Nuclear dilemma: Adequate insurance too expensive

[kristopher]

Nuclear dilemma: Adequate insurance too expensive

BERLIN (AP) — From the U.S. to Japan, it's illegal to drive a car without sufficient insurance, yet governments have chosen to run the world's 443 nuclear power plants with hardly any insurance coverage whatsoever.

Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear disaster, which will leave taxpayers there with a massive bill, highlights one of the industry's key weaknesses — that nuclear power is a viable source for cheap energy only if plants go uninsured. The plant's operator, Tepco, had no disaster insurance.

Governments that use nuclear energy are torn between the benefit of low-cost electricity and the risk of a nuclear catastrophe, which could total trillions of dollars and even bankrupt a country.

The bottom line is that it's a gamble: Governments are hoping to dodge a one-time disaster while they accumulate small gains over the long-term. Yet in financial terms, nuclear incidents can be so devastating that the cost of full insurance would be so high as to make nuclear energy more expensive than fossil fuels.

The cost...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6m6Z-A7ZI8TAPBRy35Dlp_z8oiA?docId=6274d45186a24d978d43b1dff293cea4


Good article that discusses what the fission industry tries so hard to ignore; what would be the cost of, for example, having to abandon NYC or Chicago?

[Buzz Clik]

1. US nukes aren't insured?

This seems to indicate that they are... http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps54-bi.pdf

[jpak]

2. Their liability is limited by the Price-Anderson Act

Corporate Welfare

yup

[kristopher]

3. Yes, it does SEEM to indicate that, doesn't it?

And the fission people wonder why no one trusts them...

More objective discussion from Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/nuclear-power-subsidies-report-0504.html

After 50 Years, Nuclear Power is Still Not Viable without Subsidies, New Report Finds

Value of Subsidies Often Exceeds Price of Nuclear Energy Produced; Obama Administration Wants to Nearly Triple Loan Guarantees

WASHINGTON (February 23, 2011) – Since its inception more than 50 years ago, the U.S. nuclear power industry has been propped up by a generous array of government subsidies that have supported its development and operations. Despite that support, the industry is still not economically viable, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The report, “Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies,” found that more than 30 subsidies have supported every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to long-term waste storage. Added together, these subsidies often have exceeded the average market price of the power produced.

“Despite the fact that the nuclear power industry has benefited from decades of government support, the technology is still uneconomic, so the industry is demanding a lot more from taxpayers to build new reactors,” said Ellen Vancko, manager of UCS’s Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Project. “The cost of this technology continues to escalate despite billions in subsidies to both existing and proposed plants. Instead of committing billions in new subsidies that would further distort the market in favor of nuclear power, we should focus on more cost-effective energy sources that will reduce carbon emissions more quickly and with less risk.”

Pending and proposed subsidies for new nuclear reactors would shift even more costs and risks from the industry to taxpayers and ratepayers. The Obama administration’s new budget proposal would provide an additional $36 billion in federal loan guarantees to underwrite new reactor construction, bringing the total amount of nuclear loan guarantees to a staggering $58.5 billion, leaving taxpayers on the hook if the industry defaults on these loans.

The key subsidies for nuclear power do not involve cash payments, the report found. They shift the risks of constructing and operating plants -- including cost overruns, loan defaults, accidents and waste management -- from plant owners and investors to taxpayers and ratepayers. These hidden subsidies distort market choices that would otherwise favor less risky investments....

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/nuclear-power-subsidies-report-0504.html

[truedelphi]

4. Price Anderson sees to it hat each reactor is insured to the

Tune of three hundred million bucks, by the utility owning that reactor.

And another 10 billion dolars of liability is set aside by terms inside the Price Anderson Act.

These monies are a small drop in an immense bucket. If San Onifre in SO California ever melts down, and the wind is blowing northwards as it frequently does, you might have to remove tens of millions of people from the area.

Officials working for the Atomic Energy Commission really shot itself down just a few weeks back. They urged all Americans living within fifty miles of the Fukushima reactors to move away.

Then it was pointed out to them that their own guidelines for evacuation here in the USA call for a mere ten miles of evacuation.

So what did the officals do? They simply revamped the original advisory!

[enough]

5. About the Price-Anderson Act

From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act


snip>

Power reactor licensees are required by the act to obtain the maximum amount of insurance against nuclear related incidents which is available in the insurance market (as of 2011, $375 million per plant). Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s). The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the reactor companies themselves, is then used to make up the difference. Each reactor company is obliged to contribute up to $111.9 million per reactor in the event of an accident with claims that exceed the $375 million insurance limit. As of 2011, the maximum amount of the fund is approximately $12.22 billion ($111.9m X 104 reactors) if all of the reactor companies were required to pay their full obligation to the fund. This fund is not paid into unless an accident occurs. However, fund administrators are required to have contingency plans in place to raise funds using loans to the fund, so that claimants may be paid as soon as possible. Actual payments by companies in the event of an accident are capped at $17.5 million per year until either a claim has been met, or their maximum individual liability (the $111.9 million maximum) has been reached. <2><3>

If a coverable incident occurs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is required to submit a report on the cost of it to the courts and to Congress. If claims are likely to exceed the maximum Price-Anderson fund value, then the President is required to submit proposals to Congress. These proposals must detail the costs of the accident, recommend how funds should be raised, and detail plans for full and prompt compensation to those affected. Under the Act, the administrators of the fund have the right to further charge plants if it is needed. If Congress fails to provide for compensation, claims can be made under the Tucker Act (in which the government waives its sovereign immunity) for failure by the federal government to carry out its duty to compensate claimants.

snip>


Two things that stand out here:

1) The 12 billion dollar fund does not exist. It "is not paid into until an accident occurs."

2) Judging from paragraph two above, all decisions about who is going to pay and how are made by the President and Congress AFTER THE FACT of an accident. This does not give me much confidence that payments for damages will be conducted rationally or fairly.


The entire system looks like a sham, not a serious effort to deal with the reality of the potential problem.

[SpoonFed]

8. So if we combine those things...

> These monies are a small drop in an immense bucket. If San Onifre in SO California ever melts down, and the wind is blowing northwards as it frequently does, you might have to remove tens of millions of people from the area.

Then even if they pay out,

> Actual payments by companies in the event of an accident are capped at $17.5 million per year

10 million people would receive $2/year for this disaster scenario.
Gotta love the nuclear power industry.

Oh right, so if only 100,000 people are affected that would be $200.
That sounds sooooo much better.

"Honey, the cat's turned dayglo green and lost its fur, but we're gonna see $200 bucks a year from the reactor people!"

[FBaggins]

15. It isn't that bad.

The insured amount for such an event is in the billions


But the point remains that it's obviously possible for more damage to be done than that would handle.

What Price-Andersen really does is keep the nuclear industry from structuring reactors to limit overall liability. As I said earlier, no company carries insurance for a worst-case scenario (nor does any individual). Insurance normally is designed to protect assets. If you have half a million dollars in the bank, you need half a million dollars of liability insurance so that if someone sues you for a personal act, your assets are covered.

If it weren't for PA,a power company could just set up the individual reactor as a seperate corporation. If an accident occurs that exceeds their assets... they're bankrupt. So they would never have to pay out more than whatever assets they held in that corporation. Under PA, all nuclear power companies have an obligation to pay of any of them drops the ball.

IOW... PA doesn't so much limit liability as increase it.

[kristopher]

18. What a crock of fissionated spin...

Let's simplify this and cut through the crap - if this were auto insurance, the requirement is similar to saying that the fissionators must have comp/collision, but they don't need to worry about liability coverage.

Take a look at your auto insurance bill and see where all the costs are.

Giving the fission industry a free pass on harm they pose to those around them is irresponsible corporate welfare at its worst.

[FBaggins]

20. Wrong again.

Let's simplify this and cut through the crap - if this were auto insurance, the requirement is similar to saying that the fissionators must have comp/collision, but they don't need to worry about liability coverage.

Nope. It would be like saying that you need comp/collision and liability, but that you only need a minimum of $350k (or whatever). If you have an accident that costs five million dollars... you're bankrupt

Which is exactly what we do.

[kristopher]

24. I'm not sure what your point is?

It seems to be that
1) since the potential damages of a nuclear accident are so vast, and extend so far beyond the bounds of the plant itself, that
2) forcing them to provide levels of insurance comparable to what other industries and individuals must carry is cost prohibitive and therefore
3) we should shift the liability from the fission industry to the public.

On one hand you say the industry is safe and the perception of high potential external costs are a nothing but a product of irrational fear. Then when confronted with hard-nosed actuarial evaluations of the potential for external harm, you say everyone gets a pass on their liability limits (they do not). Those two position are indirect conflict and are reconciled by acknowledging that the nuclear industry has serious safety problems when it fails and that it does fail sometimes fail. The idea that it must have this exemption from liability for the public good is sheer nonsense since alternatives that are superior to nuclear in every way are sitting on the shelf ready to go.

