This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"The Risk of a Nuclear Catastrophe ... Could Total Trillions of Dollars and Even BANKRUPT A COUNTRY"
Preface: I am not against all nuclear power, solely the unsafe type we have today. Future designs - like thorium reactors (see this and this) - may be a different animal altogether.
AP has a good article (via the Washington Post) on nuclear power economics:
Nuclear power is a viable source for cheap energy only if it goes uninsured.
***
Governments
that use nuclear energy are torn between the benefit of low-cost
electricity and the risk of a nuclear catastrophe, which could total trillions of dollars and even bankrupt a country.
The
bottom line is that it’s a gamble: Governments are hoping to dodge a
one-off disaster while they accumulate small gains over the long-term.
The
cost of a worst-case nuclear accident at a plant in Germany, for
example, has been estimated to total as much as €7.6 trillion ($11 trillion), while the mandatory reactor insurance is only €2.5 billion.
“The €2.5 billion will be just enough to buy the stamps for the
letters of condolence,” said Olav Hohmeyer, an economist at the
University of Flensburg who is also a member of the German government’s
environmental advisory body.
The situation in the U.S., Japan, China, France and other countries is similar.
***
“Around
the globe, nuclear risks — be it damages to power plants or the
liability risks resulting from radiation accidents — are covered by the
state. The private insurance industry is barely liable,” said Torsten
Jeworrek, a board member at Munich Re, one of the world’s biggest
reinsurance companies.
***
In financial terms, nuclear
incidents can be so devastating that the cost of full insurance would
be so high as to make nuclear energy more expensive than fossil fuels.
***
Ultimately, the decision to keep insurance on nuclear plants to a minimum is a way of supporting the industry.
“Capping the insurance was a clear decision to provide a
non-negligible subsidy to the technology,” Klaus Toepfer, a former
German environment minister and longtime head of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), said.
As I've previously noted:
In 1982, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs received a secret report received from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission called "Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences 2".
***
In that report and other reports by the NRC in the 1980s, it was estimated
that there was a 50% chance of a nuclear meltdown within the next 20
years which would be so large that it would contaminate an area the
size of the State of Pennsylvania, which would result in huge numbers
of a fatalities, and which would cause damage in the hundreds of
billions of dollars (in 1980s dollars).
Similarly, renowned physicist Michio Kaku told Democracy Now today:
The
American people have not been given the full truth, because, for
example, right north of New York City, roughly 30 miles north of where
we are right now, we have the Indian Point nuclear power plant, and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has now admitted that of all the
reactors prone to earthquakes, the one right next to New York City is
number one on that list. And the government itself, back in 1980,
estimated that property damage would be on the order of about $200
billion in case of an accident, in 1980 dollars [more than $500 billion in today's dollars], at the Indian Point nuclear power station.
But AP notes that doesn't include the real costs:
The
cost of a nuclear meltdown at the Indian Point reactors some 24 miles
north of New York City has been estimated at up to $416 billion in a
2009 study. But that does not take into full account the impact on one
of the world’s busiest metropolises.
“Indeed, a worst-case
scenario could lead to the closure of New York City for years, as
happened at Chernobyl, ... leading to almost unthinkable costs,”
University of Pennsylvania’s Howard Kunreuther and Columbia University’s
Geoffrey Heal said.
Japan's economy was already on the ropes prior to Fukushima. America's economy is already on the ropes, and yet a U.S. nuclear accident could be a lot worse than Japan
As I wrote on April 8th:
Whenever there is a disaster, those responsible claim it was "unforeseeable" so as to escape blame.
For example:
- It happened with 9/11
- It happened with the financial crisis
- It happened with the Japanese nuclear accident
The big boys gamble with our lives and our livelihoods,
because they make a killing by taking huge risks and cutting costs.
And when things inevitably go South, they aren't held responsible (other
than a slap on the wrist), and may even be bailed out by the
government.
And as I noted
the same day, nuclear accidents, oil spills and financial meltdowns all
happen for the same reason ... the big boys cutting every possible
corner in order to make more money:
[Nobel prize winning economist Joseph] Stiglitz wrote Wednesday:
The
entire financial sector was rife with agency problems and
externalities. Ratings agencies had incentives to give good ratings to
the high-risk securities produced by the investment banks that were
paying them. Mortgage originators bore no consequences for their
irresponsibility, and even those who engaged in predatory lending or
created and marketed securities that were designed to lose did so in
ways that insulated them from civil and criminal prosecution.
