especially in comparison with others, like drink a can of soda a day, or living in a city, is not justifiable.