[FBaggins]

25. Nope... you're not sure how you can get your straw man to allign with what I said.

"Comparable to what other industries and individuals must carry" was the error I was correcting originally. The amount you want it NOT in any way comparable.

we should shift the liability from the fission industry to the public.

That's where the liability is for ALL power generation (etc). If an accident occurs that exceeds their assets and/or ability to finance the damages... they're bankrupt.

On one hand you say the industry is safe

It is. It's just that "safe" doesn't mean anything different for nuclear than for anything else. It does NOT mean "zero chance of anything bad ever happening". Bridges ARE safe. That doesn't mean that even a well-designed/constructed one will never fall down.

the perception of high potential external costs are a nothing but a product of irrational fear.

Nope. I haven't said that. High potential costs are a reality... and the irrational fear is of personal danger from sources that present no such danger... not a fear that something bad could someday happen.

you say everyone gets a pass on their liability limits

No I don't. I point out that society bears the burden when catastrophy strikes. Katrina was not fully insured. The large bulk of the damage from the earthquake/tsunami is ALSO not insured.

The idea that it must have this exemption from liability for the public good

Once again. It isn't an exemption from liability. It's an EXTENSION of liability.

[SpoonFed]

35. uh, I'm confused.

not a fear that something bad could someday happen.

Are you suggesting that the word "someday" is synonymous with "march 12th, 2011"?

[PamW]

42. EXACTLY!!!!

If it weren't for PA,a power company could just set up the individual reactor as a seperate corporation.
==========================

EXACTLY!!! I guess a lot of people don't know the basics of corporate law.

When you invest in a corporation, your liability is limited to your investment.
If you invest $1000 in XYZ Corp. and XYZ Corp has an accident with consequent
liability; your liability is limited to your $1000 investment.

The claimants against XYZ Corp can NOT seize your house and have it sold
at auction to pay for their damages just because you had a $1000 stake in XYZ Corp.

So PG&E sets up "Diablo Canyon Corporation" which consists of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear
Power plant. Diablo Canyon sells shares in Diablo Canyon Corp, and PG&E buys them all.

Suppose Diablo Canyon has an accident. If you are damaged, PG&E can say, "Here take the
assets of Diablo Canyon Corp (which consists of a damaged nuclear power plant)" and
walk away. There would be absolutely nothing that someone could legally do
against PG&E because their liability is limited to their investment.

That was one of the key points that Congress dealt with when Price-Anderson was constructed
in the '50s. We had over a century of US Supreme Court approved corporate law that would
let the power companies "game" the system and not afford protection to the public.

Price-Anderson was the deal that was made. It's a good deal.

The only one's that are upset are the anti-nukes. They saw the insurance gambit as
being their big way to shoot down nuclear power before it got started, and they lost.

So for the past half-century, we've had to listen to them whine about it.

PamW

[pscot]

6. Why do you suppose actuaries

have an irrational fear of nukular energy?

[kristopher]

7. +1

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

48. The Act caps the nuclear industry’s liability for third-party damage to people and property

Shifting Security and Accident Risks to the Public (Security and Risk Management) Subsidies that shift long-term risks to the public have been in place for many years. The Price- Anderson Act, which caps the nuclear industry’s liability for third-party damage to people and property, has been a central subsidy to the industry for more than half a century.

Plant security concerns have increased significantly since 9/11, and proliferation risks will increase in proportion to any expansion of the civilian nuclear sector (both in the United States and abroad). The complexity and lack of data in these areas made it impossible to quantify the magnitude of security subsidies for this analysis. But it is clear that as the magnitude of the threat increases, taxpayers will be forced to bear a greater share of the risk. Subsidies that shift these risks are associated with:
␣␣The Price-Anderson Act. This law requires utilities to carry a pre-set amount of insurance for off-site damages caused by a nuclear plant accident, and to contribute to an additional pool of funds meant to cover a pre-set portion of the damages. However, the law limits total industry liability to a level much lower than would be needed in a variety of plausible accident scenarios. This constitutes a subsidy when compared with other energy sources that are required to carry full private liability insurance, and benefits both existing and new reactors.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

[FBaggins]

9. Thanks for making the argument easy by using the very example that proves you wrong.

From the U.S. to Japan, it's illegal to drive a car without sufficient insurance,

That's true. But from the U.S. to Japan, "sufficient insurance" never means "enough insurance to cover all damages no matter how severe the accident".

Never.

In fact... no individual or business is ever required to insure themselves against the worst possible events.

And no insurance company in the world will insure you for that amount. There is no such thing as "full insurance"

I guess that means cars don't belong on the road?

