4 ms·

> ...it'd have to involve a serious overhaul of the very concepts of corporations and liability in America Don't insurance companies solve this problem? Requir

by rlpb 3y ago

> ...it'd have to involve a serious overhaul of the very concepts of corporations and liability in America Don't insurance companies solve this problem? Require the nuclear corporation to have liability insurance by regulation. Then the liability is shifted to an underwriter who has much more diversified risk.

whatshisface 3y ago
That sounds like a great idea, if you can get it implemented. Policymakers seem to be going in the opposite direction with things like tort reform (dollar value limitations on damages), and insurers who make exceptions for "acts of God," like major natural disasters. Hundred-billion-dollar insurance policies on the habitability of areas several counties in expanse, along with courts willing to resettle entire cities as part of treble damages is far from the system we have! These astounding things would be necessary to fully replace regulation with liability, even for the often-seen-as-less-apocalyptic chemical industry, which is nonetheless capable of killing thousands in extremis, and that would have to be insured.
b112 3y ago
There'd just be a run down to lowest policy price, and then after a disaster the government would have to bail out. Which it does with glee.
jltsiren 3y ago
They would solve the problem by making nuclear power too expensive for anyone to consider. Insurance companies don't like risks they can't quantify reliably. They either won't underwrite such risks at all, or they charge unreasonable premiums. The risks of nuclear power are still largely unknown, as there have been only two major disasters over a few decades. Both of them cost ~$200 billion, at least according to some estimates. We don't know how much worse the reasonable worst case could be. Chernobyl and Fukushima were also one-off disasters with specific causes. Insurance companies would also have to be prepared for multiple disasters in a short period of time caused by systemic issues in the design of a particular reactor type.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > The risks of nuclear power are still largely unknown, as there have been only two major disasters over a few decades. No, the risks of nuclear power are very well known, as there have been only two major disasters over quite a few decades, and the root causes of both of them are well known and easily avoidable. > We don't know how much worse the reasonable worst case could be. Yes, we do. We know that Chernobyl was worse than any reasonable worst case for any other reactor, because nobody is going to build another reactor with a positive void coefficient of reactivity and with no secondary containment, and then run uncontrolled experiments on it. And we know that Fukushiman was a reasonable worst case, because it subjected a just shut down reactor to zero decay heat removal for an extended period, and that is going to be the consequence of the worst possible accident that could happen to a running reactor, since any such accident will shut the reactor down. In other words, in a sane world, the risks of nuclear power would be more insurable than the risks of, say, coal power, precisely because the nuclear risks are contained. No insurance company is going to sign up to liability for deaths due to respiratory failure from breathing coal dust over a period of many years. But in our insane world, we don't hold anyone accountable for such risks, so we end up treating nuclear, which is far safer per unit of energy generated than any source except solar, as if it were the riskiest of all sources.
  - seanp2k2 3y ago
    Yep, it's a perception issue that isn't helped by the fact that to normies, "nuclear" means "bomb", and the oil and gas industries have massively more lobbying dollars to get politicians to push their solutions above all others.
  - II2II 3y ago
    > No, the risks of nuclear power are very well known, as there have been only two major disasters over quite a few decades, and the root causes of both of them are well known and easily avoidable. I think the statement that you were responding to would be better phrased as: "The risks of nuclear power are still largely unknown, since there have been only two major disasters over a few decades." Insurance companies are typically okay with insuring against high cost, high frequency occurrences as long as they can quantify it. If they can quantify it, they can set a price on it. It is also worth noting that insurance companies were among the first adopters of digital computers because the better they can quantify frequencies and costs, the better they can set rates.

by rlpb 3y ago

whatshisface 3y ago

That sounds like a great idea, if you can get it implemented. Policymakers seem to be going in the opposite direction with things like tort reform (dollar value limitations on damages), and insurers who make exceptions for "acts of God," like major natural disasters. Hundred-billion-dollar insurance policies on the habitability of areas several counties in expanse, along with courts willing to resettle entire cities as part of treble damages is far from the system we have! These astounding things would be necessary to fully replace regulation with liability, even for the often-seen-as-less-apocalyptic chemical industry, which is nonetheless capable of killing thousands in extremis, and that would have to be insured.

b112 3y ago

There'd just be a run down to lowest policy price, and then after a disaster the government would have to bail out. Which it does with glee.

jltsiren 3y ago

They would solve the problem by making nuclear power too expensive for anyone to consider. Insurance companies don't like risks they can't quantify reliably. They either won't underwrite such risks at all, or they charge unreasonable premiums. The risks of nuclear power are still largely unknown, as there have been only two major disasters over a few decades. Both of them cost ~$200 billion, at least according to some estimates. We don't know how much worse the reasonable worst case could be. Chernobyl and Fukushima were also one-off disasters with specific causes. Insurance companies would also have to be prepared for multiple disasters in a short period of time caused by systemic issues in the design of a particular reactor type.

pdonis 3y ago
> The risks of nuclear power are still largely unknown, as there have been only two major disasters over a few decades. No, the risks of nuclear power are very well known, as there have been only two major disasters over quite a few decades, and the root causes of both of them are well known and easily avoidable. > We don't know how much worse the reasonable worst case could be. Yes, we do. We know that Chernobyl was worse than any reasonable worst case for any other reactor, because nobody is going to build another reactor with a positive void coefficient of reactivity and with no secondary containment, and then run uncontrolled experiments on it. And we know that Fukushiman was a reasonable worst case, because it subjected a just shut down reactor to zero decay heat removal for an extended period, and that is going to be the consequence of the worst possible accident that could happen to a running reactor, since any such accident will shut the reactor down. In other words, in a sane world, the risks of nuclear power would be more insurable than the risks of, say, coal power, precisely because the nuclear risks are contained. No insurance company is going to sign up to liability for deaths due to respiratory failure from breathing coal dust over a period of many years. But in our insane world, we don't hold anyone accountable for such risks, so we end up treating nuclear, which is far safer per unit of energy generated than any source except solar, as if it were the riskiest of all sources.
- seanp2k2 3y ago
  Yep, it's a perception issue that isn't helped by the fact that to normies, "nuclear" means "bomb", and the oil and gas industries have massively more lobbying dollars to get politicians to push their solutions above all others.
- II2II 3y ago
  > No, the risks of nuclear power are very well known, as there have been only two major disasters over quite a few decades, and the root causes of both of them are well known and easily avoidable. I think the statement that you were responding to would be better phrased as: "The risks of nuclear power are still largely unknown, since there have been only two major disasters over a few decades." Insurance companies are typically okay with insuring against high cost, high frequency occurrences as long as they can quantify it. If they can quantify it, they can set a price on it. It is also worth noting that insurance companies were among the first adopters of digital computers because the better they can quantify frequencies and costs, the better they can set rates.