Well you asked and I answered. In the case of Three Mile Island it was enough to pay.
"Of course, it is which is why there are two tiers. The other one paid by the whole industry.
But it's an absurd objection to begin with. All sources of energy have financial consequences if they go wrong, we use them anyway because the value they provide to society vastly outperform occasional disasters. And when it comes to human life, nuclear is far the safest, far safer than wind and solar. "
It's still not an argument against the safest and cleanest form of energy we have.
> All sources of energy have financial consequences if they go wrong, we use them anyway because the value they provide to society vastly outperform occasional disasters.
All energy sources aren't equal though. The value to society is cost/risk vs benefit. We're looking for the best deal here. The "catastrophic failure" scenario of wind energy is obviously completely different from that of nuclear power plants. That's a cost that's very difficult to estimate, but it is significant. You can't just ignore it.
> It's still not an argument against the safest and cleanest form of energy we have.
The fact that there's unfunded potential liabilities of enormous extent is an argument against nuclear energy. I'm not against nuclear energy at all, but let's be real here.
The energy wind and solar provides are also completely different. Capacity factor between 20-40 for wind and solar and 90 for nuclear. They provide less than 1% of the global energy and they don't have any other usage than providing energy plus the are unreliable and requires backup from other sources such as nuclear, oil, gas and coal.
I am not ignoring anything I am simply pointing to the fact that when we talk wind and solar the true cost isn't calculated whereas with nuclear it is.
And with regards to the insurance of catastrophes then Three Mile Island was paid by the insurance. Fukushima disaster happened not because of the nuclear powerplant but because of a tsunami, it was also the tsunami not Fukushima that killed thousands of people and Tjernobyl was owned and operated by the state so who else should pay for it?
So yes let's be real. No powerplant in the western world has yet cost taxpayers anything that wasn't covered by insurance and it has provided unparalleled clean energy which at least those who claim to worry about climate change as the biggest threat to humanity should support.
> I am not ignoring anything I am simply pointing to the fact that when we talk wind and solar the true cost isn't calculated whereas with nuclear it is.
I agree with you on wind/solar. I'm just going one step further and admit that with nuclear, the true cost isn't calculated either.
> And with regards to the insurance of catastrophes then Three Mile Island was paid by the insurance.
That convinces absolutely no one of anything. It's not what I was talking about as insuring a nuclear disaster. Don't waste your time making this point, it's worthless.
> Fukushima disaster happened not because of the nuclear powerplant but because of a tsunami, it was also the tsunami not Fukushima that killed thousands of people and Tjernobyl was owned and operated by the state so who else should pay for it?
It doesn't matter to the argument if a nuclear reactor blows up because of a tsunami, or an earthquake or Homer Simpson. It's a catastrophic failure case of enormous cost, and it's not insured, no money is being put into a fund to cover it, those costs are not taken into account when calculating the economics of nuclear energy. If such an insurance existed, it would be vastly more expensive for reactors built in a risk area like the Tsunami coast of Japan, so Fukushima Dai-ichi may have never been built.
I am not trying to convince anyone, I am trying to have a factual and principal discussion about insurance.
Again the three disasters we've had the one in the west that was the fault of the powerplant was paid by the power plant.
Of course you can't calculate the risk of being run by an opressive regime like the soviet union or ignorance/incompetence by those who granted Fukushima rights to build.
However they don't change the fact that nucelear reactors do in fact get insured and as far as I can see sufficiently. The other two other cases where either the state as the owner and thus insured properly, and the state allowing something to be built where it shouldnt.
Neither is an argument against nuclear and it's an unrealistic standard to set from my perspective and it's not a problem in the west.
I do however appreciate that we can disagree about this in a civilized manner.
Look, as far as the broader argument for or against nuclear goes, we are one the same side. I actually want you to have strong position.
> Of course you can't calculate the risk of being run by an opressive regime like the soviet union or ignorance/incompetence by those who granted Fukushima rights to build.
You can not by decree avoid ignorant people and/or incompetent people and/or less-than-ideal political frameworks. You need the wrong people to do the right thing.
> Neither is an argument against nuclear and it's an unrealistic standard to set from my perspective and it's not a problem in the west.
This is really just moving the goalpost. What if due to incompetence/negligence some reactor in a politically/economically deteriorating France blows up? Are you going to say "it's not a problem in America"?
You just keep repeating the mantra that it "isn't an argument". In reality it is an argument that "the other side" uses all the time. You're hurting your own credibility. You may disagree that it's a good argument, but it is an argument.
Now here's my standpoint: We can't by law require operators to purchase insurance that cannot exist. This is an impossible demand of "the other side", presented as a "cost" argument. It just doesn't help to say "but there is insurance!" when that insurance doesn't cover what we're actually talking about.
However, while we cannot calculate an insurance plan, we can pit the actual costs of either wind/solar against nuclear, including potential disasters and including CO2 prices and including the required buffering. I'm fairly confident that nuclear could come out on top even with one or two trillion-dollar disasters in the estimation. Remember, "the other side" just made a cost argument.
At another level, the argument for nuclear changes as the technology changes, newer and safer designs should have exponentially less dramatic worst-case failure scenarios. If "the other side" keeps factoring in speculative cost reductions in both production and storage facilities, so can we.
Insurance is a fringe discussion compared to general opposition to nuclear. Lack of insurance against catastrophic events is an even more fringe discussion and simply isn't a normal argument against nuclear. The normal argument against it is that it's dangerous, waste issues, expensive and so on.
I already stated my position on insurance of catastrophic events and someone isn't able to participate in good faith on that it wouldn't matter what I said anyway and my credibility would be tainted simply because of my position.
And to be frank, I've debated this enough and convinced enough people that nuclear is better than it's rumor. This is actually the first time anyone even mentioned insurance against force majure or communist regimes.
Anyway thanks for the discussion. I don't agree with you but but I appreciate the good faith argument.
> Insurance is a fringe discussion compared to general opposition to nuclear. Lack of insurance against catastrophic events is an even more fringe discussion and simply isn't a normal argument against nuclear.
Dissatisfaction with the way that insurance for catastrophic events is handled is in fact the main argument against expanding nuclear from the faction whose opposition is decisive in the US: the nuclear industry.
All other issues surrounding nuclear in the US are peripheral pieces of the debate over liability and insurance and whether or not the industry’s desired changes on that front should be met.
"Of course, it is which is why there are two tiers. The other one paid by the whole industry.
But it's an absurd objection to begin with. All sources of energy have financial consequences if they go wrong, we use them anyway because the value they provide to society vastly outperform occasional disasters. And when it comes to human life, nuclear is far the safest, far safer than wind and solar. "
It's still not an argument against the safest and cleanest form of energy we have.