Back to the current example - Tens of thousands dead... tens of thousands of buildings destroyed. How many of them had "sufficient insurance" to cover all their damages?

[ret5hd]

10. This must be a really tough time for you.

I hope you get enough rest.

[SpoonFed]

11. You'd be hard pressed...

to have a traffic accident in your car in Japan and have bits of the debris land 8,000 kilometers away all the way over in North America.

But then again, my car isn't made of uranium or plutonium and I'm pretty sure that when I turn off the key, the combustion stops sometime around when the key is off and not a bazillion years later.

(Disclaimer: I no longer own a car, I take public transportation and ride a bicycle as my preferred mode of transportation.)

[FBaggins]

13. So?

You CAN cause an accident with your car that kills thousands of people and does many millions of dollars in damage.

And nobody carries insurance for that much damage.

[leveymg]

16. Sure, I can cause such a mass casualty accident if my car hits a truck carrying nuclear materials.

It would have to happen in an unlikely way, but it could happen.

Or, that truck could simply plunge off an embankment or a bridge and hit my car. Whatever. That brings up the question, is the nuclear fuels and waste industry sufficiently insured?

[FBaggins]

22. Nuclear materials are far from the only thing you could hit.

How about a tanker truck carrying chemicals? Or an accident on a bridge that destroys a major commuting route and spills toxic substances into a key waterway? We could make up examples all day long.

That brings up the question, is the nuclear fuels and waste industry sufficiently insured?

Another question is why ask the question for just this one industry? Nobody is "sifficiently insured" for the absolute worst things that could happen. That trucking company with the chemical load certainly isn't going to have enough insurance to indemify thousands of families in New York if a chemical fire poisons them.

[leveymg]

26. True. But, in a worst-case scenario, nuclear materials are the worst thing one could hit.

I suppose a nice big load of genetically-modified biowarfare toxins would be right up there with enriched uranium or plutonium 241 or other long-half-life isotopes. But, there aren't any materials that are more hazardous to transport and store.

[FBaggins]

27. I don't know... I guess it depends on what you mean by nuclear material.

The vast majority of radiological cargos really wouldn't present much of a hazard away from the accident site. Enriched uranium wouldn't be. Plutonium obviously would.

[leveymg]

29. Pu, Ce isotopes seem to be most dangerous in terms of ingestion, inhalation.

Enriched uranium is dangerous if a sufficient mass in proximity goes uncooled. I agree, however, that reactor grade Uranium is less dangerous to transport than plutonium.

[FBaggins]

30. PU probably is on a per-gram basis.

Enriched uranium is dangerous if a sufficient mass in proximity goes uncooled.

A mass much greater than what an on-the-road vehicle is going to carry. And it doesn't need cooling. It wouldn't put off much heat unless it had recently been in a reactor core... and they can't move that stuff off-site for years (by which time it isn't putting out much heat any more)

But yes, PU is serious stuff. Of course... so is the way they transport it. I'm not sure a car accident could do anything even if it ran the truck off a bridge.

[leveymg]

32. "I'm not sure a car accident could do anything even if it ran the truck off a bridge" I wouldn't

want to be the one to test those safety systems, or live nearby.

[FBaggins]

33. That would be a "no"

:)

[PamW]

36. More bad science from the anti-nukes.

I suppose a nice big load of genetically-modified biowarfare toxins would be right up there with enriched uranium or plutonium 241 or other long-half-life isotopes. But, there aren't any materials that are more hazardous to transport and store.
============================================

Where do I begin to correct the ERRORS in the above.

First of all, Pu-241 is not a long half life isotope. Pu-241 has a half-life of 14.5 years.
If you wanted the long lived isotope of Plutonium, you want Pu-239 not Pu-241.

Of course, long half-life means that the material is not very radioactive. When oh When
are the anti-nukes going to learn the inverse relationship between activity and half-life:

High specific Radioactivity == Short Half-Life
Low specific Radioactivity == Long Half-Life ( low activity means low radiation )

The two components of enriched uranium are U-235 and U-238.

The half-life of U-235 is 704 million years.
The half-life of U-238 is 4.5 billion years - about the age of the Earth, therefore
U-238 is almost stable.

The long half-life materials you cite are not hazardous to transport or store.

It's the short half-life materials that would be hazardous.

PamW

[kristopher]

37. And they still can't afford to buy insurance for their fissionated boondoogles.

Instead the risk is FORCED onto the public by a quasi-governmental profit seeking entity that needs to be broken apart once and for all - including the extraction of its corrupting tentacles from our academic institutions.

