[crdoconnor]

I'll consider it non-problematic when the nuclear liability cap is eliminated and the private sector insures it fully. Without subsidies.

If it were so incredibly safe, there wouldn't be a need to give taxpayer support.

The real reason, of course, is that it isn't actually that safe, and private insurers aren't willing to take the risk without a liability cap that is pathetically low (a few hundred million).

And, if you got rid of this subsidy: no more nuclear plants.

[rhino369]

The problem is that the law can easily place blame for big huge accidents but can't doesn't put any blame on massively distributed harm. A lot of the dangers of traditional fossil fuel generation doesn't stick to energy companies. They increase the chance you get cancer or respiratory diseases, but there is never a direct link. You'll never know if global warming caused a forest wire that wipes out several towns.

But when a nuke plant goes belly up, you know it ruins the small town it is in.

But the liability cap is part of a government enforced insurance scheme. It's a super highly regulated industry. It's not like they can ruin your house and stiff you.

The law is set up so nuke plants don't abuse corporate liability shields and then go bankrupt in an accident without paying for it.

Some claim it is a form of subsidy, but the government is allowed to retroactively raise rates if it turns out the risk profile wasn't accurately measured. It's really not that different from unemployment insurance companies have to pay for.

The reason it isn't just covered by private insurance is because when plants were first built, it was just impossible to underwrite. It still maybe hard to underwrite.

Insurance works on the law of large numbers. But with a low probability, catastrophically highly loss, it's impossible to insure.

If you exclude Chernobyl (and you should since modern nuke plants can't have a core explosion) there aren't any confirmed or even estimated deaths in the commercial nuclear power field. Even a super conservative estimate (no threshold radiation) would yield under 200 people world wide.

Shit, iPhones kill people than that a year (texting while driving)

[crdoconnor]

>The problem is that the law can easily place blame for big huge accidents but can't doesn't put any blame on massively distributed harm. A lot of the dangers of traditional fossil fuel generation doesn't stick to energy companies.

Sure. They get this type of massive subsidy too.

They can both be consigned to the scrapheap of history if it were mandated that all new generation capacity had to come from renewable sources. This is, by the way, a very easily achievable goal given the last few years' plunge in the price of renewable energy.

>it was just impossible to underwrite. It still maybe hard to underwrite.

Which is why I'm still unconvinced about their relative safety.

As far as I'm concerned Merkel was right to adjust Germany's energy policy to favor renewables after Fukushima. There's just no point in taking the risk when the alternatives are there.

[13thLetter]

"The real reason, of course, is that it isn't actually that safe"

Perhaps you'd like to go into detail on why you think it isn't actually that safe, especially when compared with the fossil fuel energy generation ecosystem it would be replacing.

[ghshephard]

They demonstrated why it's not safe. No private insurer is willing to take the risk. If it was safe, then someone would see the opportunity to profit by insuring nuclear plants -but anybody who looks at the technology realizes they could end up having to spend on the order of a trillion+ in the event of a major disaster, and so walk away unless they have their liability capped at some small number.

Their point is very good - as soon as private insurers feel comfortable insuring nuclear power plants, then we have some evidence that nuclear energy is becoming more safe.

[peteretep]

I think a few minutes of research would leave you amazed at the number of liability caps for all sorts of things you do...

[crdoconnor]

Renewables are more than capable of substituting the fossil fuel energy generation ecosystem and the nuclear energy generation ecosystem. I think this article makes that point pretty clearly.

And, like I said, I'll be convinced of nuclear power's true safety as soon as the industry puts its money where its mouth is and the liability cap becomes history.

After all, if it were as riskless as they tell us it is, they would be happy to see it go. Right?

[13thLetter]

"Renewables are more than capable of substituting the fossil fuel energy generation ecosystem and the nuclear energy generation ecosystem. I think this article makes that point pretty clearly."

The article makes the point that one small country which has invested extensively in the technology was able to fill its electricity generation needs on one specific day. Now, I'm not going to minimize that -- it's an impressive demonstration of what wind power can do under optimum conditions. But it says absolutely nothing about the practical replacement of fossil fuels and nuclear worldwide, including in nations that aren't nearly as well situated to take advantage of wind energy as Denmark, or which aren't wealthy enough to build and subsidize expensive wind infrastructure.

"And, like I said, I'll be convinced of nuclear power's true safety as soon as the industry puts its money where its mouth is and the liability cap becomes history. After all, if it were as riskless as they tell us it is, they would be happy to see it go. Right?"

