RussellMc wrote:
>> We don't need more regulation or oversight, we need more direct
>> responsibility. Private ownership combined with unlimited liability
>> (regardless of the cause of the accident),
>
> Sounds good. Unlimited liability from day zero - when you do the
> costing and cost benefit assessment using all true level-playing-field
> costs.

Let me ask you Russell, have you read Cohen's book? My intent is not to=20
throw the book at you to end the argument. Rather, I think that "The Nuclea=
r=20
Power Option" is key to understanding the arguments of proponents of nuclea=
r=20
power, and I think it should be required reading for anyone who wants to=20
have a serious debate on the topic. You wouldn't debate an economist if you=
=20
aren't familiar with "The Wealth of Nations", or a Marxist if you haven't=20
read "The Communist Manifesto".

IIRC I made an offer to send you a free hard copy of the book. The offer=20
still stands (I would love the chance to win you over). But at the very=20
least, please read this chapter, it is only a few pages long:

COSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS - WHAT WENT WRONG?
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

To answer your question directly, in a free market economy where nuclear=20
wasn't suffocating under the burden of overregulation, insurance companies=
=20
would step up and cover the nuclear plants, or post bonds on their behalf.=
=20
And if the cost of insurance turned out to be prohibitive, that of course=20
would mean that the risk is not worth the benefits and we shouldn't build=20
any nuclear plants. The fact is of course, that nuclear power has a safety=
=20
record and environmental impact that are better than those of many other=20
industries.


> A second barrier is closely tied to the first. To obtain anything like
> adequate safety private sector insurers are going to require proper
> safegauards, proper systems, proper standards, proper procedures,
> proper checks and balances, and power of firing squad over miscreants
> - this being about the only way to stop people doing the sort of
> things that peoploe will do for a profit. After people who have a
> vested $ interest in such things get done you may well be begging for
> the return of the FDAOSHAEPAFCC "czars". Czar is just a rude way of
> saying you don't like their face. Private insurer czars are unlikely
> to have prettier faces.

Not at all. I don't like government czars because their incentives are=20
wrong, and their actions are therefore harmful to society. They don't have=
=20
any skin in the game. They are not interested in making sure that the safet=
y=20
measures are cost effective, and ultimately they are not held criminally or=
=20
financially responsible when disaster strikes. Cohen:

"Thus, regulatory ratcheting, quite aside from the effects of inflation,=20
quadrupled the cost of a nuclear power plant. What has all this bought in=20
the way of safety? One point of view often expressed privately by those=20
involved in design and construction is that it has bought nothing. A nuclea=
r=20
power plant is a very complex system, and adding to its complexity involves=
=20
a risk in its own right. If there are more pipes, there are more ways to=20
have pipe breaks, which are one of the most dangerous failures in reactors.=
=20
With more complexity in electrical wiring, the chance for a short circuit o=
r=20
for an error in hook-ups increases, and there is less chance for such an=20
error to be discovered."

"Regulatory ratcheting" means that while new regulations are constantly=20
added, old ones are never discarded, even if they are counter-productive.

A private insurance company working with a private nuclear power plant woul=
d=20
ensure that the money is spent where it has the most impact. The insurer ha=
s=20
a direct interest in lowering its risk, while the nuclear plant is very=20
interested in lowering its costs. The insurer wants the nuclear plant to=20
increase the safety of the plant, while the plant wants the insurer to=20
reduce the insurance premiums. This arrangement ensures an optimal outcome,=
=20
not possible through regulation.


>>  would provide the proper
>> incentives to locate, design, build, protect, and operate the power plan=
t=20
>> in
>> the safest possible manner.
>
> as defined by the unlimited-liability insurers.

Yes, which also happens to be the best available definition.


> And get us electricity almost too cheap to
>> meter. :)
>
> Good 1950's turn of phrase. No reason to think it's realistic - quite
> possibly power that's cheaper if all goes optimally (but even that's
> not certain). But the too cheap to meter line was sales hyperbole and
> not intended to reflect any knowable reality.

Yes, if you mean the "knowable *political* reality".

The irony of the situation is that nuclear successfully competes with fossi=
l=20
fuels in France.

Vitaliy=20

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.