Potential Cost Of A Nuclear Accident? So High It’s A Secret! (5.8 Trillion Euros)

[kristopher]

Potential Cost Of A Nuclear Accident? So High It’s A Secret!
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2013 AT 5:37PM

Catastrophic nuclear accidents, like Chernobyl in 1986 or Fukushima No. 1 in 2011, are very rare, we’re incessantly told, and their probability of occurring infinitesimal. But when they do occur, they get costly. So costly that the French government, when it came up with cost estimates, kept them secret.

...

It evaluated a range of disaster scenarios that might occur at the Dampierre plant. In the best-case scenario, costs came to €760 billion—more than a third of France’s GDP. At the other end of the spectrum: €5.8 trillion! Over three times France’s GDP. A devastating amount. So large that France could not possibly deal with it.

...


“One trillion, that’s what Fukushima will ultimately cost,” Repussard said.

Part of the €5.8 trillion would be the “astronomical social costs due to the high number of victims,” the report stated. The region contaminated by cesium 137 would cover much of France and Switzerland, all of Belgium and the Netherlands, and a big part of Germany—an area with 90 million people (map). The costs incurred by farmers, employees, and companies, the environmental damage and healthcare expenses would amount to €4.4 trillion.

“Those are social costs, but the victims may not necessarily be compensated,” the report stated ominously—because there would be no entity in France that could disburse those kinds of amounts.

...

http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2013/3/13/potential-cost-of-a-nuclear-accident-so-high-its-a-secret.html

[Benton D Struckcheon]

1. Yeah, that's the big problem.

There is simply no way to manage the risk of nuclear power, or at least the nuclear technology currently deployed. Impossible. Can't be done.

[kristopher]

2. That is 7.4 trillion dollars for those who don't follow currency markets.

Of course, as the article points out, a very large portion of that "cost" would be paid by the victims; you could call it a contribution to the welfare of the nuclear industry.

The last I heard, even though Fukushima will cost more than the profits of the entire nuclear industry in Japan since it began, the stockholders that have benefitted will largely escape unscathed. The taxpayers, ratepayers and victims will be picking up most of the tab.

[kristopher]

3. "shift the risks from operators and investors onto taxpayers and surrounding populations"

There is a good writeup of the way compensation for damages can be expected to fall far short of what would be required in the event of a worst case accident. It is a part of one of the most comprehensive and accessible papers on subsidies out there. The section on the US policy regime that establishes liability coverage starts on page 78. Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies is by Doug Koplow, a leading analyst in subsidies of all types. It was commissioned by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2011.

6.1.1. Overview of Price-Anderson
As noted with many of the credit subsidies, poli- cies such as liability caps do not actually reduce the risks of a particular activity. At best, they shift the risks from operators and investors onto taxpay- ers and surrounding populations. At worst, poorly structured liability subsidies may actually increase the risks of an accident because they eliminate important third-party monitoring and pricing signals that voluntary risk-bearing agents such as insurers can provide through site audits, premium setting, and policy renewal decisions.

Link to download full paper is here: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html