3 ms·

Fukushima is really the only outlier, and the lesson learned should be it's probably a bad idea to build nuclear reactors near active fault lines. Most of the

Fukushima is really the only outlier, and the lesson learned should be it's probably a bad idea to build nuclear reactors near active fault lines. Most of the extremely pessimistic total cost estimates are around $750B for Fukushima, and that's not the present value. That's money spent so far in the future the discount rate is substantial. Japan's official estimate is $187B, with probably a $100B NPV. Chernobyl was an inherently (and well known) unsafe design. When you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. The cost of burning fossil fuels is estimated to be well, well over $1T. Nothing comes for free. Pick your poison.

consumer451 2y ago
Do you happen to know anything about the structural security requirements for SMRs? Are they the same as new large LWR, as in, must withstand a 737's impact?
jmyeet 2y ago
> Most of the extremely pessimistic total cost estimates are around $750B for Fukushima This isn't the defense or retort that you think it is. This is from ONE incident. The industry recognizes the long tail of catastrophic failures is so large that laws have been passed to limit nuclear power liability in the US. I'm talking specifically about the Price-Anderson Act [1]. This severely limits nuclear power liability to ~$500 million per incident. That's a lot less than $1T or $750B or whatever figure you prefer. So who picks up the tab in a catastrophic event? Taxpayers. It's another example of how nuclear power can only exist with government subsidies. Yet we apparently want to trust private corporations to manage nuclear power plants and take the profits while shifting the risk to the public. Additionally there's a self-insurance fund, but it would be completely inadequate to cover an incident like Fukushima. This is recognized [2]. > The cost of burning fossil fuels is estimated to be well, well over $1T. So this is a strawman on two fronts. First, you're comparing the cost of a single massive failure by one plant to the entire fossil fuel industry. Second, I never even said fossil fuel power. I said solar. [1]: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10821 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10821 [2]: https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-scheme-for-nuclear-power-plant-accidents-no-longer-makes-sense/ https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-...
Moldoteck 2y ago
not even fault lines - huge tsunami risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant - it was closer to the origin of the eq.

consumer451 2y ago

Do you happen to know anything about the structural security requirements for SMRs? Are they the same as new large LWR, as in, must withstand a 737's impact?

jmyeet 2y ago

> Most of the extremely pessimistic total cost estimates are around $750B for Fukushima This isn't the defense or retort that you think it is. This is from ONE incident. The industry recognizes the long tail of catastrophic failures is so large that laws have been passed to limit nuclear power liability in the US. I'm talking specifically about the Price-Anderson Act [1]. This severely limits nuclear power liability to ~$500 million per incident. That's a lot less than $1T or $750B or whatever figure you prefer. So who picks up the tab in a catastrophic event? Taxpayers. It's another example of how nuclear power can only exist with government subsidies. Yet we apparently want to trust private corporations to manage nuclear power plants and take the profits while shifting the risk to the public. Additionally there's a self-insurance fund, but it would be completely inadequate to cover an incident like Fukushima. This is recognized [2]. > The cost of burning fossil fuels is estimated to be well, well over $1T. So this is a strawman on two fronts. First, you're comparing the cost of a single massive failure by one plant to the entire fossil fuel industry. Second, I never even said fossil fuel power. I said solar. [1]: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10821 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10821 [2]: https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-scheme-for-nuclear-power-plant-accidents-no-longer-makes-sense/ https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-...

Moldoteck 2y ago

not even fault lines - huge tsunami risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant - it was closer to the origin of the eq.