Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
65. Glad you brought that up
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 09:55 PM
Feb 2012
USC 2010 subsidies report by Doug Koplow
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

6.1.2. Mandated Liability Coverage Is Small Relative to Potential Damages
Price-Anderson mandates two tiers of coverage for nuclear reactors. The first is a conventional liability insurance policy that provides $375 million in primary coverage per reactor. As of 2008 (with somewhat lower coverage levels than now in effect), the average annual premium for a single-unit reactor site was $400,000; the premiums for a second or third reactor at the same site are discount- ed to reflect a sharing of limits (NRC 2008a). While coverage has increased incrementally over time, these increases are small: on an inflation-adjusted basis, coverage is less than 10 percent higher than the $60 million in primary insurance required under the original act 50 years ago. The lack of useful actuarial data may have justified lower-than-appro- priate limits in the 1950s. However, improved data since that time, as well as the greater sophistication of insurance underwriting, should result in primary insurance policies that are substantially larger than today’s Price-Anderson requirements.

A second tier of coverage under Price-Anderson involves retrospective premiums paid into a common pool by every reactor if any reactor in the country experiences an accident with damages exceeding the primary insurance cap. The retrospective premiums have a gross value of $111.9 million available for damages, with an optional 5 percent surcharge available for legal costs only (bringing the combined total to $117.5 million) (ANI 2010, Holt 2010). Retrospective premium payments are capped at $17.5 million per year per reactor and thus can take seven years or more to be paid in full. Some additional coverage is avail- able via the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act: if the president declares a nuclear accident an emergency or major disaster, disaster relief could flow to first responders. Stafford Act funds would also come from taxpayers, and thus would be subsidies as well.

...

A simple evaluation of coverage per person, should an accident occur at a reactor located close to a population center, helps to illustrate this point. Table 21 uses as an example a reactor at Calvert Cliffs, located near Washington, DC, and Baltimore, MD. Available coverage, including pooled premiums from all other reactors (as stipu- lated under Price-Anderson), barely tops $1,100 per person in the Baltimore/Washington combined statistical area. This small amount would need to cover not only loss of property from an accident but also morbidity or mortality. The portion paid by Calvert Cliffs to cover the off-site accident risk from its own operations (Tier 1 coverage plus its share of Tier 2) would be a mere $60 per person affected. While the extent of the injuries would vary with the specifics of an accident, the weather at the time, and patterns of local settlement and construction, for a metropolitan area of this size it is clear that the coverage provided by Price-Anderson is not large.
pg 77, 80

Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

They talk like this is a problem Demeter Feb 2012 #1
"...step in to prop them up with artificially high prices on the electricity they produce." Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #2
The price for electricity from renewable generation are declining kristopher Feb 2012 #3
So, you're still not addressing the actual energy produced, then? Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #4
FUZZY MATH!!! PamW Feb 2012 #5
If nuclear bad is so bad, why do its opponents need to engage in this type of activity?? FBaggins Feb 2012 #6
So you are claiming that civilian nuclear reactors are not based on military research? kristopher Feb 2012 #7
Does a civilian reactor, or a military material prep reactor crank out a completed W88 warhead pit? AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #8
Your desperation is showing kristopher Feb 2012 #9
That is a more reasonable statement. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #10
Military spending was not included in the 1% kristopher Feb 2012 #12
That is quite a lot more budget than I would have guessed. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #15
Price-Anderson again PamW Feb 2012 #23
Interesting analogy Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #11
Gingrich is going to build us a moonbase XemaSab Feb 2012 #17
AND HYDROGEN HYPERCARS FOR ALL! Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #24
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! PamW Feb 2012 #22
Do you know where nuclear weapons "pits" came from? PamW Feb 2012 #20
Yes, I'm aware of this. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #21
WRONG Location!! PamW Feb 2012 #30
Not wrong. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #31
You said Pantex was in Paducah PamW Feb 2012 #32
Yes, I'm sure the Department of Energy doesn't know where the fuck this plant is. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #33
The only disagreement.... PamW Feb 2012 #34
It is irrelevant since your assertion of fact in post #5 was, yet again, false. kristopher Feb 2012 #38
BALONEY!!!! PamW Feb 2012 #39
Your reasoning is faulty and self serving kristopher Feb 2012 #41
More nonsense of course. FBaggins Feb 2012 #42
What competitive advantage does the liability cap give over alternative distribution systems? kristopher Feb 2012 #43
None to speak of FBaggins Feb 2012 #44
That was the answer - your trucking example isn't an accurate parallel kristopher Feb 2012 #45
The accident was your fault... not the hazmat truck. FBaggins Feb 2012 #47
It is still the same thing - "competitive advantage" kristopher Feb 2012 #49
None. FBaggins Feb 2012 #51
That isn't accurate - "avoided costs" kristopher Feb 2012 #52
In order to be an "avoided" cost it first must be a cost that would otherwise be paid. FBaggins Feb 2012 #56
If your statement is true then why does the nuclear industry LOVE the Price Anderson Act? kristopher Feb 2012 #58
Next question (while you're dodging the first one). FBaggins Feb 2012 #46
Why don't you just lay out the information you think is relevant kristopher Feb 2012 #48
The argument was made clearly... your avoidance is equally clear. FBaggins Feb 2012 #50
In other words you have no data, just your usual hyperbole. kristopher Feb 2012 #53
Still avoiding? Very well... next question. FBaggins Feb 2012 #57
Externalized costs are not the same as a subsidy kristopher Feb 2012 #59
Renewables have to be subsidized... PamW Feb 2012 #63
Costs for renewables are declining, costs for nuclear are rising. kristopher Feb 2012 #64
The argument has no data to support it. See post 58 kristopher Feb 2012 #60
At least nuclear power has the Brookhaven study... PamW Feb 2012 #62
Glad you brought that up kristopher Feb 2012 #65
Fuzzy math again PamW Feb 2012 #66
Nope kristopher Feb 2012 #67
I've told you before.. PamW Feb 2012 #68
I don't care what you accept. kristopher Feb 2012 #69
Then you will never convince me. PamW Feb 2012 #70
Pam you make things up out of whole cloth and... kristopher Feb 2012 #71
Sure - I'd like the links PamW Feb 2012 #72
GLADLY!!! PamW Feb 2012 #19
Continuing... PamW Feb 2012 #35
All of the replies to the OP are totally off point kristopher Feb 2012 #13
Or, that too much renewable energy without storage will fuck your grid Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #14
Not the same thing at all. kristopher Feb 2012 #16
. XemaSab Feb 2012 #18
S'alright Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #25
Perhaps the beer is why you don't grasp why you're wrong about the nature of the issue. kristopher Feb 2012 #26
Yes, they are. Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #27
The renewables produce what they produce kristopher Feb 2012 #28
Yes kris, they do produce what they produce... Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #29
The nuclear plants have to shut down because they can't sell their electricity kristopher Feb 2012 #36
Post removed Post removed Feb 2012 #37
That's a bunch of smelly bovine byproducts... and you well know it. FBaggins Feb 2012 #40
So you are objecting to the paper using "shut down" instead of "shut off"? kristopher Feb 2012 #54
??? Pretty wild spin there. FBaggins Feb 2012 #55
Wind always sells their output kristopher Feb 2012 #61
kick kristopher Feb 2012 #73
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Ontario's power glut mean...»Reply #65