4 ms·

Nuclear power was ended in Germany for political reasons. The public has an incorrect idea of how dangerous nuclear power is and how dangerous nuclear waste is

Nuclear power was ended in Germany for political reasons. The public has an incorrect idea of how dangerous nuclear power is and how dangerous nuclear waste is and it was easier for the politicians to go along with it for points than stand it's ground. If you're making policy based on scientifically inaccurate ideas then you aren't respecting the science.

pydry 4y ago
In Germany the maximum insurance liability for nuclear disasters is $2.5 billion. In the US it's $0.35 billion. Fukushima cost $800 billion. This happened essentially because without a liability cap the entire insurance industry considers nuclear power to be ridiculously risky. So the government, who wanted to protect investors, stepped in. I feel like a lot of people who dont know this want to educate me about how safe nuclear power truly is.
- neuronexmachina 4y ago
  > In the US it's $0.35 billion. I was curious about this figure, found info here. Also, apparently the Price-Anderson Act which created the liability limit was passed in 1957, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that it no longer makes sense now that nuclear technology has matured: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/nuclear-insurance.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/n... > Over time, the "limit of liability" for a nuclear accident has increased the insurance pool to more than $13 billion. > > Currently, owners of nuclear power plants pay an annual premium for $450 million in private insurance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor site (not per reactor). This primary, or first tier, insurance is supplemented by a second tier. In the event a nuclear accident causes damages in excess of $450 million, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess, up to $131.056 million per reactor. With 95 reactors currently in the insurance pool, i this secondary tier of funds contains about $12.9 billion. Payouts in excess of 15 percent of these funds require a prioritization plan approved by a federal district court. If the court determines that public liability may exceed the maximum amount of financial protection available from the primary and secondary tiers, each licensee would be assessed a pro rata share of this excess not to exceed 5 percent of the maximum deferred premium ($131.056 million); approximately $6.553 million per reactor. If the second tier is depleted, Congress is committed to determine whether additional disaster relief is required.
- greedo 4y ago
  Governments insure a lot of things, some that are arguably idiotic. The US gov insures people who build houses right on the coast. The homeowners couldn't afford private insurance since the expected costs would be astronomical. So the Gov steps up. Same with New Orleans, built on an unsustainable location. So every decade or so, the Gov chips in a couple hundred billion so people can go to Mardi Gras...
- fallingknife 4y ago
  That's not going to protect the investors. If a company causes damages beyond its liability insurance cap, plaintiffs can sue the company for the difference.
- q1w2 4y ago
  There is a world of difference between a modern Gen III+ reactor, and the 1960s design of Fukushima and Chernobyl. It's like comparing the dangers of doctors using 12th century blood-letting and leeches vs getting an MRI.
  - pydry 4y ago
    There is a world of difference between a cheap PR offensive that tries to convince the public that nuclear power is now safe and stepping up to shoulder the liability and costs if it is not. So far the industry does a lot of the former and zero of the latter. Hell, the op eds about safety routinely coming from nuclear lobbies dont even acknowledge that taxpayers are 99+% on the hook if they fuck up. Makes me feel even more safe that theyre now lobbying mainly to extend the life of old nuclear plants. What could go wrong?
  - oynqr 4y ago
    At least the leeches won't irradiate me
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  > Fukushima cost $800 billion Note, this is a figure cited by opposition politicians. Nowhere near this much money has actually been spent. The estimate from the government is a bit under $200 billion, and that includes not just cleanup but also resettling people and continued monitoring of the reactor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#:~:text=Mid%20December%202011%2C%20the%20local,(%24470%20to%20%24660%20billion) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#:....
  - pydry 4y ago
    High end figures are 1 trillion. Those are pushing it a bit. It's nowhere near as low as 200 billion. Either way while the industry refuses to fully pay for its own risks or acknowledge that it does so its claims of safety via public relations channels are sounding more than a little disingenuous.
  - hnaccount_rng 4y ago
    So you exceeded the liability cap by a factor of 100, rather than 400... I'm sure there is a person for which a 99% vs a 99.75% payment by the state makes a difference. But ...
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      By comparison, what are the costs inflicted by climate change?
      - pydry 4y ago
        By comparison why dont solar, wind and pumped storage warrant such extreme and lavish taxpayer funded subsidies?
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        Nuclear receives a fraction of the subsidies that renewables do: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/2016_Energy-Related_Tax_Preferences.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/2016_Ene... From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United... And remember, "renewable" energy is really natural gas supplemented by wind and solar. There's no plan for a 100% renewable grid until some massive breakthrough in energy storage happens.
- concordDance 4y ago
  The Japanese government (and indeed, insurance too) is doing far more work than they should be. The standard should not be "fix area to how it used to be" it should be "take what measures are cost effective to improve area". But that's politically untenable. Radiation levels around Fukushima are perfectly fine for habitation and would have been so even if nothing but basic post-accident reactor containment had been done.
xorcist 4y ago
This argument is tiresome. Several strong interests wanted to end nuclear power in Germany for a long time before it finally happened. And it wasn't the greens that did it. That much is public knowledge, there are wikipedia pages and everything. The reason nuclear power ended in Germany was economical. There's no way nuclear can compete with cheap Russian gas, and Germany had over invested in the latter for over two decades, for reasons that obviously had nothing to do with nuclear power. Look no further than Gerhard Schröder to see how this started. Again, this is not secret and there were newspaper articles everywhere. Then follow to the path across time and party lines to Angela Merkel who saw it through. Simple economics ruled all the way. This is not complicated, and there's no reason to see a conspiracy here.
- naasking 4y ago
  > There's no way nuclear can compete with cheap Russian gas Unless relations with Russia go south. That's some short-sighted economics there.