This
brings us to the next question: are there other "black swan" events
waiting to happen? Unfortunately, some of the really big risks that we
face today are most likely not even rare events. The good news is that
such risks can be controlled at little or no cost. The bad news is
that doing so faces strong political opposition - for there are people
who profit from the status quo.
We
have seen two of the big risks in recent years, but have done little
to bring them under control. By some accounts, how the last crisis was
managed may have increased the risk of a future financial meltdown.
Too-big-to
fail banks, and the markets in which they participate, now know that
they can expect to be bailed out if they get into trouble. As a result
of this "moral hazard", these banks can borrow on favourable terms,
giving them a competitive advantage based not on superior performance
but on political strength. While some of the excesses in risk-taking
have been curbed, predatory lending and unregulated trading in obscure
over-the-counter derivatives continue. Incentive structures that
encourage excess risk-taking remain virtually unchanged.
So, too,
while Germany has shut down its older nuclear reactors, in the US and
elsewhere, even plants that have the same flawed design as Fukushima
continue to operate. The nuclear industry’s very existence is
dependent on hidden public subsidies - costs borne by society in the
event of nuclear disaster, as well as the costs of the still-unmanaged
disposal of nuclear waste. So much for unfettered capitalism!
***
In
the end, those gambling in Las Vegas lose more than they gain. As a
society, we are gambling – with our big banks, with our nuclear power
facilities, with our planet. As in Las Vegas, the lucky few - the
bankers that put our economy at risk and the owners of energy companies that put our planet at risk - may walk off with a mint. But on average and almost certainly, we as a society, like all gamblers, will lose.
That, unfortunately, is a lesson of Japan’s disaster that we continue to ignore at our peril.
The
bottom line is that if we continue to let the top 1% - who are never
satisfied, but always want more, more, more - run the show [in a
cavalier, staggeringly risky manner] without challenge from the other
99% of people in the world, we will have more Fukushimas, more Gulf oil
spills and more financial meltdowns.
»
- advertisements -
GA nuke plant went into automatic shut down for an unknown reason last night.
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/local_news/nuclear-reactor-in-ga.-shuts-down-abruptly-20110421-tm
Today's update on the GA nuke plant includes a WTF comment from the NRC : "Joey Ledford, a spokesman for the NRC's regional office in Atlanta, said automatic shutdowns are not unusual.."
http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2011-04-22/vogtle-gets-ready-restart?v=1303476360
That was unforeseeable.
http://fearthegovernment.com/nukegaurd.html
israeli company in charge of security in amerikan nuclear faciiities....
thumb drive problems with israeli agent installing stuxnet virus on systems.....hmmmmm?
How is it that there are things called "nuclear powered submarines"? Are these fictitious?
There existence, if real, indicates that nuclear power plants need not be enormous and seem to function perfectly fine under water. Since a majority of the population lives near the coasts, subs are not affected by tsunamis and earthquakes and subtrafuge by a radicals would be far more difficult than on land, why is this source of power so ignored?
It is not ignored. Nuclear submarines typically utilize almost weapons-grade uranium in order to gain more power from a smaller reactor package. It is considered unsafe to use this kind of fuel in a land-based reactor. Nuclear subs spend a lot of time at sea, and if they have a problem, its impact would be minimal on shore-based communities. It is a risk trade-off.
...except at Camp Bondsteel.
http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/nfl8.htm
nuclear powered subs lost at sea. insanity in full bloom.........
Since silver, deficits, defaults, speculation have captured everyone's attention, Fukushima is on the backpage, which is how TEPCO likes it. Another mea culpa from TEPCO, an admission that another 520 tons of water may have leaked into the sea. Interesting, sounds insignificant compared to the 11,500 tons they dumped into the ocean.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/21_35.html
Given that there's an estimated 60,000 tons of radioactive water in the basements of reactors 1-3, we still have a ways to go, don't we. Good work GW for keeping the story alive.
Eugenicists suck.
Nuclear disasters are bullish! everything is bullish!
Think of all the clean up spending, cement sales, etc.... Add another 1K to the DOW.
Buy the fucking becquerel dip.
I totally agree with you. Also I believe that Japan is going to be made uninhabitable when the govt. isn't able to hide the radiation poison and effects anymore.
I keep getting this message when I try to go to the Radiation Network most times of day and night for weeks now:
The server at www.radiationnetwork.com is taking too long to respond.
Only times I get in the levels were normal except once.
Have not got in for at least four days now after I saw a normal reading one day after the first slightly but for sure above normal on West coast.
