3 ms·

For solar and wind to make sense it is all about the storage in the short term and global interconnects in the long term, rather than the current system of tryi

For solar and wind to make sense it is all about the storage in the short term and global interconnects in the long term, rather than the current system of trying to balance against a baseload. And nuclear is great in many ways, but you cannot have a global energy solution that you couldn't happily give to your enemies, whatever the price per watt is.

crdoconnor 12y ago
Until the nuclear energy liability cap gets pushed into at LEAST the hundreds of billions range rather than the paltry $375 million per plant it is now, I'm not gonna believe all of the claims that it's completely safe either. If the risk of disaster/need for cleanup truly is infinitesimal as the industry and its cheerleaders keep saying, why is the taxpayer still shouldering basically all of the insurance costs?
- fauigerzigerk 12y ago
  I think it's because insurance models stop working once the probability of an accident gets extremely small and the possible damages of any accident get extremely large. An insurance claim of hundereds of billions would wipe out any and all insurance companies instantly. Insurance companies have to make statistics based rational decisions, but society as a whole is always forced to make decisions that cannot be statistically proven to be rational in an economic sense. There is no way to take out insurance against some virus strain escaping a lab and killing 90% of the world's population. There is no way to insure against the effects of a worldwide bank run. There is simply a point where insurance stops working and politics has to kick in.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    This is the reason there has to be a cap for nuclear power to exist, but not the reason the cap has to be so small. $375 mil is nothing in the context of cleanup costs. On the whole I would find the advocates of nuclear energy safety a lot more convincing if they put their entire fortunes on the line. I would like to see guaranteed financial ruin for any of the executives involved in a potential Fukushima and shareholders totally wiped out. That still wouldn't put much of a dent in cleanup costs, but it would prevent moral hazard somewhat. This subsidy also never shows up on any models comparing solar, coal and nuclear. Similarly neither does global warming induced environmental catastrophe. BECAUSE you simply can't put a $ price on the likelihood of these events occurring or their cost they (the OP modelers) just ignore the tail risk. Anybody who remembers the events of the financial crisis should find that pattern disturbingly familiar. But, doing so is useful if you're shilling for natural gas/nuclear energy - just as assuming away financial tail risk was useful for executives at AIG.

crdoconnor 12y ago

Until the nuclear energy liability cap gets pushed into at LEAST the hundreds of billions range rather than the paltry $375 million per plant it is now, I'm not gonna believe all of the claims that it's completely safe either. If the risk of disaster/need for cleanup truly is infinitesimal as the industry and its cheerleaders keep saying, why is the taxpayer still shouldering basically all of the insurance costs?

fauigerzigerk 12y ago
I think it's because insurance models stop working once the probability of an accident gets extremely small and the possible damages of any accident get extremely large. An insurance claim of hundereds of billions would wipe out any and all insurance companies instantly. Insurance companies have to make statistics based rational decisions, but society as a whole is always forced to make decisions that cannot be statistically proven to be rational in an economic sense. There is no way to take out insurance against some virus strain escaping a lab and killing 90% of the world's population. There is no way to insure against the effects of a worldwide bank run. There is simply a point where insurance stops working and politics has to kick in.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  This is the reason there has to be a cap for nuclear power to exist, but not the reason the cap has to be so small. $375 mil is nothing in the context of cleanup costs. On the whole I would find the advocates of nuclear energy safety a lot more convincing if they put their entire fortunes on the line. I would like to see guaranteed financial ruin for any of the executives involved in a potential Fukushima and shareholders totally wiped out. That still wouldn't put much of a dent in cleanup costs, but it would prevent moral hazard somewhat. This subsidy also never shows up on any models comparing solar, coal and nuclear. Similarly neither does global warming induced environmental catastrophe. BECAUSE you simply can't put a $ price on the likelihood of these events occurring or their cost they (the OP modelers) just ignore the tail risk. Anybody who remembers the events of the financial crisis should find that pattern disturbingly familiar. But, doing so is useful if you're shilling for natural gas/nuclear energy - just as assuming away financial tail risk was useful for executives at AIG.