3 ms·

I agree coal's terrible, but death isn't the best way to compare. I think a better indicator is insurance cost. Nuclear power gets a major subsidy from the fede

I agree coal's terrible, but death isn't the best way to compare. I think a better indicator is insurance cost. Nuclear power gets a major subsidy from the federal government via the Price-Anderson Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear... The basic upshot is that nuclear power was not seen as economically viable if operators had to buy insurance to cover actual risk. The federal government (meaning taxpayers) pay everything above the $15 billion mark. Fukushima's cleanup cost is still unknown, but estimates went from $13 billion to $96 billion to $187 billion. If nuclear power is as safe as you say, then they shouldn't need these kinds of subsidies. Going further, between American business culture and American regulatory culture, I have real concerns about our ability to safely and economically operate nuclear plants. Is a nuclear plant really compatible with a reward system that prioritizes short-term cash extraction? Where it isn't, can we really count on regulators to keep things safe without drastically inflating costs? Looking at the recent spate of bank failures leaves me with a lot of questions there.

cfraenkel 3y ago
Thats only because coal (and oil/gas) have gotten a bye on their externalized societal costs. If you held them to the same standards, the insurance companies would shut them down tomorrow.
- wpietri 3y ago
  Sure, and I'm all for removing that subsidy too. Let's start with a carbon tax, for example, and then we can move on to taxes for other pollutants. But having made that mistake with coal is no reason to make it again for nuclear power.
mlyle 3y ago
> Fukushima's cleanup cost is still unknown, but estimates went from $13 billion to $96 billion to $187 billion. If nuclear power is as safe as you say, then they shouldn't need these kinds of subsidies. Insuring long tail risk is really, really hard to do and is likely to be very overpriced in the market.
- wpietri 3y ago
  It's certainly hard to do. Which means you can't declare it overpriced, in that to know something is overpriced, you have to know a true price. Regardless, I think nuclear power should pay its own way. I don't want to be on the hook for hundreds of billions in cleanup cost because some CEO got greedy.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    > Regardless, I think nuclear power should pay its own way. I don't want to be on the hook for hundreds of billions in cleanup cost because some CEO got greedy. In general, we do not require industries to insure for limitless, pie-in-the-sky risk. Sometimes the state is left holding the bag. Requiring infinite insurance would price every industry out of existence.
    - wpietri 3y ago
      That's obviously not true, because most industries do not need special subsidies just to exist. And the notion that Fukushima is just some sort of "pie-in-the-sky" scenario is bonkers. It is a thing that actually happened. An actual nuclear plant caused actual hundreds of billions of dollars in costs. If the best nuclear power advocates can come up with is, "Well that shit just happens, and we're sure not going to pay for it," then I think the state is better of spending its money on solar panels, wind, and other things where the downside risk is not sized like a major hurricane.
      - mlyle 3y ago
        > That's obviously not true, because most industries do not need special subsidies just to exist. What you're talking about -- requiring insurance for outsized losses -- is not something we require of most industries. A chemical plant (say, making feedstocks for solar panels) can contaminate a water table and cause tens of billions of dollars in losses, but we attempt to address this risk with front-end regulation rather than requiring insurance for uninsurable losses.

cfraenkel 3y ago

Thats only because coal (and oil/gas) have gotten a bye on their externalized societal costs. If you held them to the same standards, the insurance companies would shut them down tomorrow.

wpietri 3y ago
Sure, and I'm all for removing that subsidy too. Let's start with a carbon tax, for example, and then we can move on to taxes for other pollutants. But having made that mistake with coal is no reason to make it again for nuclear power.

mlyle 3y ago

> Fukushima's cleanup cost is still unknown, but estimates went from $13 billion to $96 billion to $187 billion. If nuclear power is as safe as you say, then they shouldn't need these kinds of subsidies. Insuring long tail risk is really, really hard to do and is likely to be very overpriced in the market.

wpietri 3y ago
It's certainly hard to do. Which means you can't declare it overpriced, in that to know something is overpriced, you have to know a true price. Regardless, I think nuclear power should pay its own way. I don't want to be on the hook for hundreds of billions in cleanup cost because some CEO got greedy.
- mlyle 3y ago
  > Regardless, I think nuclear power should pay its own way. I don't want to be on the hook for hundreds of billions in cleanup cost because some CEO got greedy. In general, we do not require industries to insure for limitless, pie-in-the-sky risk. Sometimes the state is left holding the bag. Requiring infinite insurance would price every industry out of existence.
  - wpietri 3y ago
    That's obviously not true, because most industries do not need special subsidies just to exist. And the notion that Fukushima is just some sort of "pie-in-the-sky" scenario is bonkers. It is a thing that actually happened. An actual nuclear plant caused actual hundreds of billions of dollars in costs. If the best nuclear power advocates can come up with is, "Well that shit just happens, and we're sure not going to pay for it," then I think the state is better of spending its money on solar panels, wind, and other things where the downside risk is not sized like a major hurricane.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      > That's obviously not true, because most industries do not need special subsidies just to exist. What you're talking about -- requiring insurance for outsized losses -- is not something we require of most industries. A chemical plant (say, making feedstocks for solar panels) can contaminate a water table and cause tens of billions of dollars in losses, but we attempt to address this risk with front-end regulation rather than requiring insurance for uninsurable losses.