3 ms·

€2⁹, so 512 euro a year? I assume you meant some large number and that's probably because you are assuming they need to cover all kinds of exaggerated costs li

€2⁹, so 512 euro a year? I assume you meant some large number and that's probably because you are assuming they need to cover all kinds of exaggerated costs like lawsuits from people who get cancer or keeping radiation levels below the background level in case of a leak.

Arnt 5y ago
Oh, crap. Mind thought 2e9, fingers typed 2⁹. Edited. Thanks. IIRC the bulk is property. German power plants are located in densely populated areas with high property prices. If a plant renders a smallish area unlivable and BMW has to vacate and replace a factory there, BMW will not want to take a loss on that.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  The risk of a nuclear accident affecting a large amount of land is very small - of the thousands of plants in the world, only a couple have affected more than a few square kilometers. If you consider the affected area/MW to wind or solar it's clearly a net win. And there isn't a need to build nuclear plants in more densely populated areas than others.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    I personally don't care how large the risk is, I care that the operator pays for it instead of the neighbours. The operator can discuss the risk with actuaries and engineers that work for insurance agencies. Germany is well described as a mixture of densely populated and even more densely populated areas, with very few large and sparse areas. (There was a minor scandal a few years ago, after an airplane crash. Each airport has some sort of designated crash site, "dear pilot, if you can't avoid crashing, try to do it there". Some airport's site was near a village, because there was nothing uninhabited nearby.)
Arnt 5y ago
Another, separate response. A digression, really. Some people appear to tick all three of these: - My viewpoint is a scientific one - The liability rules for chemical plants is fine - The same rules would be too strict for nuclear plants IMO anyone can combine any pair of those, but considering all three to be true is… very puzzling to me.

Arnt 5y ago

Oh, crap. Mind thought 2e9, fingers typed 2⁹. Edited. Thanks. IIRC the bulk is property. German power plants are located in densely populated areas with high property prices. If a plant renders a smallish area unlivable and BMW has to vacate and replace a factory there, BMW will not want to take a loss on that.

akvadrako 5y ago
The risk of a nuclear accident affecting a large amount of land is very small - of the thousands of plants in the world, only a couple have affected more than a few square kilometers. If you consider the affected area/MW to wind or solar it's clearly a net win. And there isn't a need to build nuclear plants in more densely populated areas than others.
- Arnt 5y ago
  I personally don't care how large the risk is, I care that the operator pays for it instead of the neighbours. The operator can discuss the risk with actuaries and engineers that work for insurance agencies. Germany is well described as a mixture of densely populated and even more densely populated areas, with very few large and sparse areas. (There was a minor scandal a few years ago, after an airplane crash. Each airport has some sort of designated crash site, "dear pilot, if you can't avoid crashing, try to do it there". Some airport's site was near a village, because there was nothing uninhabited nearby.)

Arnt 5y ago

Another, separate response. A digression, really. Some people appear to tick all three of these: - My viewpoint is a scientific one - The liability rules for chemical plants is fine - The same rules would be too strict for nuclear plants IMO anyone can combine any pair of those, but considering all three to be true is… very puzzling to me.