Apocalypse in the Gulf Now (Oil) & Next (Nukes) by Harvey Wasserman

[Echo In Light]

Apocalypse in the Gulf Now (Oil) & Next (Nukes)
by Harvey Wasserman

As BP's ghastly gusher assaults the Gulf of Mexico and so much more, a tornado has forced shut the Fermi2 atomic reactor at the site of a 1966 melt-down that nearly irradiated the entire Great Lakes region.

If the White House has a reliable plan for deploying and funding a credible response to a disaster at a reactor that's superior to the one we've seen at the Deepwater Horizon, we'd sure like to see it.

Meanwhile it wants us to fund two more reactors on the Gulf and another one 40 miles from Washington DC. And that's just for starters.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has warned that at least one new design proposed for federal funding cannot withstand tornadoes, earthquakes or hurricanes.

But the administration has slipped $9 billion for nuclear loan guarantees into an emergency military funding bill, in addition to the $8.33 it's already approved for two new nukes in Georgia.

Unless we do something about it, the House Appropriations Committee may begin the process next week.

Like Deepwater Horizon and Fermi, these new nukes could ignite disasters beyond our technological control--and our worst nightmares.

Like BP, their builders would enjoy financial liability limits dwarfed by damage they could do.

[jtrockville]

1. "sufficient capital resources to cover the damages"

...snip...

No US nuclear utility has sufficient capital resources to cover the damages from a reactor disaster, which is one reason taxpayers are targeted as the ultimate underwriters.

...snip...

As a taxpayer, if I have to share the risks, do I also get to share the profits?
If no private insurer in the world would take the risk of insuring a nuclear plant, why should I?

[Statistical]

3. Private insurers have insured nuclear power plants for past 50 years. n/t

[jtrockville]

5. If that were true, we wouldn't need the Price–Anderson Act

The Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act limits nuclear plant liability because no insurance company is willing to cover the risk. Private insurers are willing to cover part of the risk, but taxpayers are liable for catastrophic risks. If catastrophy wan't one of the risks of a nuclear plant, private insurers would cover the entire risk.

Why should I assume a risk that no private insurer will?
If I do assume that risk, why shouldn't I share the profits too?

[Statistical]

6. No it doesn't.

Nuclear utilities are insured with $10.4 billion in private insurance, always have been, always will.

Federal law requires them to have $10.4 billion in insurance. All insurance has limits. The limit in this case is $10.4 billion. No insurance company on the planet write unlimited insurance policy for anything.

Federal govt simply makes assurances to states & communities that they will be covered for anything beyond $10.4 billion.

To date it has cost taxpayers $0.00.

[jtrockville]

7. If damages were limited to $10.4 billion, we wouldn't need Price–Anderson Act

Damages caused by a nuclear plant could easily exceed $10.4 billion.

If private insurers won't assume the remaining risk, and nuclear plant owners can't/won't assume the remaining risk, why should I?

Why should I assume any risk unless I also share the profit?

Don't renew the Price-Anderson Act, let nuclear plant owners assume all the risks, then see who wants to build a nuclear plant.

[Statistical]

8. Damages as a result of 9/11 exceeded $1 trillion yet airlines only had $200 million in insurance.

No entity anywhere in the world is "fully" insured against worst case scenario.

How much liability insurance do you have for your car. You could run into a crosswalk full of kids and cause $100 million worth of damages. Do you have $100 million in liability insurance?

Insurance is structured around likely event not all possible events.

Let me know when you take the first step and insure you car's liability for $100 million. Let me know when the airlines are required to carry $1 trillion in insurance. Let me know when banks are required to have $3 trillion in economic damges insurance. Let me know when oil companies need $100 billion in insurance to drill offshore.

[jtrockville]

9. Let's stick to power plants, shall we?

No other power plant technology requires taxpayers to incur liability for risks. Not biomass, combined cycle, combustine turbine, geothermal, hydro, solar, tidal or wind. None of them. EXCEPT nuclear.

If they don't want to incur the risk, I don't want to incur the risk either.

[Statistical]

10. Yes they do.

If liabilities exceed insurance at any other power plant who do you think is the backstop.

Want to know the largest single loss of life in power industry...... a hydro electric plant.



230,000 people were killed and destroyed 6 million buildings when the damn failed.
No hydro electric damn in the US has adequate insurance to cover a worst case scenario.

Still why would you exclude 9/11. Damages are damages and 9/11 cost the US govt (and thus taxpayers) hundreds of billions of dollars because the airlines had insufficient insurance.

The reality is no industry is insured to worst case scenario.

If they don't want to incur the risk, I don't want to incur the risk either.
I don't want the risk of you doing $20 million damages and not paying it. I think your insurance should be raised to $20 million per vehicle. :) See how that works? See why P-A was needed?

You weren't worried about unfunded liability risk on hydro-electric damns but you were on nuclear power plants. This is based on a bias against one form of power and towards another. This is EXACTLY why P-A was needed.

[jtrockville]

11. Who wants to build a new hydro?

Let's face it: P-A isn't needed because of bias. It is needed because nuclear plants can incur catastrophic risks, for which the industry won't assume liability.

No bias needed. Any industry that won't assume its own risks shouldn't be able to pass that risk on to taxpayers, while in the same breath touting how safe they are.

[Statistical]

12. ALL INDUSTRY PASSES RISKS ON TO TAXPAYERS.

There isn't a single industry on the planet which has insurance to cover worst case event.

Hell YOU (and me and every single driver) don't have insurance to cover worst case event with your motor vehicle.

Airlines don't have sufficient insurance to pay for a 9/11.
Dozens of chemical companies have gone bankrupt over the years without making full restitution for asbestos claims which ran up into billions.

Hydroelectric power plants couldn't operate if required to insure to worst case scenario.
Oil companies don't have insurance to cover worst case scenario of their operations.

No you just want this special condition applied ONLY to nuclear power. Of all the industries on the planet only nuclear industry should be required to be insured against all eventualities no matter how remote.

Like I said once you have $20 million+ liability insurance on your motor vehicle and are not passing off risk onto other in a worst case scenario then we can take a look at MORE insurance for nuclear power plants (despite them being the most insured industry on the planet).

[jtrockville]

13. List the *power plant* technologies that need an act of congress

in order to pass the risks on to taxpayers.

This special condition is required *by Congress* (not me) of only one power plant technology (no, not hydro). It's due to the enormous risks associated with nuclear power but no other power plant technology.

If you can't name any other *power plant* technologies that require an act of congress to indemnify the owners, I'll assume the rest are much less risky, and should be considered before we even think about building nuclear power plants, even if the costs are higher (though none are), to avoid incurring enormous risks that even the industry itself isn't willing to incur.

[bananas]

2. k&r. nt

[Echo In Light]

4. Kick

[Echo In Light]

14. Kick

[Catherina]

15. K&R n/t

[amborin]

16. K&R

[highplainsdem]

17. K&R