3 ms·

> 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

by 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.

pdonis 3y ago
> 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." That was how I interpreted the statement when I responded to it. > Insurance companies are typically okay with insuring against high cost, high frequency occurrences as long as they can quantify it. Insurance companies are also good at specifying insurable risks and providing incentives to the insured to manage them properly, even for rare but high cost events. That includes refusing to insure people who the insurance companies judge to not have good judgment. For example, no sane insurance company would ever have insured Chernobyl given its insane reactor design, nor would any insurance company have agreed to pay a claim when they found that the reactor operator ran an uncontrolled experiment on the reactor and that was what caused the accident. As for Fukushima, as I commented elsewhere upthread, an insurer covering a reactor in an earthquake/tsunami zone would probably either not include tsunami inundation coverage in the policy, or would require a separate rider that would be priced separately. And such a rider would also have a list of requirements for coverage, which would include things like "don't site your backup power and switchgear where a tsunami might inundate it". In other words, as I pointed out, the risks of nuclear power are well known, because we understand how reactors work and what the failure modes are and insurers therefore know how to write policies that set the right incentives for managing risk. That is true even though we have had only two major disasters over quite a few decades; in fact, as I pointed out, the fact that we have had only two such disasters, and both of them were due to root causes that are easily avoidable in the future, is a reason to be more confident that the risks are well understood and insurable.

by II2II 3y ago

pdonis 3y ago

> 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." That was how I interpreted the statement when I responded to it. > Insurance companies are typically okay with insuring against high cost, high frequency occurrences as long as they can quantify it. Insurance companies are also good at specifying insurable risks and providing incentives to the insured to manage them properly, even for rare but high cost events. That includes refusing to insure people who the insurance companies judge to not have good judgment. For example, no sane insurance company would ever have insured Chernobyl given its insane reactor design, nor would any insurance company have agreed to pay a claim when they found that the reactor operator ran an uncontrolled experiment on the reactor and that was what caused the accident. As for Fukushima, as I commented elsewhere upthread, an insurer covering a reactor in an earthquake/tsunami zone would probably either not include tsunami inundation coverage in the policy, or would require a separate rider that would be priced separately. And such a rider would also have a list of requirements for coverage, which would include things like "don't site your backup power and switchgear where a tsunami might inundate it". In other words, as I pointed out, the risks of nuclear power are well known, because we understand how reactors work and what the failure modes are and insurers therefore know how to write policies that set the right incentives for managing risk. That is true even though we have had only two major disasters over quite a few decades; in fact, as I pointed out, the fact that we have had only two such disasters, and both of them were due to root causes that are easily avoidable in the future, is a reason to be more confident that the risks are well understood and insurable.