4 ms·
> more likely to be coal or nuclear Nuclear. Naive probability matters relatively little here. The risk of coal plants due to CO2 is a thin-tailed long term ri
by jpdus 6y ago
> more likely to be coal or nuclear
Nuclear. Naive probability matters relatively little here. The risk of coal plants due to CO2 is a thin-tailed long term risk. No single coal plant will ever cause a headline (or an event) like this. Thin-tailed long-term risks can be mitigated and planned for and the result is always a sum of many smaller choices (albeit global warming is an existential risk for sure!).
Nuclear is different. 99,999% of time it's cheaper and cleaner than coal. Doesn't matter. The tail-risk is what matters and that's also, why (conventional) nuclear can't ever be economically competitive against any other power source without direct or indirect subsidies (there is no insurance that will insure a nuclear power plant).
Highly recommend Taleb`s paper on fat-tailedness [1].
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.10488 https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.10488
- maelito 6y agoI sincerely don't understand your appreciation of risks. If you have a simpler introduction to this, please share.
- simloo 6y agoThere's no insurance that insures a hydro power plant against dam failure either, nor large chemical industries. It's nothing abnormal.
- jpdus 6y agoTo my knowledge, this depends on the dam in question For large dams in developed countries it's relatively easy to contain that risk (move people a few kilometers away from thedanger zone) in contrast to a nuclear plant. Large chemical industries have no problems getting insurance as far as I know -or do you have credible sources stating otherwise?
- simloo 6y agoI've never heard of countries considering the entire danger zone from a large hydroelectric dam uninhabitable. They're so large that it's simply not feasible. Take the largest hydro station in Sweden for example, Harsprånget[1]. The government assessment for what happens when that dam breaks assumes it takes out a very large geographical area, among other things the entire city of Luleå (which is near the coastline). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harspr%C3%A5nget_hydroelectric_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harspr%C3%A5nget_hydroelectric... No large chemical industry handlng dangerous chemicals, in developed countries or otherwise, has an insurance large enough to pay for huge expensive spills. That's why the company usually defaults when it happens and leaves the cleanup for the government later on. This has happened on numerous occations in the US, Europe, and over here in Sweden.