Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> 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.




For every discussion you can find about that i can find a hundred not about that.

Again in the US the one accident we had wasn’t catastrophic and was handled by the insurance they had.

So a lot can be handled simply by not putting it at high risk areas which in the Us is a lot. And never nuclear powerplant will be even safer.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: