4 ms·

Prior to 2000, the space industry was thought to be extremely complex and expensive and viable only by state sponsored efforts, i.e. NASA, ESA, and so on. And

Prior to 2000, the space industry was thought to be extremely complex and expensive and viable only by state sponsored efforts, i.e. NASA, ESA, and so on. And then SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others have come along and shown that an industry that expensive can be profitable, cheap, and safe. It's not a perfect analogy by a long shot, but it's similar in terms of (historical) investment. There's no reason to believe that nuclear should be any different. The engineering and physics is well understood. I'd say that you've omitted the word "current", i.e. "current Nuclear plants have always been uninsurable", and "current Nuclear only ever exists and will only ever continue to existing because of subsidies." I'll re-iterate my previous comment, if Governments would step back from over regulation, and the desire for reactors to produce weapons grade uranium and plutonium as a by-product, then new designs could be achieved quickly, cheaply, and safely. Molten-salt is being actively researched: https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/09/04/166330/meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactors-get-a-safety-check-in-europe/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/09/04/166330/meltdown-...

pydry 6y ago
SpaceX and Blue Origin exist because of two billionaires brought up on dreams of space travel. Without their willingness to sustain potentially very heavy losses those companies would not exist. It's not like there are a variety of startups nipping at their heels. They want to make a profit but they're not doing it because they're convinced they will. As for the word "current"... well, if the nuclear industry thinks it's so safe and thinks it can prove it to the insurance industry why don't they prove it and forgo their public insurance subsidy? They fought for this subsidy in the first place, they can give it up just as easily. Why not let the free market decide if they're safe rather than providing taxpayers as a backstop?
- roenxi 6y ago
  > Why not let the free market decide if they're safe rather than providing taxpayers as a backstop? The free market is pretty evidence based, so it would decide they are safe. I doubt the public insurance subsidy works the way you are representing it. They'd not insure against the risk of a catastrophic meltdown in a free market, the risk is too low. The "insurance" is probably more of a government tax on the assumption that there is latent risk. I'm not going to say that is unreasonable, but it doesn't have anything to do with how safe the industry thinks it is. Consider Fukushima, the result of one of the biggest earthquakes in recorded history (Wikipedia says 4th largest [0]). Free markets don't bother to insure against that sort low-risk event. It would be like insuring San Francisco against the fact that it is on an active fault line - the market doesn't bother to insure against a risk that rare. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes#Largest_earthquakes_by_magnitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes#Largest_e...
  - bccdee 6y ago
    > The free market is pretty evidence based The free market is entirely based on investor hype. We have economic downturns ever 7-ish years, like clockwork, because some bubble burst again. It's a fallacy to treat investors like rational actors.
jnxx 6y ago
> There's no reason to believe that nuclear should be any different. The engineering and physics is well understood. Well, for one, a rocket launch going wrong can certainly kill people, but it won't make an entire region uninhabitable.
- DrBazza 6y ago
  Chernobyl is presumably what you're talking about. It was a high pressure steam explosion due a sudden introduction of energy into the system, which of course would cause an explosion and contaminate a wide area [0]. > The engineering and physics is well understood. as are the safety issues which is why there what research there is for a modern nuclear reactor design would not repeat those mistakes (e.g. molten-salt). Whether the region around Chernobyl is uninhabitable is debatable, given that animals have returned to it in abundance. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK

pydry 6y ago

SpaceX and Blue Origin exist because of two billionaires brought up on dreams of space travel. Without their willingness to sustain potentially very heavy losses those companies would not exist. It's not like there are a variety of startups nipping at their heels. They want to make a profit but they're not doing it because they're convinced they will. As for the word "current"... well, if the nuclear industry thinks it's so safe and thinks it can prove it to the insurance industry why don't they prove it and forgo their public insurance subsidy? They fought for this subsidy in the first place, they can give it up just as easily. Why not let the free market decide if they're safe rather than providing taxpayers as a backstop?

roenxi 6y ago
> Why not let the free market decide if they're safe rather than providing taxpayers as a backstop? The free market is pretty evidence based, so it would decide they are safe. I doubt the public insurance subsidy works the way you are representing it. They'd not insure against the risk of a catastrophic meltdown in a free market, the risk is too low. The "insurance" is probably more of a government tax on the assumption that there is latent risk. I'm not going to say that is unreasonable, but it doesn't have anything to do with how safe the industry thinks it is. Consider Fukushima, the result of one of the biggest earthquakes in recorded history (Wikipedia says 4th largest [0]). Free markets don't bother to insure against that sort low-risk event. It would be like insuring San Francisco against the fact that it is on an active fault line - the market doesn't bother to insure against a risk that rare. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes#Largest_earthquakes_by_magnitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes#Largest_e...
- bccdee 6y ago
  > The free market is pretty evidence based The free market is entirely based on investor hype. We have economic downturns ever 7-ish years, like clockwork, because some bubble burst again. It's a fallacy to treat investors like rational actors.

jnxx 6y ago

> There's no reason to believe that nuclear should be any different. The engineering and physics is well understood. Well, for one, a rocket launch going wrong can certainly kill people, but it won't make an entire region uninhabitable.

DrBazza 6y ago
Chernobyl is presumably what you're talking about. It was a high pressure steam explosion due a sudden introduction of energy into the system, which of course would cause an explosion and contaminate a wide area [0]. > The engineering and physics is well understood. as are the safety issues which is why there what research there is for a modern nuclear reactor design would not repeat those mistakes (e.g. molten-salt). Whether the region around Chernobyl is uninhabitable is debatable, given that animals have returned to it in abundance. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK