3 ms·
"Based on facts, it is currently plain wrong." No. "Your sentence "Nuclear power plants are nowhere near insured to risk" is pretty typical of the anti-nuclea
by KingOfCoders 3y ago
"Based on facts, it is currently plain wrong."
No.
"Your sentence "Nuclear power plants are nowhere near insured to risk" is pretty typical of the anti-nuclear argumentation: Mainly based on feelings not on facts."
A: Fukushima is costing $200B
B: US nuclear power plants are insured for a payout of $15B
A+B: US power plants are underinsured by $185B
(Germany had $0.25B insurance company payouts and $2.25B coverage by energy companies, so a nuclear plant was underinsured by $197.5B or ~99%, or 99.8% if you count insurance company payouts only).
Moving goal posts, hand waving, talking about my feelings (thanks for caring!), personal attacks and sources unrelated to nuclear power plant insurance doesn't explain the fact away, that "Nuclear power plants are nowhere near insured to risk".
PS: "EnergyWende" is not a German word. While Java is using Camelcase, German is not using Camelcase.
- adev_ 3y ago> EnergyWende" is not a German word. While Java is using Camelcase, German is not using Camelcase. Quick question, outside of the necessity of CamelCase. Are water dam operating companies insured up to the damages of a damn rupture ? Like in the case of the Vajont damn in Italy ? Even for your car insurance: Will your insurance pays for the society cost of two disabled persons for life after you hit them when your tire exploded ? Quick answer: No. In both case, the society will pay. Nuclear is no different.
- KingOfCoders 3y agoWhataboutism [0] Nuclear power plants are massivly underinsured. That was my point. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- hef19898 3y agoCheck your car insurance, personal damage is insured at double sigit millions, for example in Germany. So yes, cars are fully insured. Nuclear isn't and never was, insurance maths knows no mercy.