Why would any industry, no matter how safe, turn down a government-provided liability cap? If the government was willing to put a liability cap on Nerf guns, I guarantee you that Hasbro would happily go along with it, and most likely fight to keep it once in place.

[crdoconnor]

>But it says absolutely nothing about the practical replacement of fossil fuels and nuclear worldwide, including in nations that aren't nearly as well situated to take advantage of wind energy as Denmark, or which aren't wealthy enough to build and subsidize expensive wind infrastructure.

Wind energy is the cheapest form of energy:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/13/wind-powe...

If you think poorer countries that are too poor to build wind turbines or put up solar panels are instead going to take advantage of nuclear power you are smoking some pretty radioactive shit. The CapEx on a nuclear plant is staggering.

Cheap Chinese solar panels are getting extremely popular in the 3rd world as of the last 18 months, incidentally. Because the capex on a solar panel starts at around $200.

>Why would any industry, no matter how safe, turn down a government-provided liability cap?

They just have to say that it isn't necessary and that it can be taken away. I'm sure the environmental lobby and a few senators looking to score some points with their constituents can take care of the rest.

They are not willing to put their money where their mouth is but you are still willing to believe their protests at how safe their plants are, though. What does that say?

>If the government was willing to put a liability cap on Nerf guns

Except the government didn't put a liability cap on Nerf Guns and Hasbro didn't ask for one.

[13thLetter]

I'm sorry, but you're still missing the point. Yes, the nuclear industry could say to the government, "Please take away this policy that protects our industry." But the nuclear industry will not say that to the government, because the nuclear industry is made up of modern twenty-first century human beings who will happily rake in whatever government benefits are being offered and fight like demons to keep them from being taken away. You cannot make any conclusions about nuclear power's safety or lack thereof based on this.

May I suggest if you want to convince a group of grounded, knowledgeable, and technically minded people that nuclear power is unsafe, you're going to have to go with facts and figures, not "put your money where your mouth is."

[crdoconnor]

>I'm sorry, but you're still missing the point. Yes, the nuclear industry could say to the government, "Please take away this policy that protects our industry."

Right, because if it's as safe as they and you say it is then it is absolutely not needed.

This would be a very clear signal of the faith that they have in the safety of their own investments.

> the nuclear industry is made up of modern twenty-first century human beings who will happily rake in whatever government benefits

According to you it is not a benefit, so they really shouldn't be all that concerned about keeping it.

But they are.

>May I suggest if you want to convince a group of grounded, knowledgeable, and technically minded people

In other words you think I should believe you, random internet stranger, over the nuclear industry's own self assessments of the danger posed by their plants.

[davidgerard]

> Renewables are more than capable of substituting the fossil fuel energy generation ecosystem and the nuclear energy generation ecosystem. I think this article makes that point pretty clearly.

The fossil fuel energy system is huge. I don't have the numbers to hand, but AFAIK to stop pumping out carbon we're going to need nuclear as well, ASAP. That all present nuclear is problematic (e.g. insurance, as noted) doesn't change this.

[crdoconnor]

>I don't have the numbers to hand, but AFAIK to stop pumping out carbon we're going to need nuclear as well

It's completely feasible these days to mandate that all new generation capacity comes from renewable energy.

The fossil fuel energy system is huge, but as plants are decommissioned they don't have to be replaced by other fossil fuel plants.

What Denmark and Germany have achieved ought to be proof positive of this.

[ams6110]

What do non-windy areas do at night for power? There is no renewable solution that currently addresses this. There might be in the future, but today, outside of specific areas with favorable wind conditions, it most definitely is not possible to replace fossil/nuclear with wind/solar.

[peteretep]

As far as I'm aware the EU is the only jurisdiction without a liability cap for airlines. Presumably you think that's because planes are dangerously unsafe too?

[hueving]

Airlines have liability caps as well. Your argument is pointless. Liability caps are because of the potential size of the black swan events, not because they are frequent.

[crdoconnor]

Yes, all sorts of industries have hidden subsidies. Airlines feed at the public trough too.

The airline industry doesn't have a habit of trying to convince you that flying is 100% safe though.

[forrestthewoods]

Because the rest of our energy sector isn't also propped up by subsidies.

[ghshephard]

The Oil and Coal industry have massive subsidies, and not just the environmental externalities.

[crdoconnor]

Of course it is. This is just a subsidy that is very well hidden compared to the rest of them.

Unlike all of those renewables subsidies. They get a disproportionate amount of attention.