3 ms·
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-
by 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.
- wpietri 3y agoMost industries don't cause outsized losses. A chemical company that causes tens of billions in damages has to pay tens of billions of dollars or it goes out of business. Nuclear power was given a special subsidy because nobody wanted to run the risk of running a nuclear power plant if they actually had to be on the hook for it. I never said we should require insurance for nuclear power, although that's not a bad idea. Plenty of states do it for cars, after all, so you could make a case that it should apply to bigger things. I am just saying that nuclear power should be priced fairly, which would include removing the special liability cap for nuclear plants.