What's the problem with nuclear power?

[debeest]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Insurance companies wouldn't insure nukes because there was no way to predict their commercial exposure, and they're in business to make a predictable profit, not to enable other industries. How do you do risk assessment with one in X million probability of events causing Y billion in claims? How do you assess litigation risk from emotional juries?

It's true that the unpredictability was a huge consideration. But if there was good reason to believe that the risk was small in comparison to the scale of possible damage, rather than the other way around, they'd have gone for it.

And what was the federal justification for capping nuke company liability at, I think, $600,000,000? Even in 1959 dollars, that's a pittance compared to what Chernobyl cost, and that's already happened once in only about 50 years of commercial reactors. If the nuke companies hadn't seen huge risk, they wouldn't have needed a ridiculously small liability cap.

Chernobyl is irrelevant as an example of risk or any other technical, environmental, or liability issue affecting US, Japanese and western European commercial grade nuclear plants. TMI, Suruga and Palo Verde would be far more useful bases of comparison.

Maybe; I don't claim to know the technology at all. But I posit that all of the nuclear plants that have not yet exploded are equally irrelevant as examples of (low) risk. We're pretty sure the risk is small (despite the accidents that have already occurred), so the experiential track record is far too small to be of any real use in demonstrating safety. (Please don't point out the impossibility of showing "no risk," I fully understand it.)

[Impaler[WrG]]

No Kusinich, you put the Hydrogen in a VEHICLE and drive around with the hydrogen running the Fuel Cell making Electrictiy for the Car. Your point though that all this conversion is very ineficient as your going to probly loss 90+% of what the Solar Panels collected before it gets to the Tires on the road. The only reason is that you have made the energy more compact so the Vehicle in question has longer range. A simple Solar > Car Battery > Electic Motor > Wheel system though would be far more efficient meaning less Panels need to get the charge done but probably more expensive batteries in the car and/or reduced range.


Nuclear Power is more expensive because the Facilites are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, expensive to Inshure, expensive to decomision (the reactor vessel itself will have become radioactive as any metal dose upon exposure to Nutrons), the spent fuel is likwase being keept onsite (untill supposed long term storage facility is created at a cost of adsactly how many billions?) all that onsite fuel needs to be guarded and maintained at still more cost. As you can see it all adds up when you look at the big picture and not just how much it costs to make a Uranium Fuel pellet (something like 100 dollars for the potential energy of Trainfull of coal). Nuclear is more expensive then ANY other form of electricity when you add all this together, only with massive goverment subsides dose nuclear power exist at all.

[CharlesBHoff]

The reason that Hydrogen Fuel Cell in than car have problem have to do with scale of operation. They are good at power small device and huge device and builting. But carsize engine are where the problem is. NASA when they went to the moon use 3 hrdrogen-oxy fuel cells with no problen as they use pure oxygen with no immpurity when than car fuel cell take oxygen from the air.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by debeest
It's true that the unpredictability was a huge consideration. But if there was good reason to believe that the risk was small in comparison to the scale of possible damage, rather than the other way around, they'd have gone for it.

And what was the federal justification for capping nuke company liability at, I think, $600,000,000? Even in 1959 dollars, that's a pittance compared to what Chernobyl cost, and that's already happened once in only about 50 years of commercial reactors. If the nuke companies hadn't seen huge risk, they wouldn't have needed a ridiculously small liability cap.

At least part of the reason has to be that no insurance company would EVER be able to pay the costs of it if something bad occured.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
No Kusinich, you put the Hydrogen in a VEHICLE and drive around with the hydrogen running the Fuel Cell making Electrictiy for the Car.

You mentioned this for home use, not vehicles.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by debeest
It's true that the unpredictability was a huge consideration. But if there was good reason to believe that the risk was small in comparison to the scale of possible damage, rather than the other way around, they'd have gone for it.

And what was the federal justification for capping nuke company liability at, I think, $600,000,000? Even in 1959 dollars, that's a pittance compared to what Chernobyl cost, and that's already happened once in only about 50 years of commercial reactors. If the nuke companies hadn't seen huge risk, they wouldn't have needed a ridiculously small liability cap.

At least part of the reason has to be that no insurance company would EVER be able to pay the costs of it if something bad occured.