[PamW]

39. WRONG - as always.

And they still can't afford to buy insurance for their fissionated boondoogles
==========================

They can and do by insurance and they can afford to do so.

What they can't afford is coverage that is ridiculously inflated and totally
unrelated to the small degree of risk. That's what the anti-nukes want them
to buy.

It' like requiring each auto driver to get $10 Billion worth of liability insurance.

There's no reason for that level of insurance because auto accidents can't cause
that level of damage.

That requirement has one and only one purpose - to overprice driving so that nobody
can afford it. I bet there are a lot of people here who would like that. They don't
like cars and that would be an effective way to make sure virtually nobody outside
of Bill Gates could afford to drive a car.

Even Bill wouldn't be driving long, since he couldn't support the infrastructure of
auto companies, roads, service stations.... that would make driving possible for him.

PamW

[kristopher]

41. You mean the small degree of risk that theFukushima victims are now enduring?

Since you are self-avowedly a superior "scientist" how did you fail to understand the difference between degree of risk vs probability of occurrence?

Low probability of occurrence with a degree of risk to life and property that is so high it cannot be calculated is the statistical profile where nuclear power should be slotted.

[PamW]

43. As always - you are the one that doesn't understand the mathematics.

Since you are self-avowedly a superior "scientist" how did you fail to understand the difference between degree of risk vs probability of occurrence?
==================================================

You again are the one that doesn't understand the mathematics of "risk".

You can have a high consequence event with very low probability and that constitutes
low risk.

I have an example that even someone with your limited grasp can probably understand.

Is flying safe? Most people would say so. Is flying "low risk". Most people would
say so.

There's a risk in flying, but because the chances of the airliner crashing are one in
the millions; the act of flying in a plane is low risk.

However, a very low probability event sometimes happens and the plane crashes and
you are killed.

The loss of life is worse than the damages you call "so high it can not be calculated".

Horse puckey!!! Whatever the damages are in the case of Fukushima, it's only money.

I'm talking about people getting killed.

Evidently you think that low risk means that you will never "lose".

That's a child's concept of the mathematical laws of probability and risk.

PamW

[kristopher]

44. "Whatever the damages are in the case of Fukushima, it's only money"

That says everything we need to know about you and your ability to understand and identify the nature of risk.

[PamW]

46. Actually - it tells us more about you.

That says everything we need to know about you and your ability to understand and identify the nature of risk.
============================

In the case of an airliner crash, the scene is littered with dead bodies. Behind each
of those is a grieving family. The consequences of an airline crash are devastating.

However, with Fukishima, there are no fields littered with the bodies of dead people,
and there won't be hundreds of dead people like in an airline crash.

I think the airline crash is far more devastating than what happened at Fukushima.
Let's keep are sense of perspective here. We do NOT have hundreds of dead people
due to the Fukushima reactors.

Thankfully, I've never lost someone in my family due to an airliner crash.

However, my best friend lost her father in the crash of Northwest 255 in Detroit
on August 16, 1987. I've seen first hand what can happen to a family in the
crash of an airliner.

Fukushima has exacted nowhere near the toll that an airline crash does.

How about we ignore each other in the future?

I really don't care to deal with the likes of you!

PamW

[Tesha]

47. Why don't we wait and see what the total bill for the Japanese event becomes...

...before we discuss just how much insurance would
be "ridiculously inflated and totally unrelated to
the small degree of risk" because right now, it looks
like we're talking about the possibility of hundreds
of billions or even low trillions of dollars worth
of ultimate damages; it could cost quite a lot of
money to abandon or remediate several hundred square
miles of Japan.

Tesha

[leveymg]

49. You may know something about radioisotopes, but you can't parse a sentence worth a damn

Check out this Dept of Energy publication about the long-term human health effects of radioactive fallout containing trace potassium (K, that gets absorbed into the body) over a wide area. The point here is that the most dangerous substances, over the long run, are those emitters that have a long enough half-life to continue impacting the food chain for decades, like Cesium 137, particularly when mixed with substances like Potassium-40 that are readily absorbed into the body. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc... ?...


Title Effect of Potassium on Uptake of 137Cs in Food Crops Grown on Coral Soils: Annual Crops at Bikini Atoll
Creator/Author Stone, E R ; Robinson, W
Publication Date 2002 Feb 01
OSTI Identifier OSTI ID: 15002342
Report Number(s) UCRL-LR-147596
DOE Contract Number W-7405-ENG-48
Other Number(s) TRN: US200410%%78
Resource Type Technical Report
Resource Relation Other Information: PBD: 1 Feb 2002
Research Org Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (US)
Sponsoring Org US Department of Energy (US)
Subject 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; 70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY; AMERICIUM 241; ANIMALS; CESIUM 137; CLAYS; CORALS; CROPS; FALLOUT; FOOD; FOOD CHAINS; MARSHALL ISLANDS; NUTRIENTS; PLUMES; POTASSIUM; RADIOACTIVITY; SILICATES; SOILS; STRONTIUM 90; THERMONUCLEAR DEVICES
Description/Abstract In 1954 a radioactive plume from the thermonuclear device code named BRAVO contaminated the principal residential islands, Eneu and Bikini, of Bikini Atoll (11{sup o} 36 minutes N; 165{sup o} 22 minutes E), now part of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The resulting soil radioactivity diminished greatly over the three decades before the studies discussed below began. By that time the shorter-lived isotopes had all but disappeared, but strontium-90 ({sup 90}Sr), and cesium-137, ({sup 137}Cs) were reduced by only one half-life. Minute amounts of the long-lived isotopes, plutonium-239+240 ({sup 239+240}Pu) and americium-241 ({sup 241}Am), were present in soil, but were found to be inconsequential in the food chain of humans and land animals. Rather, extensive studies demonstrated that the major concern for human health was {sup 137}Cs in the terrestrial food chain (Robison et al., 1983; Robison et al., 1997). The following papers document results from several studies between 1986 and 1997 aimed at minimizing the {sup 137}Cs content of annual food crops. The existing literature on radiocesium in soils and plant uptake is largely a consequence of two events: the worldwide fallout of 1952-58, and the fallout from Chernobyl. The resulting studies have, for the most part, dealt either with soils containing some amount of silicate clays and often with appreciable K, or with the short-term development of plants in nutrient cultures.
Country of Publication United States
Language English
Format Medium: ED; Size: PDF-FILE: 69 ; SIZE: 1.7 MBYTES pages
System Entry Date 2008 Feb 12



While you're at it, you might also want to read this publication about the physical properties and the radiological effects of Potassium-40: #

Potassium-40
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
concentration associated with sandy soil particles estimated to be 15 times higher ... What Happens to It in the Body? Potassium-40 can be taken into the body by ... Hence, what is taken in is readily absorbed into the bloodstream and ...
www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/potassium.pdf - Similar
►
#

[SpoonFed]

50. Your posts always make me laugh hard...

Where do I begin to correct the ERRORS in the above.

First of all, Pu-241 is not a long half life isotope. Pu-241 has a half-life of 14.5 years.
If you wanted the long lived isotope of Plutonium, you want Pu-239 not Pu-241.

You're right. The fact that the reply doesn't contain a chronological list of the half-lives of radioactive filth is somehow a valid counter-argument to the statement that nuclear fission poisonous filth waste is the longest, deadliest shit on the planet.

You're hilarious.

[Someguyinjapan]

12. Your point?

And no insurance company in the world will insure you for that amount. There is no such thing as "full insurance"

Yes, and if you had taken the time to read the linked article, you would realize that there is a difference between "full insurance" or even "some insurance" and "no insurance", which means nothing. Which is what TEPCO had-no disaster insurance. Which means it had zero way of covering any damage that was done, as opposed to being able to cover at least some of it.

[FBaggins]

14. The point is that the OP fails to make a point.

The inability to obtain insurance for a worst-case scenario is not evidence of anything.

Which is what TEPCO had-no disaster insurance.

How much of the BP oil spill was insured?

[leveymg]

17. Here's the point - the public has been subsidizing the costs of the nuclear industry for decades.

Enough, already. Nuclear power isn't economically viable without continuing public subsidies.

[FBaggins]

21. We don't just "subsidize" it. We pay the entire tab.

That's what your power bill is.

Government has an interest in power generation. We don't just want companies to decide how they supply us with power on their own. It needs to match long-term planning and that planning must include factors that no company would include on their own (like global environmental impacts).

When government exercises its authority to mold these long-term plans, they do so through regulation and subsidies/incentives. That's not in any way unique for nuclear power.

You can reasonably make an argument that power generation should be a government function. But if it isn't, then the only way to avoid subsidies/incentives/regulation is to let them operate however they like...

...and that means coal.

[leveymg]

28. In a sense. But, it's about cost/benefits. Coal and nuclear come with the highest real costs

By real costs, I mean market cost to generate electricity along with environmental load costs, both realized and potential. In terms of indemnified costs and uninsured potential costs of the hazards of a catastrophic accident, nothing exceeds nuclear. Nothing. So, no, the public incurs uninsured risks, and doesn't pay total costs until an accident occurs.

