I'm going nuclear!

[Arrian]

Heh. Great theory. It doesn't tend to work out that way, though. The way it would actually happen would be we'd put it in a place designed to last 100 years. The place would actually last ~50 years. After about 90 years, we'd start wondering what to do with the waste, and discover it's been leaking. Then we'd spend the next several decades cleaning it up, and putting it in some new facility.

And so on and so forth.

By the way, despite this, I'm generally pro-nuclear.

-Arrian

[Ecthy]

Nuclear waste is considered the worst issue in Germany, biggest industrial power yet to quit nuclear energy.

[bipolarbear]

nuclear

[Jon Miller]

the new reactors are safer and produce a lot less waste

we are using reactors designed in the 70s (or earlier) here in the US, they are outdated and inefficient

JM

[notyoueither]

I've heard rumblings that the Province of Alberta is considering nuclear reactors to fuel the power needs of oil extraction.

There's some irony.

[Eli]

Nuclear Energy

The Earth is big. Just put the waste in Antarctica, the Australian desert or North Canada.

[Az]

Or keep reprocessing the mother****er.

So, the ensurance industry refuses to cover nukes? is this another case of professionals in one field being complete dimwits in another?

[Q Classic]

Nuclear power. Pebble reactors are nifty, particularly if thorium's involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_reactor

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I've heard rumblings that the Province of Alberta is considering nuclear reactors to fuel the power needs of oil extraction.

There's some irony.

makes sense, actually. One of Canadas biggest GHG issues, IIUC, is the amount of energy needed to extract oil sands. Oil is rarely used to generate electricity, but is valuable as a transportation fuel. You cant easily put nuclear power in your car (unless you like electric cars) but you maybe CAN use it to provide a cleaner, cheaper way to extract oil.

Note, the same would apply to alternate power sources as well.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az
Or keep reprocessing the mother****er.

So, the ensurance industry refuses to cover nukes? is this another case of professionals in one field being complete dimwits in another?

Sounds like a huge business opportunity then, eh? Surely there must be someone SOMEWHERE who sees how low the risk of nuclear power is, and has the resources to form a company to insure nuclear plants. Or the industry could take steps on its own.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Sounds like a huge business opportunity then, eh? Surely there must be someone SOMEWHERE who sees how low the risk of nuclear power is, and has the resources to form a company to insure nuclear plants. Or the industry could take steps on its own.

The reasons I've been given for the insurance problem is that, while the chances of an accident are minute, the potential amount of a claim is gigantic. It scares the bejesus out of insurers.

That was before I learned about re-insurance. (That is, when a huge risk is insured, companies sell of chunks of it to other insurance companies, thus spreading the risks out wider ) I don't know why re-insurance can take care of this problem.

[Az]

Surely there must be someone SOMEWHERE who sees how low the risk of nuclear power is, and has the resources to form a company to insure nuclear plants.

So, all it takes is a person who understands ensurance, and nuclear power ( often overlapping fields, in terms of disciplines), and with the starting capital in the hundreds of millions.

Not a problem, at all!


And yes, it does sound like a huge business opportunity.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


The reasons I've been given for the insurance problem is that, while the chances of an accident are minute, the potential amount of a claim is gigantic. It scares the bejesus out of insurers.

That was before I learned about re-insurance. (That is, when a huge risk is insured, companies sell of chunks of it to other insurance companies, thus spreading the risks out wider ) I don't know why re-insurance can take care of this problem.

reinsurance is the ****! its where i work and hopefully what i will do in the future for risk modelling.

the problem is setting up a contract for reinsurance companies because there are several different types and getting companies to agree to something where the risk is hard to model and under terms beneficial to both parties is a bit harder too.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MRT144
reinsurance is the ****! its where i work and hopefully what i will do in the future for risk modelling.

I love 'Poly. We have an in-house expert on everything!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az

Surely there must be someone SOMEWHERE who sees how low the risk of nuclear power is, and has the resources to form a company to insure nuclear plants.

So, all it takes is a person who understands ensurance, and nuclear power ( often overlapping fields, in terms of disciplines), and with the starting capital in the hundreds of millions.

Not a problem, at all!


And yes, it does sound like a huge business opportunity.

Over here there are quite a number of wealth individuals and firms who could provide the seed capital (of course they wouldnt have to provide all of it, they could publicly finance the rest). And they wouldnt need an in depth understanding of nuclear power and insurance, just the amount that you have which is sufficient to convince you the market is incorrect in this instance. Heck, they could hire you!

Anyway, the nuclear power industry itself could form a consortium to insure individual power plants.

There are other industries that self insure (ISTR most major freight railroads in the US do so, without even benefit of an industry wide consortium) If the risks are so low, that should be a feasible solution.