Chernobyl Accident
For Belarus,
there is a 15 national estimate of $235B for 1986-2015
attributed to “aggregate damage” and for Ukraine, there is a 25-year estimate
for “total economic loss” of $198B. Scaled to 30 years,
the Ukraine estimate of around $240B is
quite comparable to that for Belarus. In our 2013 report, we identified a population of 10,000,000 as “exposed” in a
relatively broad sense to radiation and the disaster, approximately
one-third each from Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.
Thus, tripling either the Ukraine or Belarus 30-year estimates to cover the full exposed population leads
to a total of around $700B in costs for the 30
years, assuming the same cost figures apply to Russia. This estimate involves a
number of assumptions and must be considered as uncertain, but it is based on
governmental figures.
However, regardless of the inherent uncertainty the figure is high and existing estimates would support overall
costs of hundreds of billions.
Chernobyl - Say: US$750 billion
--------------------//--------------------
Fukushima Accident
TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan’s government on Friday nearly doubled its projections for costs related to the Fukushima nuclear disaster to 21.5 trillion yen ($188 billion), increasing pressure on Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) to step up reform and improve its performance.
Fukushima - Say: US$200
billion
--------------------//--------------------
Other Accidents
Cost of Nuclear Accidents in
France, Germany, India, UK and USA [Including TMI] = [2006] US$9,753 million.
Note: Japan and South Korea accidents are not costed.
Add in, Say: US$1,000
million = US$10,753 million.
Then + 19.05% inflation to
2016: US$12,800 million
Everything Else - Say US$46 billion
--------------------//--------------------
Total [All Nuclear Accidents]:
US$0.996 trillion
--------------------//--------------------
“…For coal…… associated economic values of health impacts are [2012] $0.19–$0.45/kWh…”.
Average = $0.32/kWh
Add 3.11% for 2014 value: Average
= $0.33/kWh
Healthcare
Savings
Economic value of U.S. fossil fuel electricity health impacts
“…For coal…… associated economic values of health impacts are [2012] $0.19–$0.45/kWh…”.
Average = $0.32/kWh
Add 3.11% for 2014 value: Average
= $0.33/kWh
But the USA did not burn all
of the coal to generate 76,560 TWh of electricity – and US healthcare costs are
much higher than most other nations.
A % of 76,560 TWh needs to
be apportioned to significant nuclear power nations and their healthcare costs, as a % of USA healthcare costs, applied to that figure:
The 17 Countries Generating The Most Nuclear Power
Health expenditure per capita (current [2014] US$)
Health expenditure per capita (current [2014] US$)
--------------------//--------------------
Cost of Nuclear Power
Accidents:
US$0.996 trillion
Nuclear Power
Healthcare Savings:
US$14.95
trillion
--------------------//--------------------
FINAL SCORE
ACCIDENTS
1 : SAVINGS 15
--------------------//--------------------
--------------------//--------------------
I don't think it's fair to include Chernobyl, as it is completely non-applicable to any objective discussion of the merits and safety of modern nuclear power (or nuclear power anywhere outside the Soviet Union).
ReplyDeleteAlso, the $350 billion estimate for Fukushima is too high. Even the $100-200 billion estimated costs are mainly due to unjustified over-reactions, which is very frustrating.
The case for nuclear is stronger than that shown. The ratio of economic costs is more like several hundred to one, and the ratio of lives lost is on the order of 100,000 to one (10 million for fossil, ~100 for non-Soviet nuclear).
Jim Hopf
All of the meltdown cleanup extortion/punishment fee is due to LNT fraud. There should be ZERO CLEANUP, ZERO EVACUATION. Restart all plants immediately, DO NOT UPGRADE. Even a Fukushima-class meltdown is no problem because anything <100mSv/year has no impact on health. Reduce the cost of building nuke by 20x by eradicating the safety appeasement garbage. Fire all the regulators. There can, will, and MUST be more meltdowns for a legitimate expansion. 100,000 nuclear plants yes please, NBD if several hundred melt down. The radiation is less damaging than natural gas frack carcinogen and combustion. Need to rip up the nuclear industry and make it known that even an RBMK nuke is absolutely superior to combustion.
ReplyDeleteWith new Generation III+ designs, we really don't have to worry about meltdowns.
DeleteI really admire the phrase "safety appeasement garbage".
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if MSR and even IFR technologies were the only ones used, I believe there would be NO meltdowns. Minor fires, perhaps, other small problems for the media to exaggerate, maybe even some minuscule inventory lapses of plutonium (AAARGH!) but nothing like 130 million tons a year of chemically toxic solid ash alone, in the USA.
Anyone using Chernobyl as an example of nuclear-power cost or danger is uninformed or worse. Might as well argue to ban chemistry because one can make VX with it.
ReplyDeleteChernobyl was and is illegal outside the old USSR. Using it in any way against nuclear power is to destroy one''s own argument and respect for facts.
--
Dr. A. Cannara
650 400 3071
This article is really mostly of historical interest since it is about incidents with second generation and even first generation nuclear reactors.
ReplyDeleteWhile second generation nuclear power plants are still operating, we are NOT building any new ones. New nuclear power plants are generation III which are either melt down proof or built to deal with a meltdown. So, we should not expect any future incidents like these with new NPPs.