3 ms·

That's not true, the operator of a windfarm definitely needs to have insurance (or be liable otherwise) for a possible accident that can happen (i.e. A rotor fa

That's not true, the operator of a windfarm definitely needs to have insurance (or be liable otherwise) for a possible accident that can happen (i.e. A rotor falling off and hitting a car), the thing about nuclear power plants (and hydro) is that generally the risks are so high that nobody wants to insure it. You seem to argue that because others are doing bad things it's OK for nuclear? I don't think that is a very good argument.

belorn 4y ago
Offshore windfarms have zero insurance against environmental damages caused by changes in the water environment, nor does windfarms or PV farms has insurance against forest fires. If we want to be technical correct, nuclear plants and hydropower plants do have some insurance, for example if employees are harmed during work. What all power plants share is the inability to insure against risk that is direct to society at large. It not that the risk is high (which it isn't), but rather that in case of accident there isn't anything other than governments that could step in and take the cost. > You seem to argue that because others are doing bad things it's OK for nuclear? No, that is a bad faith interpretation. If we want power plants to pay insurance against risk that is place on society, then such requirement should be technology neutral. If we have historical evidence of harm to either society or the environment, directly connected to a method of producing energy, then producers using that method should pay a tax to government that represent the risk. Be that hydro, nuclear, fossil fuels, wind farms, PV, a battery farm or what have you. Quantify the risk and let researcher, experts and historians argue how much each specific plant should pay.