3 ms·
> owned by a powerful entity that can foot the insurance and legal costs etc. This is not the case with current "large" reactors, why would it be different her
by Propelloni 2y ago
> owned by a powerful entity that can foot the insurance and legal costs etc.
This is not the case with current "large" reactors, why would it be different here? Those risks you mention are mutualized because no single entity but a state could bear them.
- krisoft 2y agoIt is absolutely the case with the current "large" reactors. They are owned by huge companies not by the next door dude. This is what the commenter said. It would be the same even for "microreactors". > Those risks you mention are mutualized because no single entity but a state could bear them. You are talking about something else. You are saying they are not big enough to cover all possible liability. That is not what cornholio is saying.
- Propelloni 2y agoI see what you are getting at and I agree, I could have phrased that better. So here is what I meant to ask: the capacity to cover liability apparently has no bearing on ownership of today's large reactors, so why would it be different with smaller reactors?