What's the problem with nuclear power?

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Arrian


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

The hurrcame that hit Florade in 1992 bankrupy from insurance and reinsurance compies include some of the larger one in the bussien. They have to payout in total over 25 billion dollar in claim.

[Adam Smith]

Its a three-tiered (insurers, operators, government) public-private insurance system. Point is that while private operators pay some liability (thorugh insurance or contribution), they do not pay the full amount, so it is a subsidy.

Consider the following statements from the 1956 and 1957 hearings on the then-proposed Price-Anderson amendment. A vice president of Westinghouse, Charles Weaver, stated: "Obviously we cannot risk the financial stability of our company for a relatively small project no matter how important it is to the country's reactor development effort, if it could result in a major liability in relation to our assets."[8]

In further testimony Weaver indicated that even Westinghouse's suppliers were unwilling to go ahead with the contract unless Westinghouse agreed to indemnify them against risks.[9] General Electric also indicated during the hearings that it was prepared to halt its work in the nuclear industry should a limitation on liability not be passed.[10] Suppliers of reactor shields also indicated their unwillingness "to undertake contracts in this field without being relieved of uninsurable liability in some way."[11]

SOURCE

Price-Anderson sets up two tiers of insurance. Each utility is required to maintain the maximum amount of coverage available from the private insurance industry - currently $200 million per reactor. If claims following an accident exceed that amount, all nuclear operators must pay up to $88 million for each reactor they operate. As of August 1998, Price-Anderson capped insurance coverage for any nuclear accident at $9.43 billion

SOURCE

edits: for clarity

[RGBVideo]

What's the problem with nuclear power?

[Joe Sixpack]
With the present amount of consumption, we'll run out of it in about 200 years. Not a real threat considering that we'll have plenty of time to develope other energy sources, but drastical boost in uranium consumption (that is very drastical, as in over quadrupling it) is out of the question. 10% increases in nuclear-based energy producing would be welcome, however, to lessen the amount of coal burning and to spare oil reserves.
[/Joe Sixpack]

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dauphin


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.

Because you don't JUST insure nuclear plants? If you file for bankruptcy, don't you have to sell everything?

[Dauphin]

Not a problem if you only insure nuclear plants. Limited liability of a company protects you after that. i.e you collect the premiums, pay yourself a whopping salary and then when payout day comes you fold the business. You sit pretty with your salary income (its untouchable from the liquidators point of view) for doing jack all that time.

There are laws against it I'm sure, but how they are arranged I don't know.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by VJ


[Joe Sixpack]
With the present amount of consumption, we'll run out of it in about 200 years. Not a real threat considering that we'll have plenty of time to develope other energy sources, but drastical boost in uranium consumption (that is very drastical, as in over quadrupling it) is out of the question. 10% increases in nuclear-based energy producing would be welcome, however, to lessen the amount of coal burning and to spare oil reserves.
[/Joe Sixpack]

Saudi Arabia will benfit from solar power sat that bean power down to than ground station use MASER which are alot like LASER but use micro-wave with a huge reciever pannel in a area with little life like a desert to act as than main power supplies to Eupore and Asia. They have than area call the empty Quater which never get rain at all, very little planet life and animal life and no person live there. Temp reach 160 degree Fath in the
shade temp in the sun over 200 degree fath.

[kronic]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I am a big supporter of nuclear power for ecological reasons. I think the German greens are completely out of the loop, as they shutted down Germany's nuclear power and replaced it with stinking coal and oil plants.

There's a reason France has the cleanest air of Europe - and that's because we have almost no fossil power plants.

Yes, and you were so kind to build most of them next to the German border - as all German neighbours did.
...propably according to the principal 'if we die let's take the evil Germans with us'...

And don't forget that the SPD is anti nuclear power since Chernobyl. In fact the German shut down of nuclear power plants is pretty much made by the Social Democrats. Not really the green way...

[Dauphin]

I think they did it so that in case you invade they have an embedded bomb ready to overload..

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by kronic
Yes, and you were so kind to build most of them next to the German border - as all German neighbours did.

I think you should question your sources.



(btw, notice that "Blayais" plant near Bordeaux; it is the one that was threatened during the 1999 storm. As you can see, it is in the immediate surroundings of Germany)

[The Mad Monk]

Well, it would have been, in 1943...

[Chemical Ollie]

None in Bretagne. Good, that's where I spend every second summer or so.

[child of Thor]

The Uk has an emerging energy crisis - our nuclear power stations are all getting old(i think maybe 10years left in the best of them?), and the power industries have made no more plans to build new ones due the the expense compared to coal/gas powered.

Many re-newable projects have been built, and many more planned, but there wont be enough in time to cover the shortfall when the nuclear stations are due to go off line!

We've been warned that maybe this winter we may face power shortages.
Strangely it got a small bit of attention in the press, then sunk from view

I hope other countries are being a bit more forward in their planning!

[Dauphin]

I recall a story last year saying "in the next 20 years" and then a story a couple of months ago saying "in the next 2 years".

I don't know if there is a problem, but I do know that the cost of electricity has fallen 20-30% over the past 5 years. If there was an energy crisis I would have thought it would have been reflected in the cost of electricity.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
None in Bretagne. Good, that's where I spend every second summer or so.

You still haven't told me when you'll go through Paris, Ollie

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You still haven't told me when you'll go through Paris, Ollie

That's because I don't know yet, and I would not know until a day or so before. Let's call it off. I don't think my wife would approve spending time with a Polytubbie anyway. Sorry for bothering.