3 ms·
911 was about $30B. Fukushima was about $1T and counting. We have alternatives to nuclear that don't make the state-backed insurance worthwhile, not so much to
by wp381640 6y ago
911 was about $30B. Fukushima was about $1T and counting.
We have alternatives to nuclear that don't make the state-backed insurance worthwhile, not so much to air travel - where state-backed last resort insurance is available.
- chrisco255 6y agoI don't know where you're getting your estimates: Reuters claimed in 2016 that Japan claimed a cost of $188B for Fukushima: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs-idUSKBN13Y047 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs-idU... This NY Times article claims 9/11 total costs were $3.3 trillion, including $55B in physical damage, $123B in economic impact, $589B in Homeland security spending, $1.6T in war funding, $867B in veterans care and future costs associated: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/us/sept-11-reckoning/cost-graphic.html https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011... At any rate, Fukushima was caused by a tsunami. It's clearly not the same risk factor to place nuclear reactors in say, the deserts of Australia, Nevada, or New Mexico versus the shoreline of Japan. We don't launch rockets from heavily populated downtown areas either for the same reason. As an engineer, you gotta think in trade-offs and reality. Nuclear is a truly unlimited energy source. As a species, we have to master this technology in a safe way if we ever want to advance to the next level. We're never going to be a space-faring species on wind and solar alone. Solar and wind are fair-weather friends.