3 ms·

It's overall beneficial for society to switch to nuclear. The problem you posed is just a market structure implementation detail. Government could operate the

It's overall beneficial for society to switch to nuclear. The problem you posed is just a market structure implementation detail. Government could operate the plants, or they could offer insurance to private sector operators.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
vasco 2y ago
I'm pro-nuclear but the idea that insurance fixes everything is strange to me. How much insurance money fixes you getting killed, would you say?
- boxedemp 2y ago
  I missed where they say insurance solves everything. I understood it as the government running it solves many of the issues introduced by the private sector, and the insurance was another thought.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  This is not a novel question. If someone gets killed at work, how much do they get from workers' comp? What is a micromort and how much does one usually sell for? What did weregeld used to be back when it was still a thing?
  - vasco 2y ago
    I didn't ask about an unspecified someone else, I asked about yourself. It makes a big difference to understand what I meant.
- fsflover 2y ago
  Nuclear kills less people than almost any other source.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    Though probably not the two main modern rivals, wind and solar, which are also cheaper (and lives and money are, at a very abstract level, interchangeable). I've not seen numbers updated with the latest data, the old data had them basically drawn on death per TWh and in the time between that data being gathered solar and wind have gone from a rounding error even when combined to each individual predcited to generate more than nuclear next year, so double nuclear generation per year and still accelerating away from it. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
    - fsflover 2y ago
      Except nobody can survive solely on solar and wind. There must be another, stable energy source for the quiet nights.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

vasco 2y ago

I'm pro-nuclear but the idea that insurance fixes everything is strange to me. How much insurance money fixes you getting killed, would you say?

boxedemp 2y ago
I missed where they say insurance solves everything. I understood it as the government running it solves many of the issues introduced by the private sector, and the insurance was another thought.
tbrownaw 2y ago
This is not a novel question. If someone gets killed at work, how much do they get from workers' comp? What is a micromort and how much does one usually sell for? What did weregeld used to be back when it was still a thing?
- vasco 2y ago
  I didn't ask about an unspecified someone else, I asked about yourself. It makes a big difference to understand what I meant.
fsflover 2y ago
Nuclear kills less people than almost any other source.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  Though probably not the two main modern rivals, wind and solar, which are also cheaper (and lives and money are, at a very abstract level, interchangeable). I've not seen numbers updated with the latest data, the old data had them basically drawn on death per TWh and in the time between that data being gathered solar and wind have gone from a rounding error even when combined to each individual predcited to generate more than nuclear next year, so double nuclear generation per year and still accelerating away from it. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
  - fsflover 2y ago
    Except nobody can survive solely on solar and wind. There must be another, stable energy source for the quiet nights.