4 ms·

How many nuclear power plants are their in the world? 436 plus 63 in construction (as of 2010). It is sufficient to simply add up the costs needed to cover th

by moe 14y ago

How many nuclear power plants are their in the world? 436 plus 63 in construction (as of 2010). It is sufficient to simply add up the costs needed to cover the disaster The total cost for the Chernobyl incident was estimated at $235 billion[1] in 2006 and the figure only keeps growing. Since 2007 they're building a new sarcophagus (because the old one is falling apart). The costs were estimated at another $1.4 billion for that alone. But they're late already, and well, you know how it goes. In contrast Hurricane Katrina was a bargain at $150 billion dollars [2]. The Fukushima incident is estimated to cost $257 billion dollars [3] and that's probably a little optimistic. and then look at the premiums paid for covering similar sized disasters with similar rates of occurrence See, here is your problem. At these scales there is no coverage and no reference; these are disasters of national scale. For Katrina the insurance industry paid $41 billion dollars [2], guess who carried the rest. And the real question is: What happens when some confused individuals somehow manage to smuggle nail-clippers onto passenger planes and then fly them into multiple reactors, in densely populated areas, at the same time? What is the insurance premium on that? [1] http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-3/5-social-economic-impacts.htm http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-3/5-social-economic... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Hurricane_K... [3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/japan-nuclear-cost-idUSL3E7N60MR20111206 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/japan-nuclear-cost...