Anybody else notice the same pattern? We only get in when readings are normal. If so, then not getting in may not be good news.
Evacuation area officially expanded (map at link)
The Japanese government has announced the official expansion of the evacuation zone around the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to selected areas beyond the existing 20-kilometer radius. Residents of the new areas are being asked to evacuate by the end of May.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said on Friday that the government made the designation since residents there could be exposed to cumulative radiation levels of 20 millisieverts or more per year if they stay.
The 5 new municipalities are located to the northwest of the plant and are more than 20 kilometers from it.
Edano said that due to the possible impact on residents' heath, the government is now urging them to evacuate within about a month.
Friday's announcement followed the establishment at midnight Thursday of a no-entry zone within a 20-kilometer radius of the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
Edano also designated parts of areas within 20 to 30 kilometers of the plant as areas in which residents should remain indoors or be prepared to evacuate at any time in case of an emergency.
With this designation, the government lifted an earlier instruction to stay indoors for people in the 20- to 30-kilometer zone.
Friday, April 22, 2011 12:29 +0900 (JST)
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/22_20.html
If I said it once I said it 100 times. Once you add up the cost of building a plant, maintaining the plant and then some day placing the plant into a concrete box the cost per KW go way up. Add the cost of Chernobyl, 3-Mile and Fukushima disasters and the cost just blew up the roof ( pun). I know everything comes with risk but dollar for dollar nuclear does not add up!
Everyone seems to want to ignore the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. A big reason for these BWRs that were built during the cold war is for production of plutonium for weapons. There was never enough of it. No matter how many times the cold warriors could blow up the world, they needed more. The balance of terror needed to be maintained at all costs. If one needs proof of this concept, one need only look at America's defence budget in relation to the rest of the world -- Anglo-American hegemony, no matter what the cost!
It's not just the cost of the electricity. It's the cost of ending all life on Planet Earth. No matter how much "defence" costs we need to pay it, even if it means that everything else of value in our lives, even individual health and security, need to be foregone as long as the Anglo-American Power Elites remain in charge.
There have been much safer and cheaper reactor designs proposed for decades now, but they don't produce weapons as a byproduct. They also don't keep GE and the uranium fuel industry in control. Uranium and its daughter isotopes are bad shit.
Follow the money.
Won't happen in the United States......... we're already bankrupt.
I was thinking exactly the same thing.....but who's to say that you can't go BK twice if you have the world's reserve currency and a whole lot of nuclear devices that do not generate power for the electrical grid.
And don't even mention the stategic weakness!!
No matter how big your amry is, even if it's a 1000 to 1!
If they get to blow a Nuclear plant/s, THE WAR ENDS THERE!
Why would other countries even need Nuclear bombs, WHEN WE ALL HAVE THEM IN OUR BACKYARD READY TO EXPLODE?!
They are all supposed to be bombproof, but I still need to see how they'll be when a Boing 747 filled with 200 tons of C4 and full of fuell crashes down on one!
We've seen those concrete roofs explode! AND UNDER THOSE ROOFS ARE THE REACTORS!!
BOMBPROOF MY ASS!!!
AND THEY ARE ALL 50 YEARS OLD! PERFECT CONDITION NEVER THE LESS...... ... . ....
A Boeing 747 filled with C4 crashing into a nuclear plant is unforeseeable. Now, go shut your eyes.
Exactly right. This is the flaw in the pro-nuclear argument: Fans of nuclear like to believe that nuclear is cost-effective. It *absolutely* isn't. First off, the lack of insurance requirements is really a 'nuclear subsidy'. The government is essentially letting the nuclear power companies off-the-hook for what they should be paying in astronomic insurance premiums. The fact that this subsidy is largely invisible makes nuclear power 'seem' cheap. But it isn't. It only takes one quick look at Fukushima to conclude that nuclear power may be the most expensive form of energy generation ever conceived.
What happens when a financial downturn renders maintenance of the facilities and nuclear waste cost prohibitive? It may be expensive, but it's not something we can discard either... it's basically a permanent cost... same with nuclear weapons... what happens when the lights shut off? Can we guaranty their containment and safe keeping?
Seems odd to me that we embrace boom/bust cycles while at the same time embracing world killing technologies... seems like a recipe for disaster (best case scenario).
Totally agree.. where is the unjunk button
George finally found another cause other than the Gulf oil spill. Well, whoopi doo doo.
Nothing to see here Clint. Move right along, now there's a good boy.