Own goal! Yes, the damage that could result from a nuke plant disaster would be greater than even an insurance company could cover. And the risk is small, but not so small that they're willing to take that chance. Doesn't that make you a little concerned?

[Chemical Ollie]

Again, do they insure hydro power dams against catastrophic failure? While most of them have rural areas downstream, I'm sure some have a major city in the path of a hypothetical flash-flood.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Again, do they insure hydro power dams against catastrophic failure? While most of them have rural areas downstream, I'm sure some have a major city in the path of a hypothetical flash-flood.

interesting point.

In my case. Our dam has Laughlin/bullhead city, Needles, Lake Havasu city. None of them large cities, but still a sizable population.

and my dam is also a possible terrorist target.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by debeest
Own goal! Yes, the damage that could result from a nuke plant disaster would be greater than even an insurance company could cover. And the risk is small, but not so small that they're willing to take that chance. Doesn't that make you a little concerned?

You missed my point - that they don't just judge purely based on expected return. Even if the chance was small enough that they'd expect to make money, the consequences are qualitatively different from simply losing money - the consequences would be complete bankruptcy.

[debeest]

Yep, that's my point too. The consequences are more than we could bear.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Dissident


interesting point.

In my case. Our dam has Laughlin/bullhead city, Needles, Lake Havasu city. None of them large cities, but still a sizable population.

and my dam is also a possible terrorist target.

Who told you that, our prejury commiting government. If you want to hurt than FBI agent just say Rudy Ridge where the FBI murder than pregeant woman and a baby our FBI agents are baby killer. WACO Texas where they murder alot of mother and baby.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by debeest
It's true that the unpredictability was a huge consideration. But if there was good reason to believe that the risk was small in comparison to the scale of possible damage, rather than the other way around, they'd have gone for it.

And what was the federal justification for capping nuke company liability at, I think, $600,000,000? Even in 1959 dollars, that's a pittance compared to what Chernobyl cost, and that's already happened once in only about 50 years of commercial reactors. If the nuke companies hadn't seen huge risk, they wouldn't have needed a ridiculously small liability cap.

At least part of the reason has to be that no insurance company would EVER be able to pay the costs of it if something bad occured.

That's true of many things that are insured, but that's why many utilise re-insurance, and why they put negation clauses.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kucinich


You missed my point - that they don't just judge purely based on expected return. Even if the chance was small enough that they'd expect to make money, the consequences are qualitatively different from simply losing money - the consequences would be complete bankruptcy.

You could take the money and effectively run. If you physically can't payout anyway then why fear taking the money.

Might be a law against that though.

[Arrian]

Nuclear Energy Liability Exclusion Endorsement (Broad Form)

The insurance does not apply:

A. Under any Liability Coverage, to "bodily injury" or "property damage:"

(1) With respect to which any "insured" under the policy is also an insured under a nuclear energy liability policy issued by Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association, Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters, Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada or any of their successors....

...

There is a lot more to the exclusion (1985 edition used in standard commercial general liability policies), but I'm not going to quote the whole 2-page endoresment.

I guess those must be government funds or something, 'cause otherwise insurance companies do cover nuclear facilities.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by debeest
It's true that the unpredictability was a huge consideration. But if there was good reason to believe that the risk was small in comparison to the scale of possible damage, rather than the other way around, they'd have gone for it.

And what was the federal justification for capping nuke company liability at, I think, $600,000,000? Even in 1959 dollars, that's a pittance compared to what Chernobyl cost, and that's already happened once in only about 50 years of commercial reactors. If the nuke companies hadn't seen huge risk, they wouldn't have needed a ridiculously small liability cap.

At least part of the reason has to be that no insurance company would EVER be able to pay the costs of it if something bad occured.

As Dauphin mentioned, there is such a thing as reinsurance. If you spread the risk across the entire insurance industry, and charge enough premium, it's fine. So it's not so much about the potential cost, it's about whether or not you can accurately predict the potential cost, and then set rates so you can make a profit.

Some things are just considered too unpredictable to be insurable. There is enough data on, say, auto accidents for the industry to be able to figure out what rates to charge for the policies (and hell, even then insurers **** up and go bust all the time).

-Arrian