poutine 14y ago
"Probably not much" to answer your real question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8 The US government has done the test, granted an F4 isn't a passenger jet but it probably has similar kinetic energy to a smaller passenger plane as it was going rather fast.
- moe 14y ago
  probably has similar kinetic energy to a smaller passenger plane The most widely used passenger plane is the Boeing 737. F4 Phantom empty weight: 29,500 lbs Boeing 737 empty weight: 62,000 lbs The average operating weight difference is probably quite a bit larger. You know, fuel, baggage, passengers. You may want to review those videos from 9/11 to see what a passenger plane does to a building. You may also want to listen to the narrative of your video: The wall in your video is a specially hardened wall. Your reactors are not equipped with such walls because that would be cost prohibitive. And even these hardened walls are unlikely to withstand a passenger plane (ever wondered why the US government selected such a small plane for your video?).
  - cbsmith 14y ago
    Actually, most of the damage came from the burning of the fuel. It's worth noting that most nuclear plants have very different construction and design that make them far more resilient in the face of such a disaster... like significant portions being designed to operate continuously at high temperatures...
    - moe 14y ago
      It's worth noting that most nuclear plants have very different construction and design that make them far more resilient in the face of such a disaster We've seen how these designs fare in the face of an earthquake and flood. We're both arguing on the grounds of mere guessing here, but my guess would be that a plane crash might very well cause similar disruptions. Also if I was a terrorist plotting such an event, I might just fly two planes into the same reactor - because, why not? The question is not about how such an event is executed but how likely it is. I hope we can agree that a dedicated team of individuals will find a way to cause a catastrophic event in these facilities. And that's precisely the problem; Nuclear plants require something that we can't provide: Perfection. We may be able to keep the nominal failure rate at the level that we've seen (Chernobyl, Fukushima). But all economic calculations that these plants have going for them are immediately invalidated when you start considering a single successful deliberate attack.
      - cbsmith 14y ago
        A dedicated group of individuals capable of harnessing a number of planes in the air simultaneously and get them on a trajectory to a nuclear plant, with an impact exceeding a military bombing attack... ...can probably just build a bomb on their own just fine. Nuclear power plants don't require perfection. There are minute possibilities of terrible disasters with almost any facility. Nuclear plants do have some particularly disconcerting problems that seem fairly obvious and must be mitigated against, but I think we can allow for the fact that with or without a nuclear plant, bad shit can happen, and actually without said plant, bad shit will happen. Bhopal didn't have a nuclear power plant, just a measly ol' pesticide plant.
cbsmith 14y ago
Okay, a few problems with these numbers: Estimates of Chernobyl's costs have been exacerbated by a number of factors, not the least of which was a number of ridiculous things that were done to cover up the mess. The $150 billion Katrina estimate is ignoring a number of factors including things like... loss of life, which you know, tends to impact the costs of things. Just the Federal government has spent >$100 billion and nobody in the area even tries to pretend that they've restored it to its previous state or undone the economic harm. Insurance companies, as you said, have paid $41 billion, so there you're at $141 billion and you've barely scratched the surface as compared to the things factored in to that $235 and $257 billion figures. But let's cast all that aside. Let's assume the cost is 2-3x Katrina. The incident rate is obviously not that high (there's a reason basically all nuclear plant failures trace back to a design from the 60's), but I'm sure you can plug that in. There is a pretty handy Wikipedia page with details for Nuclear Plant disasters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents#Nuclear_power_plant_accidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents... Now, I haven't done the math for how many aggregate plant-years of operation we've had, but let's say your average plant has been in operation for 10 years (which is definitely low-balling it in the US, but the mere fact we run these old nuclear power plants is exactly why they are so much more likely to have problems). That's 4360 plant-years. The Wikipedia page has 20+ incidents listed, but that includes a lot of cases that are tiny compared to the disasters you are thinking in terms of (and of course, ironically, anyone who is insuring these things will tell you that those smaller incidents are the primary drivers of the costs in an insurance policy). I count 5 cases throughout history with costs >$1 billion. That works out to a very exaggerated rate of one incident every 972 plant-years. So, with all those "tie your hand behind your back" factors, a premium of $50 million/year would cover costs very well and leave the insurer rolling profit margins that'll probably create a congressional investigation. That's a lot of money, but compared to the economic output of a power plant, isn't prohibitive. Realistically though, newer reactor designs, particularly post-3 mile island, have a much lower incident rate than their predecessors and much better mechanisms for containing damage. If insurers were driving the design of plants, it'd probably be even lower (or costs would drop). Most insurers would probably also adjust their premiums based on the age of plants, which at some point would make it more cost effective to build a new one than to keep operating an old one. They'd also reduce costs by establishing rules that would limit their liability in circumstances where the failure was due to some other party not managing their responsibilities. I'm curious what the real numbers are, but you can see that even being grossly unfair, insurance costs for disasters are not going to make nuclear plants economically non-viable.
cbsmith 14y ago
> And the real question is: What happens when some confused individuals somehow manage to smuggle nail-clippers onto passenger planes and then fly them into multiple reactors, in densely populated areas, at the same time? It's worth noting that the US military has at times very deliberately attacked nuclear facilities with armaments much more deadly than nail-clippers or a passenger plane that you might obtain from them. The damages are not the stuff of legend.
SagelyGuru 14y ago
Thank you. The final figures for Chernobyl and Fukushima will no doubt be higher. Not to mention the cost of people dying of cancer. Nevertheless, let's just take these figures for now. They work out at well over a billion per commissioned plant. It is hardly a low risk, is it?

by moe 14y ago

poutine 14y ago

"Probably not much" to answer your real question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8 The US government has done the test, granted an F4 isn't a passenger jet but it probably has similar kinetic energy to a smaller passenger plane as it was going rather fast.

moe 14y ago
probably has similar kinetic energy to a smaller passenger plane The most widely used passenger plane is the Boeing 737. F4 Phantom empty weight: 29,500 lbs Boeing 737 empty weight: 62,000 lbs The average operating weight difference is probably quite a bit larger. You know, fuel, baggage, passengers. You may want to review those videos from 9/11 to see what a passenger plane does to a building. You may also want to listen to the narrative of your video: The wall in your video is a specially hardened wall. Your reactors are not equipped with such walls because that would be cost prohibitive. And even these hardened walls are unlikely to withstand a passenger plane (ever wondered why the US government selected such a small plane for your video?).
- cbsmith 14y ago
  Actually, most of the damage came from the burning of the fuel. It's worth noting that most nuclear plants have very different construction and design that make them far more resilient in the face of such a disaster... like significant portions being designed to operate continuously at high temperatures...
  - moe 14y ago
    It's worth noting that most nuclear plants have very different construction and design that make them far more resilient in the face of such a disaster We've seen how these designs fare in the face of an earthquake and flood. We're both arguing on the grounds of mere guessing here, but my guess would be that a plane crash might very well cause similar disruptions. Also if I was a terrorist plotting such an event, I might just fly two planes into the same reactor - because, why not? The question is not about how such an event is executed but how likely it is. I hope we can agree that a dedicated team of individuals will find a way to cause a catastrophic event in these facilities. And that's precisely the problem; Nuclear plants require something that we can't provide: Perfection. We may be able to keep the nominal failure rate at the level that we've seen (Chernobyl, Fukushima). But all economic calculations that these plants have going for them are immediately invalidated when you start considering a single successful deliberate attack.
    - cbsmith 14y ago
      A dedicated group of individuals capable of harnessing a number of planes in the air simultaneously and get them on a trajectory to a nuclear plant, with an impact exceeding a military bombing attack... ...can probably just build a bomb on their own just fine. Nuclear power plants don't require perfection. There are minute possibilities of terrible disasters with almost any facility. Nuclear plants do have some particularly disconcerting problems that seem fairly obvious and must be mitigated against, but I think we can allow for the fact that with or without a nuclear plant, bad shit can happen, and actually without said plant, bad shit will happen. Bhopal didn't have a nuclear power plant, just a measly ol' pesticide plant.

cbsmith 14y ago

Okay, a few problems with these numbers: Estimates of Chernobyl's costs have been exacerbated by a number of factors, not the least of which was a number of ridiculous things that were done to cover up the mess. The $150 billion Katrina estimate is ignoring a number of factors including things like... loss of life, which you know, tends to impact the costs of things. Just the Federal government has spent >$100 billion and nobody in the area even tries to pretend that they've restored it to its previous state or undone the economic harm. Insurance companies, as you said, have paid $41 billion, so there you're at $141 billion and you've barely scratched the surface as compared to the things factored in to that $235 and $257 billion figures. But let's cast all that aside. Let's assume the cost is 2-3x Katrina. The incident rate is obviously not that high (there's a reason basically all nuclear plant failures trace back to a design from the 60's), but I'm sure you can plug that in. There is a pretty handy Wikipedia page with details for Nuclear Plant disasters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents#Nuclear_power_plant_accidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents... Now, I haven't done the math for how many aggregate plant-years of operation we've had, but let's say your average plant has been in operation for 10 years (which is definitely low-balling it in the US, but the mere fact we run these old nuclear power plants is exactly why they are so much more likely to have problems). That's 4360 plant-years. The Wikipedia page has 20+ incidents listed, but that includes a lot of cases that are tiny compared to the disasters you are thinking in terms of (and of course, ironically, anyone who is insuring these things will tell you that those smaller incidents are the primary drivers of the costs in an insurance policy). I count 5 cases throughout history with costs >$1 billion. That works out to a very exaggerated rate of one incident every 972 plant-years. So, with all those "tie your hand behind your back" factors, a premium of $50 million/year would cover costs very well and leave the insurer rolling profit margins that'll probably create a congressional investigation. That's a lot of money, but compared to the economic output of a power plant, isn't prohibitive. Realistically though, newer reactor designs, particularly post-3 mile island, have a much lower incident rate than their predecessors and much better mechanisms for containing damage. If insurers were driving the design of plants, it'd probably be even lower (or costs would drop). Most insurers would probably also adjust their premiums based on the age of plants, which at some point would make it more cost effective to build a new one than to keep operating an old one. They'd also reduce costs by establishing rules that would limit their liability in circumstances where the failure was due to some other party not managing their responsibilities. I'm curious what the real numbers are, but you can see that even being grossly unfair, insurance costs for disasters are not going to make nuclear plants economically non-viable.

cbsmith 14y ago

> And the real question is: What happens when some confused individuals somehow manage to smuggle nail-clippers onto passenger planes and then fly them into multiple reactors, in densely populated areas, at the same time? It's worth noting that the US military has at times very deliberately attacked nuclear facilities with armaments much more deadly than nail-clippers or a passenger plane that you might obtain from them. The damages are not the stuff of legend.

SagelyGuru 14y ago

Thank you. The final figures for Chernobyl and Fukushima will no doubt be higher. Not to mention the cost of people dying of cancer. Nevertheless, let's just take these figures for now. They work out at well over a billion per commissioned plant. It is hardly a low risk, is it?