4 ms·
Arguably they should, there probably would be a (huge) price premium for that insurance to be worthwhile, and it would also represent the former externality tha
by guiriduro 2y ago
Arguably they should, there probably would be a (huge) price premium for that insurance to be worthwhile, and it would also represent the former externality that the nuclear lobby like to forget about when comparing apples & oranges of energy supply. If people want to pay (a huge premium) to have nuclear power rather than say renewables, let them, but let there be a level playing field and let the disaster-insurance and decommissioning cost be factored into that price.
Then see if there is any actual demand.
- michaelt 2y agoPerhaps I wasn't clear in what I'm trying to say. An insurance company can't pay out more money than they have. Imagine I'm the CEO of an insurance company with $50 billion in assets, and you're a customer wanting to insure against a risk with a 0.1% chance of happening. If you want the insurance to cover a payout $10 million, the expected value is $10k so if you're willing to pay a premium of $11k I'm happy to do business with you. If you want the insurance to cover a payout of $100 billion, the expected value is $10 million. But it doesn't matter if you're willing to pay a premium of $11 million, $20 million, $100 million. Because I don't have $100 billion, I can't tell you I'll pay out $100 billion. Sure, reinsurance exists - but that relies on there being some other insurance company around that can eat a $100 billion loss. Not many fools who'd take a gamble with that much downside.