3 ms·

The tail risk on nuclear is so bad that innovation which merely reduces the cost of energy isn't nearly compelling enough. Energy costs (either direct, or indir

The tail risk on nuclear is so bad that innovation which merely reduces the cost of energy isn't nearly compelling enough. Energy costs (either direct, or indirect via carbon taxes or other pricing in of externalities of burning stuff) need to rise significantly before there will be a real driver in the system. If you want nuclear, you want punitive carbon taxes, or carbon trading with low caps.

ethbro 7y ago
I'm not in the field, but it seems like the risk calculation itself could be used as a driver. By shifting the regulatory cost from focusing on lesser risks to catastrophic ones, you could make fundamentally safer reactor designs economically competitive while still retaining the primary political goals (avoidance of major event). I'm concerned but not running around screaming if a reactor leaks tritium. I'm very much the latter if a reactor goes prompt critical.
- michaelt 7y ago
  It's my understanding governments have considered light-touch regulation of nuclear safety with the policy "any nuclear power plant that can get insurance to cover a $100 billion+ meltdown cost can be built" and the result is nobody can provide such insurance, so no plants get built.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    From an actuarial standpoint, I wouldn't go near nuclear with a 10' pole either. Simply because the population size is too small. In the same way I wouldn't offer SR-71 insurance. That feels like a dodge on the part of regulators.
    - olau 7y ago
      There's an actual actuarial analysis online somewhere, though I can't remember if it's in German, and the problem is not population size, but a nearly unbounded risk. Take a look at Fukushima and think about what would have happened in terms of cost had the wind blown in another direction.
      - ethbro 7y ago
        Maybe this? https://www.versicherungsforen.at/portal/media/forschung/studienundumfragen/versicherungsprmiefrkkw/20111006_NPP_Insurance_Study_Versicherungsforen.pdf https://www.versicherungsforen.at/portal/media/forschung/stu... Thanks for the pointer! Will be an interesting read.
ekimekim 7y ago
> If you want nuclear, you want punitive carbon taxes I think this is the crux of the issue. Carbon-emitting plants get a free pass on safety and long-term environmental costs, while for nuclear all those things are examined with a fine-tooth comb, then compared to the cost of alternatives without those things. In any regulatory regime that punished carbon emission the same way it did nuclear waste, nuclear contamination, etc, then coal plants would be unthinkable. I was going to say "then nuclear would be obvious", but I'll hold judgement there because I don't know how that would compare to other non-carbon-emitting sources (hydro, solar, etc).
- anoncake 7y ago
  Carbon-emitting plants are safe. They cause a predictable number of deaths every year. That's a cost, similar to the environmental costs. That doesn't mean they are less bad than nuclear plants but the claim that they are unsafe is just wrong.
pfdietz 7y ago
The president of Exelon has stated that for new nuclear to compete with natural gas combined cycle plants in the US, the CO2 tax would have to be in the range of $300-400/tonne. This is very high, and many cheaper alternatives would become available first at lower values of that tax rate.

ethbro 7y ago

I'm not in the field, but it seems like the risk calculation itself could be used as a driver. By shifting the regulatory cost from focusing on lesser risks to catastrophic ones, you could make fundamentally safer reactor designs economically competitive while still retaining the primary political goals (avoidance of major event). I'm concerned but not running around screaming if a reactor leaks tritium. I'm very much the latter if a reactor goes prompt critical.

michaelt 7y ago
It's my understanding governments have considered light-touch regulation of nuclear safety with the policy "any nuclear power plant that can get insurance to cover a $100 billion+ meltdown cost can be built" and the result is nobody can provide such insurance, so no plants get built.
- ethbro 7y ago
  From an actuarial standpoint, I wouldn't go near nuclear with a 10' pole either. Simply because the population size is too small. In the same way I wouldn't offer SR-71 insurance. That feels like a dodge on the part of regulators.
  - olau 7y ago
    There's an actual actuarial analysis online somewhere, though I can't remember if it's in German, and the problem is not population size, but a nearly unbounded risk. Take a look at Fukushima and think about what would have happened in terms of cost had the wind blown in another direction.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      Maybe this? https://www.versicherungsforen.at/portal/media/forschung/studienundumfragen/versicherungsprmiefrkkw/20111006_NPP_Insurance_Study_Versicherungsforen.pdf https://www.versicherungsforen.at/portal/media/forschung/stu... Thanks for the pointer! Will be an interesting read.

ekimekim 7y ago

> If you want nuclear, you want punitive carbon taxes I think this is the crux of the issue. Carbon-emitting plants get a free pass on safety and long-term environmental costs, while for nuclear all those things are examined with a fine-tooth comb, then compared to the cost of alternatives without those things. In any regulatory regime that punished carbon emission the same way it did nuclear waste, nuclear contamination, etc, then coal plants would be unthinkable. I was going to say "then nuclear would be obvious", but I'll hold judgement there because I don't know how that would compare to other non-carbon-emitting sources (hydro, solar, etc).

anoncake 7y ago
Carbon-emitting plants are safe. They cause a predictable number of deaths every year. That's a cost, similar to the environmental costs. That doesn't mean they are less bad than nuclear plants but the claim that they are unsafe is just wrong.

pfdietz 7y ago

The president of Exelon has stated that for new nuclear to compete with natural gas combined cycle plants in the US, the CO2 tax would have to be in the range of $300-400/tonne. This is very high, and many cheaper alternatives would become available first at lower values of that tax rate.