"Germany's tax on nuclear fuel was designed 'to siphon off the profits of the nuclear power plant operators', judges in Hamburg have ruled. The tax exceeds government competence and contradicts the country's constitution".
Well, that is surprising, for a government is it not? Erm no its not. I seem to recall the reason in this country why a lot of companies eventually did not embrace nuclear was due to the costs involved which mainly were a tax from Government, disguised as a cost of decommisioning levy or some such tosh. Brian
And massive liability insurance for an accident that will never happen.
If it would never happen, the premium would be zero ?
IIRC, when our nuclear power industry was in private hands (British Energy), Gordon Brown (that highly competent chancellor without whom we wouldn't be where we are now), decided that they should pay the climate change levy, alongside coal. The resulting increased cost of nuclear electricity made it the most expensive form of electricity, and as no one wanted to buy the stuff, it effectively tipped them from profitability into loss. The govt had to take them over, as the country couldn't survive without them, eventually selling them off to the French. What a fiasco! No wonder we are where we are.
See
good idea ...
"What do you think of UK energy policy ?"
"That it would be a good idea."
Except that if you let them operate without any liability they will operate shoddily and the chances of one happening will increase substantially
tim
You haven't worked for insurance companies then have you?
well no, they don't operate that way - we have a nuclear regulator that is capable of and does, fine them. And is, in the limit, able to remove their operating licenses.
Would insurance have prevented Fukushima? No. would lack of insurance make it more likely? No.
Would a better equipped nuclear regulator with an eye to the very real risks of tsunami have lessened or eliminated the chance of it happening? yes.
Have the world's reactors become safer as a result of nuclear regulators insisting on better diversity of SCRAM cooling in reactors in emergency conditions? Too bloody right.
How many people died as a result of Fukushima's release of radiation? None. How many people will die? None What is the total death count due to the *tsunami* at Fukushima nuclear plant? Three. What is the total death count of the Japanese tsunami? around 20,000. Do you think that forcing all the coastal towns in Japan to take out insurance against a tsunami would in general have made them safer places to live ESPECIALLY if the insurance bore no relation to the amount of flood defences they might, or might not, have erected?
Yet Nick Cleggs argument is that there must be a total clean up insurance fund available for an accident that MIGHT happen, although he doesn't say HOW it might happen, to a plant in tsunami free UK, based on a single event in Japan whose impact was far far greater than the piffling amount of radioactivity actually released and whose clean up will is nothing compared with et costs of rebui8lding the rest of Japan's coastal regions.
It is pure anti nuclear politics. It is not rational.
My understanding is that it was the replacement of the "Pool" with the "New Electricity Trading Arrangements" or NETA which was the real nail in the coffin for British Energy's finances. And it was perfectly obvious to anyone who knew anything about these that BE would take a big "hit" when they were introduced, until the market re-balanced itself.
The Pool trading arrangements set up for privatisation in 1990 were certainly favourable, in some aspects, to the Nuclear Plant and made it easier for them to operate at Base Load, thus avoiding the stress cycles which plant experiences when it is forced to stop and start, or to load-follow.
You can't have it both ways. As the chances of something happening approach zero, the cost to an insure also approaches zero. Although there is a fiddle factor related to the cost of exposure.
However you stated "never". Not "rarely", not "unlikely". If something can never happen there's no need for insurance.
By the way, I'm still massively pro-nuclear. But I don't think you need to juke the stats to sell it - leave that to the Greenies and wind power.
Very well written!
Too bad that you have no grandchildren. Wade Allison has grandchildren and want them to live in a world that has nuclear energy. And he is not a climate denialist:
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.