If nuclear power plants are safe as the experts claim, why won't insurance companies insure them?

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1084498

Going nuclear is a bad bet

Premier Dalton McGuinty's plan to increase Ontario's dependency on nuclear power smacks of the actions of an inveterate gambler poised to roll the dice one last time for that elusive "big score." Why else would he bet the farm on a technology that could bankrupt the entire country in the event of a single catastrophic accident? snip

For example, if nuclear power is such a "sure thing," why have investors avoided it like the plague for the past 30 years? snip

And what about the odds of a reactor meltdown? Two of the world's 439 operating nuclear reactors have already experienced a meltdown, a fact that makes a mockery of the industry's claim of only one in 100 000 years of operation.

Even more worrisome are the 22 major accidents that have occurred since Chernobyl, many of which have released cancer-causing isotopes into the air we breathe and the water we drink. There have been seven major nuclear incidents in Ontario alone, including, most recently, this May when highly toxic arsenic and uranium haxafluoride leaked from Cameco's nuclear waste storage site into the groundwater in Port Hope.

If nuclear power plants are as safe as the experts claim, why do insurance companies refuse to underwrite their liability? What do they know that McGuinty is not sharing with Ontarians? Could it be that the damage from just a single nuclear catastrophe is so enormous that it would bankrupt the entire industry? Is that why the government of Canada enacted the Nuclear Liability Act in 1974, which exempts the nuclear industry from all but token liability? The data from Chernobyl certainly supports that hypothesis.

[TheWraith]

1. Boy, this article gets a LOT of facts wrong.

Like its entire premise. Nuclear plants ARE insured. Also, it freely mixes nonsense, lies, and misinformation together to pretend like an accident caused by gross negligence and apalling reactor design, in a totalitarian country, somehow extrapolates to current publicly vetted and accountable nuclear power operations.

I'm sure if there's been so many accidents, they'll have no problem finding a person who's been killed by civilian nuclear power in North America.

Ah, I love the sound of crickets.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. I am depressed. I really am.

I can understand people having fears of nuclear energy.

What I CAN'T understand is when provided with clear access to objective information, they ignore it.

Not just for nuclear issues, but for any issue. Bee deaths. Thimerosal. Statistical anomalies in voting. Islam.

It is so easy for anyone to check stuff out online that I'm surprised that they don't. But they don't, anyway. And if you say something they don't want to hear, they'll jump down your threat about it.

Nuclear energy is getting to be like the Left's version of stem cells.

It's getting to be a real drag.

--p!

[jtrockville]

5. Nukes are not insured.

The linked article cites Canada's "Nuclear Liability Act in 1974, which exempts the nuclear industry from all but token liability".

And here's one that cites the Us "Price Anderson Act of 1957. You and I, dear taxpayer, are the industry's insurance"
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0430-24.htm
It's dated 2005. Has this act been revoked since then?

[rhett o rick]

7. So nuclear power plants are insured? Do you mean by private companies or by us taxpayers.

I have heard Thom Hartman say that no private company will insure them. Do you know otherwise? Would love to see links.

Do you know where the hundreds of tons of spent nuclear fuel is currently being stored?

Are you sure that the negligence that caused the accident at Three Mile Island isn't still prevalent?

And yes civilian power plants kill but nuclear plants have the potential to kill many many more.

I do not support the fear of nuclear plants but also I would be ultra cautious with them.

[jtrockville]

2. Investors aren't interested, so utilities plan to pay for nukes..

by charging rate-payers in advance. Even though rate-payers fund the venture - and incur the risks 'cause they pay whether the plant is completed or not - I doubt they share the profits.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89169837

Just think if FPL invested the $24 billion in solar. After all, they're in Florida - isn't that the "sunshine" state?

[JackRiddler]

3. These guys only want solar if it's a space platform...

or something else suitably centralized and remote from user control.

[jtrockville]

6. Solar could be done on a utility-scale in FL, no?

[izquierdista]

8. Nuke plants belong underground

Then the safety problem goes away. If the reactor is half a mile down, in a stable geologic formation, then the reactor can be abandoned in place with its waste when it reaches its useful life or earlier in the case of an accident.

[PoiBoy]

9. Lots of good information here...

http://www.yuccamountain.org/price_anderson_act.htm

very interesting and informative stuff... :hi: