3 ms·

That $187 billion figure is worthy of skepticism. Remember, the entire earthquake and tsunami is estimated to have caused US $235 billion of damage. That nearly

That $187 billion figure is worthy of skepticism. Remember, the entire earthquake and tsunami is estimated to have caused US $235 billion of damage. That nearly all of this is going to reactor cleanup is suspicious. Especially when the 3 Mile Island meltdown and subsequent cleanup only cost $1 billion. It seems likely to me that this $187 billion figure includes damage caused by the tsunami, and is not specific to the nuclear meltdown.

cma 7y ago
In Wikipedia it is broken down without the cost of the tsunami damage, though it is an estimate from 2016: >Japan's economy, trade, and industry ministry recently (as of 2016) estimated the total cost of dealing with the Fukushima disaster at ¥21.5 trillion (US$187 billion), almost twice the previous estimate of ¥11 trillion (US$96 billion). A rise in compensation for victims of the disaster from ¥5.4 trillion (US$47 billion) to ¥7.9 trillion (US$69 billion) was expected, with decontamination costs estimated to rise from ¥2.5 trillion (US$22 billion) to ¥4 trillion (US$35 billion), costs for interim storage of radioactive material to increase from ¥1.1 trillion (US$10 billion) to ¥1.6 trillion (US$14 billion), and costs of decommissioning reactors to increase from ¥2 trillion (US$17 billion) to ¥8 trillion (US$69 billion). Three Mile Island is one where the liability cap wouldn't have mattered so much, but compare Chernobyl. And compare plausible scenarios affecting populated areas depending on the winds, etc. The liability cap is so extreme, it is as if you had to only buy insurance to cover your healthcare deductible, and the government paid for all the actual insurance.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Interesting why one nuclear meltdown costs 200x more than another, that is a disparity that would be worth digging into. Inflation accounts for 10x of that at most. The nature of insurance is that th cost of it is amortized. One individual plant may create a hundred billion dollar disaster, but spreading this risk over hundreds or thousands of plants results in a liability rate that is not so large per plant.
  - cma 7y ago
    Depending on the winds and nature of the incident I could imagine one costing >1000X more than another (causing evacuation of a major city, etc.) Three-mile island was a 5 on the INES scale, Fukushima a 7: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc... Tokyo (the most populous metropolitan area in the world) was considered for evacuation, and had things gone a little different it may have been evacuated.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      The cost of decommission alone is 70 times higher, differences in th surrounding geography don't explain this discrepancy. It's worth pointing out that from what I can tell, this money hasn't actually been spent it's a forecast. Furthermore, a competing party held power in Japan at the time of the accident vs. when this projected cost was drawn up. There's a conflict of interest in that exaggerating the damage is politically advantageous. I'm interested in seeing how much money actually gets spent.
      - cma 7y ago
        And what are your thoughts on Fukushima being a level 7 vs Three Mile a level 5? Is that just a political distinction?
        manfredo 7y ago
        Yes, it is mostly political. What is the difference between a "major" release of radiation and a "significant" release of radiation? These levels have vague, subjective descriptions.

cma 7y ago

In Wikipedia it is broken down without the cost of the tsunami damage, though it is an estimate from 2016: >Japan's economy, trade, and industry ministry recently (as of 2016) estimated the total cost of dealing with the Fukushima disaster at ¥21.5 trillion (US$187 billion), almost twice the previous estimate of ¥11 trillion (US$96 billion). A rise in compensation for victims of the disaster from ¥5.4 trillion (US$47 billion) to ¥7.9 trillion (US$69 billion) was expected, with decontamination costs estimated to rise from ¥2.5 trillion (US$22 billion) to ¥4 trillion (US$35 billion), costs for interim storage of radioactive material to increase from ¥1.1 trillion (US$10 billion) to ¥1.6 trillion (US$14 billion), and costs of decommissioning reactors to increase from ¥2 trillion (US$17 billion) to ¥8 trillion (US$69 billion). Three Mile Island is one where the liability cap wouldn't have mattered so much, but compare Chernobyl. And compare plausible scenarios affecting populated areas depending on the winds, etc. The liability cap is so extreme, it is as if you had to only buy insurance to cover your healthcare deductible, and the government paid for all the actual insurance.

manfredo 7y ago
Interesting why one nuclear meltdown costs 200x more than another, that is a disparity that would be worth digging into. Inflation accounts for 10x of that at most. The nature of insurance is that th cost of it is amortized. One individual plant may create a hundred billion dollar disaster, but spreading this risk over hundreds or thousands of plants results in a liability rate that is not so large per plant.
- cma 7y ago
  Depending on the winds and nature of the incident I could imagine one costing >1000X more than another (causing evacuation of a major city, etc.) Three-mile island was a 5 on the INES scale, Fukushima a 7: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc... Tokyo (the most populous metropolitan area in the world) was considered for evacuation, and had things gone a little different it may have been evacuated.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    The cost of decommission alone is 70 times higher, differences in th surrounding geography don't explain this discrepancy. It's worth pointing out that from what I can tell, this money hasn't actually been spent it's a forecast. Furthermore, a competing party held power in Japan at the time of the accident vs. when this projected cost was drawn up. There's a conflict of interest in that exaggerating the damage is politically advantageous. I'm interested in seeing how much money actually gets spent.
    - cma 7y ago
      And what are your thoughts on Fukushima being a level 7 vs Three Mile a level 5? Is that just a political distinction?
      - manfredo 7y ago
        Yes, it is mostly political. What is the difference between a "major" release of radiation and a "significant" release of radiation? These levels have vague, subjective descriptions.