As for the costs of public subsidies, direct and indirect, real and potential of various power sources, nuclear is the most subsidized by public sources. In terms of social costs, coal is at present the worst -- if you include the cost to public of HC emissions industrial accidents and treating health problems -- but, nuclear is potentially the worst.

[PamW]

40. The problem are those "potential" costs.

By real costs, I mean market cost to generate electricity along with environmental load costs, both realized and potential.
=======================

Up to now; the realized costs of nuclear are very low

It is only when someone adds some overly inflated "potential" costs,
does nuclear power end up costing in the higher strata.

Instead of the unfounded, and poorly based fabrications of the anti-nukes,
who exaggerate the cost because of their opposition; why not have good
scientists estimate the costs objectively?

That's what was done back in the '50s by scientists at Brookhaven National
Laboratory. They even made assumptions to insure that they overestimated
the potential costs; like assuming there was no containment on the reactor
when all commercial power plants are required to have one.

When nuclear power costs are calculated by objective scientists, the costs
of nuclear are quite low.

PamW

[PamW]

38. Show me where dollar 1 goes from the public to the industry

Nuclear power isn't economically viable without continuing public subsidies.
====================================

The so-called "subsidies" are just a misreading of the terms of the Price-Anderson Act.

The levels of insurance that nuclear power plants are required to have was set back in
the '50s by Congress consistent with a study of worst possible consequences of a nuclear
accident made by Brookhaven National Lab. The amount has been continually adjusted for
inflation.

Back in the '50s when Price-Anderson was passed, there were those that wanted to kill
the nascent nuclear industry by requiring that it have insurance far in excess of what
the scientists at Brookhaven said would be needed.

So Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act. It requires a reasonable level of insurance
consistent with the Brookhaven study. For those that claimed it wouldn't be enough, the
Act provides that if the private insurance of the reactor owner is not enough, then the
Government steps in and pays claims on a "no-fault" basis. ( That means you don't have
to prove negligence on the part of the operator, you just have to prove a loss ).

If the Government has to provide funds, then the Government will be reimbursed for
the expenditures by the nuclear industry. That's the part of Price-Anderson that the
anti-nukes don't like to talk about. They don't acknowledge that the Government pay out
has to be repaid.

As others have pointed out, there is never an "infinite" amount of insurance. Next time
you get an airline ticket, turn it over and read the back about the limits of liability
imposed by law.

If you live downstream of a dam, read how your homeowners insurance won't cover damages in
case of failure of the dam.

A "subsidy" is when one party pays money on behalf of another. It is erroneous to
call the liability rules under Price-Anderson a "subsidy" in any sense of the word.

First, the Government is not paying an insurance premium for coverage on behalf of
the nuclear industry. No money leaves the US Treasury and goes to either the nuclear
industry or to commercial underwriters on behalf of the nuclear industry.

The only time that money would be expended from the Treasury would be in the case of
an accident, and then that money has to be repaid.

So how is the liability arrangement under Price-Anderson anything that could legitimately
called a "subsidy"?

PamW

[kristopher]

51. Take a look at WTO rules and see if that definitition is or is not a subsidy.

When a government allows a business to externalize a cost that its competitors must pay, it is a subsidy.

[Someguyinjapan]

19. Still missing the point.

The inability to obtain insurance is not the same thing as being able to obtain some insurance versus no insurance. Which the article talks about at length (various types of insurance).

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between the two. Your position seems to be that some insurance or no insurance is the same. It isn't.

[ret5hd]

23. You have to realize thatsome here believe your* country is just collateral damage...

on the altar of their nuclear gods. (0n edit: i meant employers)

(*-taking your user name at face value)

[Someguyinjapan]

It is correct

Although I am not Japanese, I have spent the better part of a decade here, so my perspective on this event is somewhat different I wager than perhaps most on this board.

What I find amusing about the naysayers/deniers/downplayers on DU concerning this crisis is that here kn Japan the two parties who carried the greatest responsibility in providing adequate protection to residents and citizens here-the government and TEPCO-have completely destroyed their credibility over here by engaging in the very behavior I see from some people on this board-denial, obfuscation, misdirection, obstinancy, arrogance.

