And you can mathematically prove that no possible future disaster could possibly affect a larger area?
No? Okay, my point stands. I simply don't care about probability-weighted outcomes there.
No? Okay, my point stands. I simply don't care about probability-weighted outcomes there.
Saying you "don't care about probability-weighted outcomes" means you aren't willing to objectively value nuclear power. Why not? Why are you afraid of nuclear power?
The point this article makes is that nuclear power is an incredibly safe technology, and the concerns about it are exaggerated.
Total economic loss estimates for the Fukushima meltdown are 250-500 bn USD[1]. And if the wind had been slightly different those numbers would be a lot higher, as Tokyo real estate would be affected.
And that insurance should also cover human error, terrorism, natural disasters. Won't be cheap is my guess.
Which brings us to the biggest myth of all, that nuclear power is cheap when you don't externalise so many costs.
[1] http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-heal...
It's a thought experiment to show what replacing wishful thinking with a tiny amount of objectivity would look like. OP was talking about expectation value of damages etc. Insurers are companies that deal with these sorts of things professionally.
The economic damages of Fukushima and Chernobyl are real and gigantic. It would be foolish to ignore them.
We're not charging a carbon tax on coal plants. We're not charging drivers for the air pollution they cause in cities. If you believe the WHO when they say 7 million people die prematurely from air pollution, are you going to start making air-polluters pay for that? (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollut...) Are you insuring dams against the floods they would cause if they break?
It'd be great to do those things, but it's unreasonable to unfairly punish nuclear when you're not willing to charge other power plant technology for their expected negative externalities.
If you're going to start enacting "reasonable taxes" on negative externalities, start by getting us off of dirty energy, not by preventing us from using reusable energy.
Thankfully there are only a few more years until wind & solar will have solved this once and for all by being cheaper, externalities considered or not.
If you aren't accurately considering the environmental damage of oil/coal/gas, then you can't say they're superior to nuclear just because you are considering its negatives.
I agree -- I look forward to a future of clean renewables, but even still wind and solar are inconsistent. Our storage systems aren't good enough to "just use batteries."[1]
We need a dependable, renewable form of energy that can bridge the gap for 80 years until our storage is good enough.