4 ms·

Factor in a cleanup cost of $200 billion, or up $470 billion if actually taking care of the contaminated water [0] and not a single insurance company or reinsur

Factor in a cleanup cost of $200 billion, or up $470 billion if actually taking care of the contaminated water [0] and not a single insurance company or reinsurance broker willing is to take on a nuclear plant. I would much rather have that money going to true decentralized renewables and reliable transmission. [0]: https://apnews.com/article/d1b8322355f3f31109dd925900dff200 https://apnews.com/article/d1b8322355f3f31109dd925900dff200

sjwright 6y ago
A nuclear reactor well above sea level and on geologically stable ground would have many orders of magnitude less risk than the east coast of Japan. Just because it’s not safe everywhere doesn’t mean it’s not safe anywhere.
Krasnol 6y ago
Related: https://www.dw.com/en/japan-to-release-treated-fukushima-water-into-the-sea/a-55292352 https://www.dw.com/en/japan-to-release-treated-fukushima-wat... > Japan to release treated Fukushima water into the sea
Aachen 6y ago
I would too, but we're not doing it. That leaves me wondering if maybe we should plan (and commit) to build nuclear up to, say, 50% of our energy need and then start to reduce that when we actually build wind/solar/hydro to replace it. Xor commit to building those renewables instead (concretely: X MWh using renewable technology Y in location Z). Or, heck, use coal and carbon capture (real stuff, not tree planting, preventing emissions elsewhere, or other cheap magic that doesn't actually take the CO2 back out of the air) in case that's the way people want to go. I don't care, just get started already. It's not my choice, I already vote for parties that want to take more action, my energy provider is one that actively builds out renewables, and I don't own an amount of land where even a single solar panel would fit. We can't do this on an individual level so I guess governments will have to decide what goes where. It's up to them, but we can't choose it do neither solution.

sjwright 6y ago

A nuclear reactor well above sea level and on geologically stable ground would have many orders of magnitude less risk than the east coast of Japan. Just because it’s not safe everywhere doesn’t mean it’s not safe anywhere.

Krasnol 6y ago

Related: https://www.dw.com/en/japan-to-release-treated-fukushima-water-into-the-sea/a-55292352 https://www.dw.com/en/japan-to-release-treated-fukushima-wat... > Japan to release treated Fukushima water into the sea

Aachen 6y ago

I would too, but we're not doing it. That leaves me wondering if maybe we should plan (and commit) to build nuclear up to, say, 50% of our energy need and then start to reduce that when we actually build wind/solar/hydro to replace it. Xor commit to building those renewables instead (concretely: X MWh using renewable technology Y in location Z). Or, heck, use coal and carbon capture (real stuff, not tree planting, preventing emissions elsewhere, or other cheap magic that doesn't actually take the CO2 back out of the air) in case that's the way people want to go. I don't care, just get started already. It's not my choice, I already vote for parties that want to take more action, my energy provider is one that actively builds out renewables, and I don't own an amount of land where even a single solar panel would fit. We can't do this on an individual level so I guess governments will have to decide what goes where. It's up to them, but we can't choose it do neither solution.