A Nuclear Plant Near You?

[RadiomanATL]

Ah, nice Googling, Radio. Thanks.

As you can see, the question of insuring for liability is part of the problem this nation continues to have with building these plants.

The insurance industry does not want to assume the risks associated with this industry so we have cobbled together some system that apparently includes limited private insurance (limited to $300 M per reactor) and the rest of the risk ends up on the government's plate.

Now if the reactors were publically owned utilities then of course the government would be 100% responsible for them.

But as far as I know advovates of nuclear energy want private companies to own and operate them.

See the problem there?

The financial rewards of having the plant are private, but the risks -- if something goes south -- are mostly the state's problem.

Sounds a LOT like the our current state of banking, doesn't it?

Actually, I read it the other way. Most of the financial risks seem to be on the industry. If there ever is an incident that exceeds their funds only then does the government kick in. And it seems to me that if an incident exceeding their funds then it would move into the realm of a disaster zone (can't quite call it a natural disaster) and the feds would kick in anyway. Also, I don't think that there is a private company in the world that could insure all the plants for more than they are insuring themselves anway. So it seems like a pretty much moot point.

I also have to reiterate that the government has never had to step in during the 47 years of this system. Seems to work pretty well to me. Also seems like a pretty flimsy excuse to be against the building of more nuclear power plants considering the large and long benefit they offer.

The Government has paid. See:

"Usage

Over the first 43 years of the Price-Anderson Act to 2000, the secondary insurance was not required. A total of $151 million was paid to cover claims (including legal expenses), all from primary insurance, including $70 million for Three Mile Island. Additionally, the Department of Energy paid about $65 million to cover claims under liability for its own nuclear operations in the same period."

You gotta read the last sentence of that one carefully: "Additionally, the Department of Energy paid about $65 million to cover claims under liability for its own nuclear operations in the same period."

That one didn't count, since it wasn't a privately owned plant/facility. It was probably a military one of some sort. I would expect the government (meaning the DoE) to pay out for its own government accidents

 

[Devin]

Actually, I read it the other way. Most of the financial risks seem to be on the industry. If there ever is an incident that exceeds their funds only then does the government kick in. And it seems to me that if an incident exceeding their funds then it would move into the realm of a disaster zone (can't quite call it a natural disaster) and the feds would kick in anyway. Also, I don't think that there is a private company in the world that could insure all the plants for more than they are insuring themselves anway. So it seems like a pretty much moot point.

I also have to reiterate that the government has never had to step in during the 47 years of this system. Seems to work pretty well to me. Also seems like a pretty flimsy excuse to be against the building of more nuclear power plants considering the large and long benefit they offer.

The Government has paid. See:

"Usage

Over the first 43 years of the Price-Anderson Act to 2000, the secondary insurance was not required. A total of $151 million was paid to cover claims (including legal expenses), all from primary insurance, including $70 million for Three Mile Island. Additionally, the Department of Energy paid about $65 million to cover claims under liability for its own nuclear operations in the same period."

You gotta read the last sentence of that one carefully: "Additionally, the Department of Energy paid about $65 million to cover claims under liability for its own nuclear operations in the same period."

That one didn't count, since it wasn't a privately owned plant/facility. It was probably a military one of some sort. I would expect the government (meaning the DoE) to pay out for its own government accidents

You're right!
Accident at some of the development labs, perhaps??????

 

[RadiomanATL]

I also wonder if a DoE facility could even partake in the industry insurance program. I would think that they would be exluded.

 

[RadiomanATL]

You're right!
Accident at some of the development labs, perhaps??????

Probably.

 

[DamnYankee]

Indian point is about 40 years old, NY badly needs more juice, a new nuke plant would be sweet.

Or they could refurbish, couldn't they? Also have Oyster Creek a little farther away from me. Was quite controversial for a while after Three Mile Island made the headlines. Everyone seems to think that because some idiots fucked up that that's the norm.

 

[Devin]

Indian point is about 40 years old, NY badly needs more juice, a new nuke plant would be sweet.

Or they could refurbish, couldn't they? Also have Oyster Creek a little farther away from me. Was quite controversial for a while after Three Mile Island made the headlines. Everyone seems to think that because some idiots fucked up that that's the norm.

But that's exactly what happened at Chernobyl. They decided to run tests.
(Sort of like 'let's stir the tank' on Apollo 13).
Now Russia is in the process of building Floating Nuclear Power Plants. No kidding.
And they're selling the technology.
Great.

 

[Navy1960]

I thought as long as we are discussing these technologies, it might be worth mentioning something that I think is worthwhile goal when it comes to the issue of spent nuclear fuel. This is always been the frist place that the "environmental lobby" points to as an issue when it comes to the construction and usage of nuclear power along with costs.

TOKYO, June 12 (Reuters) - Japan's power industry utilities' association said on Friday it has delayed a target of having 16-18 nuclear reactors using mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel by five years to March 2016, denting the resource-poor nation's goal of a "closed" nuclear fuel cycle. Japan is aiming to move towards a closed cycle where it recycles its own spent fuel and then burns recovered uranium and plutonium as MOX fuel.
Japan delays MOX nuclear fuel goal by 5 years | Industries | Industrials, Materials & Utilities | Reuters

If this goal can be achieved and you have a developed technology, then this process should be developed here in the United States on a large scale to achieve the goal of clean abundant power.