5 ms·

The adequacy of Fukushima's ongoing cleanup is disputed, and it will cost $470 to $660 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Costs_

The adequacy of Fukushima's ongoing cleanup is disputed, and it will cost $470 to $660 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Costs_of_the_cleanup_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos... AFAIK nobody (here) advocates fossil fuel. Usually it is about nuclear/renewable.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Only $15 billion has actually been spent, the estimates of 470 to 660 are predictions from think tanks and not what has been budgeted. "Renewables" is really wind and solar supplementing fossil fuels. There's no realistic plan for a predominantly intermittent grid without some form of dispatchable source backing periods of non-production. If that happens to be a hydroelectric dam, great. But for most regions that means fossil fuels. So advocating renewables is advocating fossil fuels in effect.
- natmaka 4y ago
  Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Scope_of_cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Sco... : In 2016, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry estimated ((...)) 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). The very amount of backup needed by a renewable-based system can be reduced by adequately spreading-out production units: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... Energy storage (hydro... V2G has a huge potential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) and curtailment further reduce it. A dispatchable source ('backup') isn't necessarily fossil-fuel-burning: green-hydrogen-fueled gas turbines are clean: https://global.kawasaki.com/news_211209-2e.pdf https://global.kawasaki.com/news_211209-2e.pdf This very green hydrogen can be produced thanks to (clean!) renewable units overproduction. Even fully-nuclearized France produces around 9% of its electricity thanks to such 'backup' (today: fossil-fuel burning plants). Red surfaces: https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-energie-2021/15-electricite https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi... 9% is 33 days per year, that's quite a margin.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Again, estimates are not actual costs. And note that the figures you cite add up to much less than the 660 billion you cited earlier. Hydrogen storage has significant technological barriers. Nobody has successfully deployed a hydrogen grid storage facility so far. There's no telling when, or if, these barriers will be overcome. France can build more nuclear plants to drive down it's fossil fuel use. But no amount of overproduction will make a solar plant produce electricity at night, or wind turbines on a windless day. For that reason, "renewables" is really renewables plus fossil fuels. While France uses 9% fossil fuels Germany, the biggest renewables stan, uses fossil fuels and biomass (which gets a green label but is often even more polluting than fossil fuels) for just under 40% of it's electricity. Not much of a win for renewables.
    - natmaka 4y ago
      > estimates are not actual costs On matters such as those (vast, gov-funded, lengthy and intrinsically new projects) largely under-estimating seems way (way!) more probable to me. > Nobody has successfully deployed a hydrogen grid storage facility Indeed (this is a work in progress, and may indeed not be possible), however the industry already uses huge amounts of H (therefore short-term storage for intermittency compensation is possible), and more and more vehicles do so (therefore a quite large distribution network for intermittent consumers is possible). > France can build more nuclear plants France already tries to builds a new nuclear reactor ("EPR") since 2007, it is way over budget and over schedule. As for renewables intermittency: I answered in my previous post. > While France uses 9% fossil fuels Germany, the biggest renewables stan, uses fossil fuels This comparison seems absurd to me. France launched its nuclearization in the 1970's, while very rich ("30 Glorieuses)", industrial, and it was a strategic case (continuation of the "atomic bomb" program and therefore benefiting from military credits + oil crisis), and the need (electricity consumed) was 3 times lower than it is now, using reactors existing since the 1950's. It then took 25 years to build the nuclear fleet. Germany isn't as (relatively) rich and industrial as it was in the 1970's (after many crisis since the 1990's), there is a quite strong "the climate crisis isn't really a strategic top-priority form most governments" (even in Germany) argument, really launched its transition in 2011, and it uses very-quickly evolving technologies. > biomass (which gets a green label but is often even more polluting than fossil fuels) This is more nuanced: some are rather clean.

Manuel_D 4y ago

Only $15 billion has actually been spent, the estimates of 470 to 660 are predictions from think tanks and not what has been budgeted. "Renewables" is really wind and solar supplementing fossil fuels. There's no realistic plan for a predominantly intermittent grid without some form of dispatchable source backing periods of non-production. If that happens to be a hydroelectric dam, great. But for most regions that means fossil fuels. So advocating renewables is advocating fossil fuels in effect.

natmaka 4y ago
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Scope_of_cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Sco... : In 2016, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry estimated ((...)) 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). The very amount of backup needed by a renewable-based system can be reduced by adequately spreading-out production units: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... Energy storage (hydro... V2G has a huge potential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) and curtailment further reduce it. A dispatchable source ('backup') isn't necessarily fossil-fuel-burning: green-hydrogen-fueled gas turbines are clean: https://global.kawasaki.com/news_211209-2e.pdf https://global.kawasaki.com/news_211209-2e.pdf This very green hydrogen can be produced thanks to (clean!) renewable units overproduction. Even fully-nuclearized France produces around 9% of its electricity thanks to such 'backup' (today: fossil-fuel burning plants). Red surfaces: https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-energie-2021/15-electricite https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi... 9% is 33 days per year, that's quite a margin.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Again, estimates are not actual costs. And note that the figures you cite add up to much less than the 660 billion you cited earlier. Hydrogen storage has significant technological barriers. Nobody has successfully deployed a hydrogen grid storage facility so far. There's no telling when, or if, these barriers will be overcome. France can build more nuclear plants to drive down it's fossil fuel use. But no amount of overproduction will make a solar plant produce electricity at night, or wind turbines on a windless day. For that reason, "renewables" is really renewables plus fossil fuels. While France uses 9% fossil fuels Germany, the biggest renewables stan, uses fossil fuels and biomass (which gets a green label but is often even more polluting than fossil fuels) for just under 40% of it's electricity. Not much of a win for renewables.
  - natmaka 4y ago
    > estimates are not actual costs On matters such as those (vast, gov-funded, lengthy and intrinsically new projects) largely under-estimating seems way (way!) more probable to me. > Nobody has successfully deployed a hydrogen grid storage facility Indeed (this is a work in progress, and may indeed not be possible), however the industry already uses huge amounts of H (therefore short-term storage for intermittency compensation is possible), and more and more vehicles do so (therefore a quite large distribution network for intermittent consumers is possible). > France can build more nuclear plants France already tries to builds a new nuclear reactor ("EPR") since 2007, it is way over budget and over schedule. As for renewables intermittency: I answered in my previous post. > While France uses 9% fossil fuels Germany, the biggest renewables stan, uses fossil fuels This comparison seems absurd to me. France launched its nuclearization in the 1970's, while very rich ("30 Glorieuses)", industrial, and it was a strategic case (continuation of the "atomic bomb" program and therefore benefiting from military credits + oil crisis), and the need (electricity consumed) was 3 times lower than it is now, using reactors existing since the 1950's. It then took 25 years to build the nuclear fleet. Germany isn't as (relatively) rich and industrial as it was in the 1970's (after many crisis since the 1990's), there is a quite strong "the climate crisis isn't really a strategic top-priority form most governments" (even in Germany) argument, really launched its transition in 2011, and it uses very-quickly evolving technologies. > biomass (which gets a green label but is often even more polluting than fossil fuels) This is more nuanced: some are rather clean.