I'm going nuclear!

[Dis]

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we are using reactors designed in the 70s (or earlier) here in the US, they are outdated and inefficient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

some of them were designed in the 50's. We are using very old technology. The core designes are modern, but the plant designs are old.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


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

im no expert by any means, but i do understand it well enough.

[Dis]

granted this is a test site, and not dealing with nuclear fuel, but...

there will always be hazards involved with this stuff

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070607/D8PJOGIG0.html

[Arrian]

It's possible, I'm sure. Lotsa reinsurance, backed by the government.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian Lotsa reinsurance, backed by the government.

nonononononono

[Japher]

I don't think the problem of nuclear waste would be a big deal, as I feel that problem could be solved with adequate funding. Idaho Falls Nuclear Waste Facility seems pretty close, IMO.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's possible, I'm sure. Lotsa reinsurance, backed by the government.

-Arrian

no, you can do reinsurance schemes that are backed by more reinsurance schemes aka retrocessional reinsurance. the key is not to get your ass ****ed like lloyds of london did in the 80s.

what happened was, they were selling reinsurance policies to other people who were in turn selling retrocessional reinsurance policies to another party who was then selling the retrocessional reinsurance policies back to lloyds. once something goes over that excess of loss layer...well it sets off a cascade.

[Arrian]

Well, if you can convince the insurance industry to do it w/o government backing, ok. Maybe it'll fly.

Isn't the government the ultimate reinsurer for large terrorism risk? Same sort of thing: catastrophic failure = nearly unimaginable cost.

edit: mrt - I understand how reinsurance works. I'm just guessing that insurers might want the additional backing of Uncle Sam for something like this. I could be wrong.

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

Lloyd's was buying back its own policies of reinsurance?!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
Well, if you can convince the insurance industry to do it w/o government backing, ok. Maybe it'll fly. I doubt it.

And thus we return to my original point

If, at our best estimate, it's not economically feasible to insure nuclear power, then we shouldn't have any because it's too great a risk.

Isn't the government the ultimate reinsurer for large terrorism risk? Same sort of thing: catastrophic failure = nearly unimaginable cost.

Terrorism prevention is the government's job. Nuclear accident prevention is the job of the power companies.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Arrian
Well, if you can convince the insurance industry to do it w/o government backing, ok. Maybe it'll fly. I doubt it,

Isn't the government the ultimate reinsurer for large terrorism risk? Same sort of thing: catastrophic failure = nearly unimaginable cost.

-Arrian

well it all is in the details arrian. you can convince the insurance (client) companies to do it given the right contracts and markets (reinsurance companies). it would take a long time to hammer it out but im sure it can be done.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Lloyd's was buying back its own policies of reinsurance?!

yeah, well part of the problem was poorly laid out contracts, poorly documented trails of risk, and the belief that it wouldnt come back to bite them.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Arrian
Well, if you can convince the insurance industry to do it w/o government backing, ok. Maybe it'll fly.

Isn't the government the ultimate reinsurer for large terrorism risk? Same sort of thing: catastrophic failure = nearly unimaginable cost.

edit: mrt - I understand how reinsurance works. I'm just guessing that insurers might want the additional backing of Uncle Sam for something like this. I could be wrong.

-Arrian

there are other tools available in the private sector. the problems with the government backing this are many;

competition with private sector, the entire nation paying for a ****up in bum**** idaho or iowa, poor risk modelling by the government. at guy carpenter (where I work, happens to be a reinsurance broker ) we wrote the book on reinsurance risk.

what the government can do is offer cat bonds which will drain the government but make the buyers a pretty penny. cat bonds to the reinsurance companies that is.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MRT144
what the government can do is offer cat bonds which will drain the government but make the buyers a pretty penny. cat bonds to the reinsurance companies that is.

Cat bonds? I don't know what they are.

(And they sound more like catnip bonds )

[MRT144]

catastrophe bonds. essentially the yield of the bond is calculated to generate as many buyers as possible for the catastrophic risk. if the catastrophe occours the bond issuer takes that money bond holders placed in the bond to pay the insurance. if the catastrophe doesnt happen bond holders make a nice amount of money at the end of the term of the bond (usually sold for a period of time)

in my mind the government could issue two classes; 1 to reinsurance companies and 1 to individual investors.