pydry 4y ago

In Germany the maximum insurance liability for nuclear disasters is $2.5 billion. In the US it's $0.35 billion. Fukushima cost $800 billion. This happened essentially because without a liability cap the entire insurance industry considers nuclear power to be ridiculously risky. So the government, who wanted to protect investors, stepped in. I feel like a lot of people who dont know this want to educate me about how safe nuclear power truly is.

neuronexmachina 4y ago
> In the US it's $0.35 billion. I was curious about this figure, found info here. Also, apparently the Price-Anderson Act which created the liability limit was passed in 1957, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that it no longer makes sense now that nuclear technology has matured: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/nuclear-insurance.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/n... > Over time, the "limit of liability" for a nuclear accident has increased the insurance pool to more than $13 billion. > > Currently, owners of nuclear power plants pay an annual premium for $450 million in private insurance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor site (not per reactor). This primary, or first tier, insurance is supplemented by a second tier. In the event a nuclear accident causes damages in excess of $450 million, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess, up to $131.056 million per reactor. With 95 reactors currently in the insurance pool, i this secondary tier of funds contains about $12.9 billion. Payouts in excess of 15 percent of these funds require a prioritization plan approved by a federal district court. If the court determines that public liability may exceed the maximum amount of financial protection available from the primary and secondary tiers, each licensee would be assessed a pro rata share of this excess not to exceed 5 percent of the maximum deferred premium ($131.056 million); approximately $6.553 million per reactor. If the second tier is depleted, Congress is committed to determine whether additional disaster relief is required.
greedo 4y ago
Governments insure a lot of things, some that are arguably idiotic. The US gov insures people who build houses right on the coast. The homeowners couldn't afford private insurance since the expected costs would be astronomical. So the Gov steps up. Same with New Orleans, built on an unsustainable location. So every decade or so, the Gov chips in a couple hundred billion so people can go to Mardi Gras...
fallingknife 4y ago
That's not going to protect the investors. If a company causes damages beyond its liability insurance cap, plaintiffs can sue the company for the difference.
q1w2 4y ago
There is a world of difference between a modern Gen III+ reactor, and the 1960s design of Fukushima and Chernobyl. It's like comparing the dangers of doctors using 12th century blood-letting and leeches vs getting an MRI.
- pydry 4y ago
  There is a world of difference between a cheap PR offensive that tries to convince the public that nuclear power is now safe and stepping up to shoulder the liability and costs if it is not. So far the industry does a lot of the former and zero of the latter. Hell, the op eds about safety routinely coming from nuclear lobbies dont even acknowledge that taxpayers are 99+% on the hook if they fuck up. Makes me feel even more safe that theyre now lobbying mainly to extend the life of old nuclear plants. What could go wrong?
- oynqr 4y ago
  At least the leeches won't irradiate me
Manuel_D 4y ago
> Fukushima cost $800 billion Note, this is a figure cited by opposition politicians. Nowhere near this much money has actually been spent. The estimate from the government is a bit under $200 billion, and that includes not just cleanup but also resettling people and continued monitoring of the reactor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#:~:text=Mid%20December%202011%2C%20the%20local,(%24470%20to%20%24660%20billion) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#:....
- pydry 4y ago
  High end figures are 1 trillion. Those are pushing it a bit. It's nowhere near as low as 200 billion. Either way while the industry refuses to fully pay for its own risks or acknowledge that it does so its claims of safety via public relations channels are sounding more than a little disingenuous.
- hnaccount_rng 4y ago
  So you exceeded the liability cap by a factor of 100, rather than 400... I'm sure there is a person for which a 99% vs a 99.75% payment by the state makes a difference. But ...
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    By comparison, what are the costs inflicted by climate change?
    - pydry 4y ago
      By comparison why dont solar, wind and pumped storage warrant such extreme and lavish taxpayer funded subsidies?
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        Nuclear receives a fraction of the subsidies that renewables do: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/2016_Energy-Related_Tax_Preferences.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/2016_Ene... From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United... And remember, "renewable" energy is really natural gas supplemented by wind and solar. There's no plan for a 100% renewable grid until some massive breakthrough in energy storage happens.
concordDance 4y ago
The Japanese government (and indeed, insurance too) is doing far more work than they should be. The standard should not be "fix area to how it used to be" it should be "take what measures are cost effective to improve area". But that's politically untenable. Radiation levels around Fukushima are perfectly fine for habitation and would have been so even if nothing but basic post-accident reactor containment had been done.

xorcist 4y ago

This argument is tiresome. Several strong interests wanted to end nuclear power in Germany for a long time before it finally happened. And it wasn't the greens that did it. That much is public knowledge, there are wikipedia pages and everything. The reason nuclear power ended in Germany was economical. There's no way nuclear can compete with cheap Russian gas, and Germany had over invested in the latter for over two decades, for reasons that obviously had nothing to do with nuclear power. Look no further than Gerhard Schröder to see how this started. Again, this is not secret and there were newspaper articles everywhere. Then follow to the path across time and party lines to Angela Merkel who saw it through. Simple economics ruled all the way. This is not complicated, and there's no reason to see a conspiracy here.

naasking 4y ago
> There's no way nuclear can compete with cheap Russian gas Unless relations with Russia go south. That's some short-sighted economics there.