4 ms·

$2B is table stakes for anything in heavy industry. I haven't heard of a new oil refinery for anything less than $10B in a while. I'm not saying Chernobyl wasn

$2B is table stakes for anything in heavy industry. I haven't heard of a new oil refinery for anything less than $10B in a while. I'm not saying Chernobyl wasn't a disaster. I'm just saying, as far as heavy industry goes $2B isn't much. I know that's hard to fathom but it's true.

philistine 5y ago
Yeah but that refinery starts making money at some point. With Chernobyl, the $2B is completely gone.
- barkingcat 5y ago
  Not to mention the site will need to continually rebuild the sarcophagus around it until half-lifing makes the sarcophagus unneeded. The current one is only designed to last 100 years.
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    "only"
    - barkingcat 5y ago
      Yes "only", meaning it's insufficient for the long run. It's estimated that the ruins will remain highly radiactive for 20,000 years, meaning that a scarcophagus-like containment is needed at least for that long. If human technology remains as is (ok I am really hoping for tech advancements in this area), we will need to build 200 of such structures if the design specifications work as planned. The area is only "safe" because we keep the site contained. Without renewal of the containment structure, the radiation will spread. https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-chernobyl-safe-a-timeline/ https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-chernobyl-s... "Meanwhile, Reactor No. 4, now covered by the New Safe Confinement, is estimated to remain highly radioactive for up to 20,000 years. "
      - KptMarchewa 5y ago
        We do fuck all about carbon dioxide killing our planet, but are "extremely concerned" about the fact that people will have to spend some money on one building. That's as close to "non-concern" as we can have.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
      On the scale of the relevant half lives, yes, "only" a century:)
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    The objective of the New Safe Confinement is to shelter the site and allow for safe demolition of the structure and disposal of the material on the site. There will probably be some sort of "cap" over the site for a long time but it will not need to be as expensive or technically sophisticated once that work is done.
    - barkingcat 5y ago
      I'm considering the "safe demolition and disposal" to cost multiple orders of what it would cost to rebuild the containment ... so yes, at some point the new containment cap need not be as expensive, but by the time we have gotten to that point, the site will probably have consumed a lot more money than just building the same containment over and over again. Some future leader(s) would probably do the calculations and just say "let's build another 100-year-containment so the next generation can deal with the disposal" and pocket the money. It's the "tech debt" discussion embodied in real life.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  A new nuclear plant can cost up to $10B. Spending $2B per 100 years to keep the worst disaster in nuclear energy safe and secure doesn't actually sound like a bad deal to me, in context. Of course the actual disaster in totality cost much more - up to $700B in impairment [1], overwhelmingly opportunity cost. Further, consider that the Chernobyl complex did already produce value, and for many years. In fact, there were four reactors at Chernobyl. No. 4 is the one that suffered the catastrophic failure in 1986. However the remaining 3 reactors continued to operate for many years. No. 2 was shut down in 1991, No. 1 was shut down in 1996 and No. 3 was shut down in 2000. Even that was reluctant, the Ukrainians only agreed to shut them down in exchange for assistance with the NSC and putting up 2 new reactors, Khmelnitski 2 and Rovno 4. [1] https://globalhealth.usc.edu/2016/05/24/the-financial-costs-of-the-chernobyl-nuclear-power-plant-disaster-a-review-of-the-literature/ https://globalhealth.usc.edu/2016/05/24/the-financial-costs-...
  - merb 5y ago
    > A new nuclear plant can cost up to $10B you forget the $40B in cleanup costs if no disaster happens, of course disaster or cleanup costs will be socialized in "developed" countries. all cleanup costs were grosly underestimated, in germany and everywhere else.
  - ryanmarsh 5y ago
    Considering renovation of one of the reactors in the STP (South Texas Project) nuclear plant cost ~$5B I find that $10B suspiciously low. The renovation project I was made aware of was supposed to be done by Fluor. I don't know if it took place. The Wikipedia page for STP talks about some $10-14B for two new reactors on the existing site. Originally applied for circa'07. If the reactors ever get built they will cut down on natural gas usage and be more more profitable than gas plants over their 25+ year lifespan. I can only imagine a modern net-new nuclear power generation facility in the most hospitable jurisdiction would cost beyond $20B when all is said and done.
advisedwang 5y ago
$2B is just the new containment structure. Wikipedia lists the original cleanup as costing $68B (inflation adjusted). This article [1] lists the total economic cost as $700B [1] https://www.thebalance.com/chernobyl-nuclear-power-plant-disaster-economic-impact-3306335 https://www.thebalance.com/chernobyl-nuclear-power-plant-dis...

