Ontario's power glut means possible nuclear plant shutdowns

[FBaggins]

42. More nonsense of course.

The anti-nuke true believers have lots of different faux "subsidies" that they claim to artificially boost the perceived cost of nuclear. So PamW credited you with the wrong one? Big deal. It doesn't change the fact that the number you were imagining was still a phony figure. You've previously tried other variations on the theme (such as claiming that a penalty on carbon emissions in power plants also counts as a nuclear subsidy).

Here's a scenario followed by a simple question - try hard not to dodge (don't worry... I'm not holding my breath):



Kristopher is driving down the highway south of D.C. when he spots a large tanker truck with a hazmat sign. The driver of the truck is driving safely and the truck is in good condition, but an odd latch failure caused the class 6 hazmat sign to read as if it's class 7 (radioactive). Poor Kris snaps and, thinking it's a truck heading to fuel some reactor, runs it off the road into oncoming traffic, where two heavily loaded trucks swerve to avoid it and make matters worse. The heavy trucks strike key supports on the overpass above (another major highway) and the resulting impact and fire damage causes the highway to collapse and a couple flyovers to need replacement. The chemicals in the hazmat truck spread rapidly with the smoke and scores of people are killed while hundreds are sent to the hospital and tens of thousands are evacuated from the surrounding area. The economic damage climbs into the billions (not counting loss of life) as highway traffic is backed up for months, decontamination of the surrounding countryside is performed, and businesses struggle to recover.

So here's the question in two parts: The amount of auto insurance you carry is regulated. Who ends up paying for the rest of the cleanup and how much of a subsidy is the government giving you by not requiring you to carry billions of dollars in insurance as a prerequisite of obtaining a driver's license?

Note - I have no idea whether hazmat might be banned from the 95/495 interchange. Of course that's irrelevant. The point is that it's easy to think of a scenario where you can do FAR more damage than your insurance will cover. No person (and no company) is required to carry insurance equal to the largest possible damage someone can imagine. "Scoring" an insurance mandate as if not only should one particular type of company should be required to carry that much and anything else is a "subsidy" is ridiculous in the extreme.