4 ms·

If you were a Japanese tax payer, would it be a success ? The total cleanup costs were estimated to be between 50.5 and 71 trillion yen ($470 to $660 billion).

If you were a Japanese tax payer, would it be a success ? The total cleanup costs were estimated to be between 50.5 and 71 trillion yen ($470 to $660 billion). For the cleanup, only 184.3 billion yen was reserved in the September supplementary budget of prefecture Fukushima, and some funds in the central government's third supplementary budget of 2011.

autoexecbat 2y ago
They don't have to pay for it all this year
- bamboozled 2y ago
  Very naive comment. It’s still a lot of money. Are you aware about the current economic and demographic situation in Japan ? It’s not good here. That money could’ve went to a lot more useful things. Also remember this was a man made disaster. The plant was not upgraded (as recommended) to meet new safety guidelines, because, as if a mega tsunami would actually happen, right ? Then right after the event the operator was downplaying the extent of meltdown for too long. The PM had to step in and get a proper response team organised.
  - exe34 2y ago
    > The plant was not upgraded (as recommended) to meet new safety guidelines, because, as if a mega tsunami would actually happen, right ? And others on this same thread are trying to use the same disaster to paint nuclear as expensive.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      The Onagawa nuclear plant, albeit more exposed, resisted thanks to a single man (Yanosuke Hirai), deciding in conscience, and the Big Complicated System of Central Authority "controlling everything" failed miserably at Fukushima. Full story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20... What works is local and managed by a few people, any Big Thing is a colossus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20... feet of clay collapse is all the more painful. This state of affairs doesn't seem to benefit to nuclear (vs. 'renewable sources').
    - bamboozled 2y ago
      The upgrades weren't outrageously expensive, I bet they would've cost 1/100th of what the cleanup costs will be. We're talking about moving backup generator to the roof level work: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2012/03/why-fukushima-was-preventable?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2012/03/why-fukushima...
littlestymaar 2y ago
And who do you think they will be paying it to? Subsidizing Japanese companies to develop technologies that may be exported elsewhere isn't that bad of a deal actually.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  What technologies are Japanese companies developing here, and does the tax payer get any of that privately held revenue back in return?
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    > What technologies are Japanese companies developing here, Do you think the technology already exists off the shelf already? > does the tax payer get any of that privately held revenue back in return? Japan's taxpayers also happen to be Japanese people employed in these companies, so they get their share of that revenues. And the price doesn't even account for the taxes that are paid back to the government directly.
    - bamboozled 2y ago
      Japanese wages are notorious for being lower that a lot of the developed world and there is a problem with stagnant wage growth. I don't think there is any need to try justify a screw up on this level as being good. Fukushima was a disaster, economically and for the image of nuclear globally.
      - littlestymaar 2y ago
        Nobody said otherwise, you are desperately moving the goalpost here.
        bamboozled 2y ago
        “Desperately”, you’re a funny guy. I live in Japan, no tax payer here is sitting around going, “how wonderful the nuclear disaster was, now we’ll get all this new tech to boot”. Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade. This was a disaster, politically, economically and environmentally. Yes some good will come from it, but ultimately, it was better off not happening. All that money could’ve and should’ve went on new and safer power plants.
imtringued 2y ago
Nuclear power is one of the few industries where a single mistake can cost you as much as replacing the entire nuclear power plant fleet.
- natmaka 2y ago
  Indeed, and even more. French experts stated it clearly: 1/ 'Cour des comptes' (France's supreme audit institution) established the cost of the nuclear fleet at approximately 228 billion € (2012 Report "Les coûts de la filière nucléaire"). It was contested and is probably under evaluated because some costs were paid for on various budgets (defense, scientific research...) but isn't too far fetched. 2/ IRSN (Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire: Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety Institute") stated that the cost of a single major accident may surpass 430 billions € ( https://www.irsn.fr/savoir-comprendre/crise/cout-economique-pour-deux-scenarios-daccident https://www.irsn.fr/savoir-comprendre/crise/cout-economique-... ).
- ovi256 2y ago
  Not at all, the chemical industry also can do this. Worse, we store untreatable chemical waste forever (see Germany's many chemical waste dumps), unlike nuclear waste which will eventually become safe.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    Please source.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
      https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deponie_Ihlenberg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deponie_Ihlenberg
      - natmaka 2y ago
        I cannot read German, Google Translated it, and could have misunderstood but could not find how those waste sites may trigger such major accident, nor about untreatable waste and one of them stores nuclear waste ("from the Greifswald nuclear power plant")! Chemical industry also produces very dangerous waste (Seveso...), I agree. This cannot serve as an excuse for nuclear, especially as, nowadays, we know how to industrially obtain electricity from renewable sources (no major accident similar to a nuclear's one, nor such dangerous waste).

autoexecbat 2y ago

They don't have to pay for it all this year

bamboozled 2y ago
Very naive comment. It’s still a lot of money. Are you aware about the current economic and demographic situation in Japan ? It’s not good here. That money could’ve went to a lot more useful things. Also remember this was a man made disaster. The plant was not upgraded (as recommended) to meet new safety guidelines, because, as if a mega tsunami would actually happen, right ? Then right after the event the operator was downplaying the extent of meltdown for too long. The PM had to step in and get a proper response team organised.
- exe34 2y ago
  > The plant was not upgraded (as recommended) to meet new safety guidelines, because, as if a mega tsunami would actually happen, right ? And others on this same thread are trying to use the same disaster to paint nuclear as expensive.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    The Onagawa nuclear plant, albeit more exposed, resisted thanks to a single man (Yanosuke Hirai), deciding in conscience, and the Big Complicated System of Central Authority "controlling everything" failed miserably at Fukushima. Full story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20... What works is local and managed by a few people, any Big Thing is a colossus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20... feet of clay collapse is all the more painful. This state of affairs doesn't seem to benefit to nuclear (vs. 'renewable sources').
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    The upgrades weren't outrageously expensive, I bet they would've cost 1/100th of what the cleanup costs will be. We're talking about moving backup generator to the roof level work: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2012/03/why-fukushima-was-preventable?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2012/03/why-fukushima...

littlestymaar 2y ago

And who do you think they will be paying it to? Subsidizing Japanese companies to develop technologies that may be exported elsewhere isn't that bad of a deal actually.

bamboozled 2y ago
What technologies are Japanese companies developing here, and does the tax payer get any of that privately held revenue back in return?
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  > What technologies are Japanese companies developing here, Do you think the technology already exists off the shelf already? > does the tax payer get any of that privately held revenue back in return? Japan's taxpayers also happen to be Japanese people employed in these companies, so they get their share of that revenues. And the price doesn't even account for the taxes that are paid back to the government directly.
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    Japanese wages are notorious for being lower that a lot of the developed world and there is a problem with stagnant wage growth. I don't think there is any need to try justify a screw up on this level as being good. Fukushima was a disaster, economically and for the image of nuclear globally.
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      Nobody said otherwise, you are desperately moving the goalpost here.
      - bamboozled 2y ago
        “Desperately”, you’re a funny guy. I live in Japan, no tax payer here is sitting around going, “how wonderful the nuclear disaster was, now we’ll get all this new tech to boot”. Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade. This was a disaster, politically, economically and environmentally. Yes some good will come from it, but ultimately, it was better off not happening. All that money could’ve and should’ve went on new and safer power plants.

imtringued 2y ago

Nuclear power is one of the few industries where a single mistake can cost you as much as replacing the entire nuclear power plant fleet.

natmaka 2y ago
Indeed, and even more. French experts stated it clearly: 1/ 'Cour des comptes' (France's supreme audit institution) established the cost of the nuclear fleet at approximately 228 billion € (2012 Report "Les coûts de la filière nucléaire"). It was contested and is probably under evaluated because some costs were paid for on various budgets (defense, scientific research...) but isn't too far fetched. 2/ IRSN (Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire: Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety Institute") stated that the cost of a single major accident may surpass 430 billions € ( https://www.irsn.fr/savoir-comprendre/crise/cout-economique-pour-deux-scenarios-daccident https://www.irsn.fr/savoir-comprendre/crise/cout-economique-... ).
ovi256 2y ago
Not at all, the chemical industry also can do this. Worse, we store untreatable chemical waste forever (see Germany's many chemical waste dumps), unlike nuclear waste which will eventually become safe.
- natmaka 2y ago
  Please source.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deponie_Ihlenberg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deponie_Ihlenberg
    - natmaka 2y ago
      I cannot read German, Google Translated it, and could have misunderstood but could not find how those waste sites may trigger such major accident, nor about untreatable waste and one of them stores nuclear waste ("from the Greifswald nuclear power plant")! Chemical industry also produces very dangerous waste (Seveso...), I agree. This cannot serve as an excuse for nuclear, especially as, nowadays, we know how to industrially obtain electricity from renewable sources (no major accident similar to a nuclear's one, nor such dangerous waste).