At the initial stages of the crisis it could be argued that certainly TEPCO and probably the government were more concerned with preserving their sense of pride and self-worth (their face) than they wrre about disclosure. This, combined with the well-known (at least to us expats over here) Japanese cultural traits of avoidance, inability to make timely decisions and poor problem-solving skills combined to make this far worse than it could have been. I remember the day that NISA upped the disaster level to IAEA Level 7-I watched it scroll across the bottom of NHK at about noon that day-and I thought, this is the first time since this thing started that the Japanese have bee ahead of the story. Up to that point foreign medis had been far more reliable and timely in providing a picture as to what was going on here than the Japanese themselves.

So for those of you on this board who continue to debate, deny and downplay I have this to say: you have no idea how bad things are, or how bad they are going to get, simply because the people who are managing this information have bungled it from the start due to their gross incompetence,and until the Japanese decide to FULLY DISCLOSE EVERYTHING,we never will. Then again, this is a country that continues to deny and downplay it's war crimes so this comes as no surprise.

[Someguyinjapan]

34. It is correct

Although I am not Japanese, I have spent the better part of a decade here, so my perspective on this event is somewhat different I wager than perhaps most on this board.

What I find amusing about the naysayers/deniers/downplayers on DU concerning this crisis is that here kn Japan the two parties who carried the greatest responsibility in providing adequate protection to residents and citizens here-the government and TEPCO-have completely destroyed their credibility over here by engaging in the very behavior I see from some people on this board-denial, obfuscation, misdirection, obstinancy, arrogance.

At the initial stages of the crisis it could be argued that certainly TEPCO and probably the government were more concerned with preserving their sense of pride and self-worth (their face) than they wrre about disclosure. This, combined with the well-known (at least to us expats over here) Japanese cultural traits of avoidance, inability to make timely decisions and poor problem-solving skills combined to make this far worse than it could have been. I remember the day that NISA upped the disaster level to IAEA Level 7-I watched it scroll across the bottom of NHK at about noon that day-and I thought, this is the first time since this thing started that the Japanese have bee ahead of the story. Up to that point foreign medis had been far more reliable and timely in providing a picture as to what was going on here than the Japanese themselves.

So for those of you on this board who continue to debate, deny and downplay I have this to say: you have no idea how bad things are, or how bad they are going to get, simply because the people who are managing this information have bungled it from the start due to their gross incompetence,and until the Japanese decide to FULLY DISCLOSE EVERYTHING,we never will. Then again, this is a country that continues to deny and downplay it's war crimes so this comes as no surprise.

[kristopher]

31. Union of Concerned Scientists on Price Anderson Act

D. Shifting Security and Accident Risks to the Public (Security and Risk Management) Subsidies that shift long-term risks to the public have been in place for many years. The Price- Anderson Act, which caps the nuclear industry’s liability for third-party damage to people and property, has been a central subsidy to the industry for more than half a century.

<snip>

Nuclear power has two additional attributes that make it unattractive to investors. First, the period of risk exposure lasts too long. In most other sectors of the economy, the majority of the risks that investors take on last only several years, or a few decades at most. By contrast, nuclear operations span many decades—longer even than coal plants once post-closure periods prior to decommissioning are included. In par- ticular, highly radioactive and extremely long- lived wastes are not only risky but also require oversight for centuries.

Second, a single negative event can wipe out decades of gains. Although the risk of nuclear acci- dents in the United States is considered quite low, it is not zero.6 Plausible accident scenarios generate catastrophic damages, with corresponding levels of financial loss. This characteristic creates a large dis- connect between private interests (which highlight an absence of catastrophic damages thus far) and public interests (which must consider the damage that would be caused in the case of even a moderate accident, as well as the inadequacy of financial assurance mechanisms or insurance-related price signals to address the challenge).

Unlike car accidents, where one event generally has no impact on the perceived risk to unrelated drivers or auto companies, risks in the nuclear sector are systemic. An accident anywhere in the world will cause politicians and plant neighbors everywhere to reassess the risks they face and question whether the oversight and financial assurance are sufficient. Generally, the cost implications of such inquiries will be negative for reactor owners.
All of these factors, in combination with a poor track record of financial performance on new plant construction, have led investors in nuclear power to demand much higher rates of return, to shift the risks to other parties, or to steer clear of the nuclear power sector entirely.7 risks are real, and if they were visibly integrated into the nuclear cost structure, the resulting price signals would guide energy investment toward technologies that have more predictable and lower risk profiles.

= Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies
Doug Koplow, Earth Track, Inc.
Union of Concerned Scientists February 2011
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf




Also see Koplow's presentation here: http://www.unep.ch/etb/events/Energy%20Subsidies%20presentations/Nuclear%20Subsidies%20v2_Koplow.pdf