[naasking]

Nuclear operators do need insurance to cover incidents, so they're already paying that cost on top of the absurd regulatory burdens. Current gen nuclear designs are basically meltdown proof, so not only should insurance costs be lower, but regulatory burden should also be lower.

[thomasmg]

The liability is capped at a certain amount. In the US, that is around $450 million per reactor. They also have to buy in to a fond. In France, the cap is 700 million euro. Above that, the federal government _could_ step in. The problem is, no private insurer (or even pool of insurers) could cover the absolute worst-case GAU, and not even the government really.

In Fukushima, TEPCO was required pay $1.5 billion. But the real cost is / was around $150 billion. So, the bulk of the disaster was not covered / covered by the taxpayer. So: the public.

[natmaka]

> the cap is 700 million euro

According to the French nuclear industry itself a major accident on one reactor may cost more than 430 billion euro (2013). Source (French): https://www.irsn.fr/savoir-comprendre/crise/cout-economique-...

Biz as usual... https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h....

[kristopolous]

Right. If the only way a business is profitable is because the public has been convinced to pick up the tab, please excuse me for not being interested.

[thomasmg]

> Current gen nuclear designs are basically meltdown proof

Basically.