6 ms·
It's not complex really. It was made unprofitable with every tool available with this as the goal. There have been much public celebration from the green party,
by guywhocodes 4y ago
It's not complex really. It was made unprofitable with every tool available with this as the goal. There have been much public celebration from the green party, they are proud of the outcome.
- lostlogin 4y agoCan you explain how it was made unprofitable or point me at something?
- yxhuvud 4y agoSo for example, laws around nuclear has changed so that the owners are now liable for any damages in case of a major accident.
- dieortin 4y agoWell that does make a sense, I don’t see the problem
- Akronymus 4y agoSo make the owners of renewables liable too? From what I know ONLY nuclear has that stipulation.
- lostlogin 4y agoAre they not? Coal has certainly been exempt in most places.
- cycomanic 4y agoA solar plant is certainly liable if accidents happen on its grounds. They don't need insurance against a major disaster like a meltdown because it can't happen. Nuclear is NOT liable for a major nuclear disaster. No insurance would cover it. So I don't know where you got your knowledge from but it is not based on fact. Edit: OK I should have been clearer. They are liable like everyone else. They have (unlike solar installations I suspect) strict liability which means the damaged person does not have to prove fault. However, the amount of liability is limited (in time and amount) and the state takes over. This is what I was referring to with they don't have liability (admittedly incorrect the way I wrote it). Source:https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/liability-for-nuclear-damage.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...
- the_why_of_y 4y agoThe problem with nuclear liability is that there are potential accidents that are both extremely rare and extremely expensive. Such accidents have only happened twice. This creates some difficulty for calculating insurance premiums. The article you linked says that TEPCO paid out USD ~65 billion after Fukushima, but it was insured only for USD ~804 million. Naturally what happened is that the government didn't want to be without electricity, so to prevent bankruptcy TEPCO was nationalized. This is the typical scenario for nuclear power: profits are privatized while losses are socialized.
- cycomanic 4y agocitation required Currently no insurance is willing to insure against major disaster. So how are companies going to pay for it? You can look at the cash reserves and immediately see that this cannot be correct.
- cycomanic 4y agoEdit: I should have said they will not insure fully for the consequences of the disaster, in particular not long term effects. Nuclear has limited liability and does not need to cover the full cost of a disaster. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/liability-for-nuclear-damage.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...
- yxhuvud 4y agoOk, seems the amount the companies are now liable for is actually capped at some number, which is a fair amount but still not covering a truly major incident. But the cap has gradually increased over time and is thus costing the electric companies more money.