philistine 5y ago

Yeah but that refinery starts making money at some point. With Chernobyl, the $2B is completely gone.

barkingcat 5y ago
Not to mention the site will need to continually rebuild the sarcophagus around it until half-lifing makes the sarcophagus unneeded. The current one is only designed to last 100 years.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  "only"
  - barkingcat 5y ago
    Yes "only", meaning it's insufficient for the long run. It's estimated that the ruins will remain highly radiactive for 20,000 years, meaning that a scarcophagus-like containment is needed at least for that long. If human technology remains as is (ok I am really hoping for tech advancements in this area), we will need to build 200 of such structures if the design specifications work as planned. The area is only "safe" because we keep the site contained. Without renewal of the containment structure, the radiation will spread. https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-chernobyl-safe-a-timeline/ https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-chernobyl-s... "Meanwhile, Reactor No. 4, now covered by the New Safe Confinement, is estimated to remain highly radioactive for up to 20,000 years. "
    - KptMarchewa 5y ago
      We do fuck all about carbon dioxide killing our planet, but are "extremely concerned" about the fact that people will have to spend some money on one building. That's as close to "non-concern" as we can have.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    On the scale of the relevant half lives, yes, "only" a century:)
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  The objective of the New Safe Confinement is to shelter the site and allow for safe demolition of the structure and disposal of the material on the site. There will probably be some sort of "cap" over the site for a long time but it will not need to be as expensive or technically sophisticated once that work is done.
  - barkingcat 5y ago
    I'm considering the "safe demolition and disposal" to cost multiple orders of what it would cost to rebuild the containment ... so yes, at some point the new containment cap need not be as expensive, but by the time we have gotten to that point, the site will probably have consumed a lot more money than just building the same containment over and over again. Some future leader(s) would probably do the calculations and just say "let's build another 100-year-containment so the next generation can deal with the disposal" and pocket the money. It's the "tech debt" discussion embodied in real life.
arcticbull 5y ago
A new nuclear plant can cost up to $10B. Spending $2B per 100 years to keep the worst disaster in nuclear energy safe and secure doesn't actually sound like a bad deal to me, in context. Of course the actual disaster in totality cost much more - up to $700B in impairment [1], overwhelmingly opportunity cost. Further, consider that the Chernobyl complex did already produce value, and for many years. In fact, there were four reactors at Chernobyl. No. 4 is the one that suffered the catastrophic failure in 1986. However the remaining 3 reactors continued to operate for many years. No. 2 was shut down in 1991, No. 1 was shut down in 1996 and No. 3 was shut down in 2000. Even that was reluctant, the Ukrainians only agreed to shut them down in exchange for assistance with the NSC and putting up 2 new reactors, Khmelnitski 2 and Rovno 4. [1] https://globalhealth.usc.edu/2016/05/24/the-financial-costs-of-the-chernobyl-nuclear-power-plant-disaster-a-review-of-the-literature/ https://globalhealth.usc.edu/2016/05/24/the-financial-costs-...
- merb 5y ago
  > A new nuclear plant can cost up to $10B you forget the $40B in cleanup costs if no disaster happens, of course disaster or cleanup costs will be socialized in "developed" countries. all cleanup costs were grosly underestimated, in germany and everywhere else.
- ryanmarsh 5y ago
  Considering renovation of one of the reactors in the STP (South Texas Project) nuclear plant cost ~$5B I find that $10B suspiciously low. The renovation project I was made aware of was supposed to be done by Fluor. I don't know if it took place. The Wikipedia page for STP talks about some $10-14B for two new reactors on the existing site. Originally applied for circa'07. If the reactors ever get built they will cut down on natural gas usage and be more more profitable than gas plants over their 25+ year lifespan. I can only imagine a modern net-new nuclear power generation facility in the most hospitable jurisdiction would cost beyond $20B when all is said and done.

advisedwang 5y ago

$2B is just the new containment structure. Wikipedia lists the original cleanup as costing $68B (inflation adjusted). This article [1] lists the total economic cost as $700B [1] https://www.thebalance.com/chernobyl-nuclear-power-plant-disaster-economic-impact-3306335 https://www.thebalance.com/chernobyl-nuclear-power-plant-dis...