> Spent fuel is a solved problem, we just store it securely
This is simply untrue. Depending on the type and enrichment of the fuel it will need to be actively cooled for some period, possibly decades. After that you can bury it. You need facilities for all of this. You need personnel (done by the NRC currently) to transport and install new fuel, remove old fuel and transport it to suitable sites as well as manage those sites. Before they even make it to storage sites they'll typically be stored onsite or in the reactor for years.
> Who can be relied upon: who do you rely upon to run your drinking water?
Given the current administration, almost nobody. The state of drinking water in places like Flint, MI is a national disagrace. The continued existence of lead pipes that leech lead into drinking water in many places is a national disgrace. The current administration gutting the EPA and engineering the Supreme Court to overturn things like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are just the cherry on top.
A significant ramp up of nuclear power would necessitate a commensurate ramp up of the NRC in all these capacities.
> Failure modes of accidents: have been extensively studied and essentially designed out
Like I said, hand waved away.
> Where are you getting this number?
Multiple sources [1][2]. Fukushima requires constantly pumping water to cool the core. That water needs to be stored (in thousands of tanks onsite) then processed and ultimately released back into the ocean, which itself is controversial. Removing the core requires inventing a bunch of technologies that don't exist yet. The decomissioning process itself is something most of us won't live to see the end of [3].
The $1 trillion and a century for 1 nuclear plant. Pro-nuclear people will point to the death figure because it suits their argument. It's economically devastated that region however.
And as for Chernobyl, billions of euros was spent building a sarcophagus for the plant, only to have the integrity of that shield destroyed by a Russian drone.
The issue with spent fuel has to do with the long term (essentially permanent) storage part and is purely political. It's a solved problem except for getting approval for the solution.
The other fuel issues you mention are already dealt with today as a matter of course. It's just the final part that remains up in the air.
You are the one hand waving about failure modes. As with aircraft, as failures have happened we've learned from them. New designs aren't vulnerable to the same things old ones were. All the mishaps have happened with old designs.
Personally I think the anti-nuclear FUD that the climate activists push is unfortunate. We would likely have been close to carbon neutral by now if we'd started building it out in the late 90s.
That said, I'm inclined to agree that solar might be a better option at this point in environments that are suited to it. The batteries still aren't entirely solved but seem to be getting close. In particular, the research into seasonal storage using iron ore looks quite promising to me.
Yes, because others were mostly not affected by the Fukushima disaster despite being in the impact area. Why? Because they took safety precautions. Onagawa was closer to the epicentre, but they built on a high embankment and did not flood and lose power.
Anti-nuclear people conveniently ignore, because it suits their argument, that Japan is restarting their nuclear energy program. They finally understood that there's no other viable option for energy security, price, and achieving decarbonization goals.
> The combination has had a toll on Japanese automotive (and other) exports. Barring Fukushima’s impacts, one would assume a return to pre-2008 fiscal meltdown exports by now. But basically they’re static. That’s in the range of $200 billion in lost exports just for the automotive industry.
>
> It’s likely fair to attribute $20 to $50 billion of that to irrational fear of radiation.
Like, are you serious? This is the most bizarro accounting I've ever seen.
> ...that’s about $100 billion in extra fuel costs.
And now it's counting as part of the cost of Fukushima the fossil fuels needed to replace it. Even more wacky accounting.
> another $22 billion for unexpected health costs due to burning extra fossil fuels.
It continues to get even more wacky, if that was possible, by attributing this cost to the Fukushima disaster. These are costs that would be avoided with a strong nuclear electricity generation program! These are arguments in favour of nuclear! It's not cost-effective for Japan to cover their land mass and offshore areas with solar and wind arrays! They have regular earthquakes and typhoons which would knock these vast arrays offline and take massive amounts of time and money to get back online!
You said: 'Fukushima will likely take a century to clean up and cost upwards of $1 trillion if not more.' The sources you provide don't provide the numbers or, if they do, they include bogus numbers that actually make the case for nuclear.
This is simply untrue. Depending on the type and enrichment of the fuel it will need to be actively cooled for some period, possibly decades. After that you can bury it. You need facilities for all of this. You need personnel (done by the NRC currently) to transport and install new fuel, remove old fuel and transport it to suitable sites as well as manage those sites. Before they even make it to storage sites they'll typically be stored onsite or in the reactor for years.
> Who can be relied upon: who do you rely upon to run your drinking water?
Given the current administration, almost nobody. The state of drinking water in places like Flint, MI is a national disagrace. The continued existence of lead pipes that leech lead into drinking water in many places is a national disgrace. The current administration gutting the EPA and engineering the Supreme Court to overturn things like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are just the cherry on top.
A significant ramp up of nuclear power would necessitate a commensurate ramp up of the NRC in all these capacities.
> Failure modes of accidents: have been extensively studied and essentially designed out
Like I said, hand waved away.
> Where are you getting this number?
Multiple sources [1][2]. Fukushima requires constantly pumping water to cool the core. That water needs to be stored (in thousands of tanks onsite) then processed and ultimately released back into the ocean, which itself is controversial. Removing the core requires inventing a bunch of technologies that don't exist yet. The decomissioning process itself is something most of us won't live to see the end of [3].
The $1 trillion and a century for 1 nuclear plant. Pro-nuclear people will point to the death figure because it suits their argument. It's economically devastated that region however.
And as for Chernobyl, billions of euros was spent building a sarcophagus for the plant, only to have the integrity of that shield destroyed by a Russian drone.
[1]: https://archive.ph/EBhF7
[2]: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-...
[3]: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/fukushima