4 ms·

Fukushima Final Costs Will Approach a Trillion Dollars Just for Nuclear Disaster

14 points by Zigurd 8y ago

externalreality 8y ago
Trillions - and we're not even counting the inevitable situation of the nuclear mutant lizard that will grow beyond control and storm Tokyo. Seriously though, I just finished reading and article about how nuclear power was the safest and best thing since sliced bread. I was supremely down voted for respectfully suggesting otherwise in a comment.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  I got bagged on when it happened for saying it would take 50 years to clean it up enough before Tepco could more or less abandon it. People are strongly emotionally invested in nuclear power.
  - externalreality 8y ago
    - Or there are investors controlling thought by down voting legit opinions.
- mimixco 8y ago
  You'll find lots of pro-nuke trolls on HN who post pro-nuke stories almost daily and down vote anything which implies risks or negative consequences of nuclear, even if those things are established facts.
cmurf 8y ago
Still cheaper than wars of choice, and far less common. United States Budgetary Costs of the Post-9/11 Wars Through FY2019, $5.9 Trillion Spent and Obligated https://news.brown.edu/articles/2017/11/costssummary https://news.brown.edu/articles/2017/11/costssummary The estimated future cost for veterans from FY2020 to FY2059 is right at $1 trillion.
- Zigurd 8y ago
  Fair enough. But it also wasn't an either/or choice.
- externalreality 8y ago
  Why do legit opinions get down voted. When something silly (joke) is posted, or something off topic is posted, then down vote - but to use a down vote to simply silence an opinion is wrong. He is simply making a comparison the reported price of the disaster to the 9-11 war on terror (which he/she feels was an unnecessary war).
Ultramanoid 8y ago
The cost as well as the duration of the process has been revised several times since 2011, and will be revised again in the decades to come. It is nonsense to put a definitive figure on it now. Or in 20 years.
neilpointer 8y ago
"Yes, if the tsunami had not occurred, the Fukushima reactor would not have a problem. But that’s facile. If a wind or solar farm had been where the reactor is, it would have been destroyed and the loss would have been trivial in comparison." Also facile: stating that a wind or solar farm the size of Fukushima could have stood in for a nuclear power plant and generate anywhere close to the amount of electricity needed to meet the demands of a small island home to one of the most populous cities in the world. Also facile: "They should have known better because tsunamis were frequent near Fukushima." It was the most powerful earthquake ever recorded to hit Japan. Tsunami walls across the entire country were completely overwhelmed. This article is insulting.
- Zigurd 8y ago
  You appear to be ignoring a few things here: First is that the downside risk from nuclear power plants is so great as to make them uninsurable. Second is that when a trillion dollar uninsurable event comes up, ignoring that the public is saddled with the cost. Lastly, you ignore that had public funds been used in the amounts needed to clean up after this private sector power plant on renewables instead, we would have renewable energy that is in fact comparable or larger than the scale of nuclear power plants, plus coal, plus gas, etc. Nuclear power even when it works costs too much. When it fails, it costs almost incomprehensible amounts. Maybe some different type of nuclear power plant wouldn't have these risks and waste disposal problems. But none yet have been built to demonstrate that's true in practice.
  - neilpointer 8y ago
    I'm simply pointing out that nuclear power has by far the best land-use:power-generation ratio available to us. Japan is geographically constrained. It insults the intelligence of his readers for the author claim that had Fukushima been populated with renewables instead of nuclear, everything would have been fine. Sure, there'd have been no meltdown, there also wouldn't be enough electricity either, so it's a silly argument. I think a better argument (which you're alluding to) is that for $1T, Japan could have purchased the electricity it needed from its neighbors and avoided the catastrophe altogether.

14 points by Zigurd 8y ago

Trillions - and we're not even counting the inevitable situation of the nuclear mutant lizard that will grow beyond control and storm Tokyo. Seriously though, I just finished reading and article about how nuclear power was the safest and best thing since sliced bread. I was supremely down voted for respectfully suggesting otherwise in a comment.

Gibbon1 8y ago
I got bagged on when it happened for saying it would take 50 years to clean it up enough before Tepco could more or less abandon it. People are strongly emotionally invested in nuclear power.
- externalreality 8y ago
  - Or there are investors controlling thought by down voting legit opinions.
mimixco 8y ago
You'll find lots of pro-nuke trolls on HN who post pro-nuke stories almost daily and down vote anything which implies risks or negative consequences of nuclear, even if those things are established facts.

cmurf 8y ago

Still cheaper than wars of choice, and far less common. United States Budgetary Costs of the Post-9/11 Wars Through FY2019, $5.9 Trillion Spent and Obligated https://news.brown.edu/articles/2017/11/costssummary https://news.brown.edu/articles/2017/11/costssummary The estimated future cost for veterans from FY2020 to FY2059 is right at $1 trillion.

Zigurd 8y ago
Fair enough. But it also wasn't an either/or choice.
externalreality 8y ago
Why do legit opinions get down voted. When something silly (joke) is posted, or something off topic is posted, then down vote - but to use a down vote to simply silence an opinion is wrong. He is simply making a comparison the reported price of the disaster to the 9-11 war on terror (which he/she feels was an unnecessary war).

Ultramanoid 8y ago

The cost as well as the duration of the process has been revised several times since 2011, and will be revised again in the decades to come. It is nonsense to put a definitive figure on it now. Or in 20 years.

neilpointer 8y ago

"Yes, if the tsunami had not occurred, the Fukushima reactor would not have a problem. But that’s facile. If a wind or solar farm had been where the reactor is, it would have been destroyed and the loss would have been trivial in comparison." Also facile: stating that a wind or solar farm the size of Fukushima could have stood in for a nuclear power plant and generate anywhere close to the amount of electricity needed to meet the demands of a small island home to one of the most populous cities in the world. Also facile: "They should have known better because tsunamis were frequent near Fukushima." It was the most powerful earthquake ever recorded to hit Japan. Tsunami walls across the entire country were completely overwhelmed. This article is insulting.

Zigurd 8y ago
You appear to be ignoring a few things here: First is that the downside risk from nuclear power plants is so great as to make them uninsurable. Second is that when a trillion dollar uninsurable event comes up, ignoring that the public is saddled with the cost. Lastly, you ignore that had public funds been used in the amounts needed to clean up after this private sector power plant on renewables instead, we would have renewable energy that is in fact comparable or larger than the scale of nuclear power plants, plus coal, plus gas, etc. Nuclear power even when it works costs too much. When it fails, it costs almost incomprehensible amounts. Maybe some different type of nuclear power plant wouldn't have these risks and waste disposal problems. But none yet have been built to demonstrate that's true in practice.
- neilpointer 8y ago
  I'm simply pointing out that nuclear power has by far the best land-use:power-generation ratio available to us. Japan is geographically constrained. It insults the intelligence of his readers for the author claim that had Fukushima been populated with renewables instead of nuclear, everything would have been fine. Sure, there'd have been no meltdown, there also wouldn't be enough electricity either, so it's a silly argument. I think a better argument (which you're alluding to) is that for $1T, Japan could have purchased the electricity it needed from its neighbors and avoided the catastrophe altogether.