Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Yucca Mtn transport issues



At 14:40 -0700 8/1/02, John Barrer wrote:

Frankly, for me that's always been the real
sticking point about nuclear power plants. If
operating (and the emphasis here is on "operating" as
opposed to "as designed") nuclear plants have as
little risk as their proponents claim, why is a
liability exemption still necessary? Why are potential
damages caused by these plants for all practical
purposes uninsurable when the insurance industry (I
believe) still writes liability policies for other
generating plants as well as chemical plants. Since
insurance companies don't make money if they don't
write policies, isn't there a "market judgement" here
on the safety of nuclear power? Please point out the
faulty logic here.

That has bothered me, too. I am an advocate of properly designed and
run nuclear plants, and I want them to be built. If the insurance
industry refuses to carry them (and I suspect that it is out of
ignorance, coupled with an inability to calculate what the damages
might be), I see no alternative but for the government to step in and
provide the insurance. The exemption from liability I cannot agree
to. But government underwritten insurance is not unprecedented. They
already do it for floods and hurricanes in highly flood and hurricane
prone areas, and if earthquakes were more common, they probably would
do that, too. By the way, most insurance companies won't give
earthquake coverage to large buildings along the west coast. Just
before the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 (?), Stanford Univ. had its
earthquake insurance cancelled (I wonder if the insurance company had
hired Jean Dixon?), and so they had to eat the $100M in damages that
they suffered.

I think a fair solution would be for the government to underwrite the
coverage and charge the nuclear companies reasonable rates. I'm not
sure how this would work out, but I don't like the idea of limiting
the industry liability any more than I like limiting physician's
liability for malpractice. Knowing that they will be liable for
damages if they screw up, should be at least some incentive to run
the plants right.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because they
have to..
******************************************************