4 ms·

> The order of magnitude of Fukushima cleanup costs is $1 trillion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F

> The order of magnitude of Fukushima cleanup costs is $1 trillion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos... Even the oft-cited $200 billion is an exaggeration. Bear in mind these figures from from politicians, nowhere near this amount has actually been spent. As far a figures for the money actually spent, let's go with your own source: > In 2016, University of Oxford researcher and author Peter Wynn Kirby wrote that the government had allocated the equivalent of US$15 billion for the regional cleanup Let's see if we can get more recent sources on spending related to Fukushima. Form a 2020 article [1] > Since fiscal 2014, it has set aside about 35 billion yen annually for the interim storage facilities. The funds come from revenues earmarked for nuclear energy-related projects in the special account. > But expenditures concerning the storage facilities are running a lot higher than initially envisaged. > An estimate released in late 2016 by the Ministry of Trade, Economy and Industry showed that the project will eventually cost 1.6 trillion yen, compared with an initial projection of 1.1 trillion yen. > The government has allocated an additional 12 billion yen annually for the storage facility project since fiscal 2017. Okay, so the Japanese government is saying that it'll cost 1.6 trillion yen (about $15 billion dollars) total. They're actually spending 35 + 12 = 47 billion yen annually, which is ~$433 million. $15 billion over 30 years is a big bill. But amortized over the hundreds of nuclear power plants in existence, it adds little to the overall cost of nuclear power. 1. http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13225190 http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13225190

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lostlogin 6y ago
> $15 billion over 30 years is a big bill. But amortized over the hundreds of nuclear power plants in existence, it adds little to the overall cost of nuclear power. That’s spreading the cost of one plant, once incident. There are a lot more plants and Japan isn’t the most geologically stable place. It has had its share of accidents too. I wouldn’t be betting against more accidents in the next 30 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_nuclear_incidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_nuclear_inc...
- to11mtm 6y ago
  > That’s spreading the cost of one plant, once incident. There are a lot more plants and Japan isn’t the most geologically stable place. I think it would be worth comparing to the costs of incidents with other energy forms. Deepwater Horizon comes to mind with a cost 2 or 3 times that number (not counting fines). To say nothing of all the spills/incidents we don't hear about with tankers spilling/leaking on the open waters, just far enough away nobody notices.
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  Yes, but the cost is spread out over all the nuclear plants in operation. Nuclear energy already provides 10% of the world's nuclear power. We currently average one significant nuclear catastrophe every 20 years. $15 billion every 2 years is a miniscule cost relative to the amount of power nuclear energy provides. And that's assuming newer plants don't have any improved safety over Fukushima. We already feature secondary containment, which would have prevent Chernobyl from being nearly as bad as it was, the Soviets just didn't build secondary containment. The reality is that we only have one instance of a meltdown breaching secondary containment in over 70 years of nuclear power operation. And lastly, all this needs to be viewed relative to the ecological impact of covering several percent of the Earth's land surface in solar panels, and the environmental damage from fossil fuels that will be necessary until effective energy storage is developed.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lostlogin 6y ago

> $15 billion over 30 years is a big bill. But amortized over the hundreds of nuclear power plants in existence, it adds little to the overall cost of nuclear power. That’s spreading the cost of one plant, once incident. There are a lot more plants and Japan isn’t the most geologically stable place. It has had its share of accidents too. I wouldn’t be betting against more accidents in the next 30 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_nuclear_incidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_nuclear_inc...

to11mtm 6y ago
> That’s spreading the cost of one plant, once incident. There are a lot more plants and Japan isn’t the most geologically stable place. I think it would be worth comparing to the costs of incidents with other energy forms. Deepwater Horizon comes to mind with a cost 2 or 3 times that number (not counting fines). To say nothing of all the spills/incidents we don't hear about with tankers spilling/leaking on the open waters, just far enough away nobody notices.
sir_bearington 6y ago
Yes, but the cost is spread out over all the nuclear plants in operation. Nuclear energy already provides 10% of the world's nuclear power. We currently average one significant nuclear catastrophe every 20 years. $15 billion every 2 years is a miniscule cost relative to the amount of power nuclear energy provides. And that's assuming newer plants don't have any improved safety over Fukushima. We already feature secondary containment, which would have prevent Chernobyl from being nearly as bad as it was, the Soviets just didn't build secondary containment. The reality is that we only have one instance of a meltdown breaching secondary containment in over 70 years of nuclear power operation. And lastly, all this needs to be viewed relative to the ecological impact of covering several percent of the Earth's land surface in solar panels, and the environmental damage from fossil fuels that will be necessary until effective energy storage is developed.