Ontario's power glut means possible nuclear plant shutdowns

[PamW]

66. Fuzzy math again

Fuzzy math again.

Of course what Kris and his anti-nuclear source have done is to take a large area around a plant.

The Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant is about 45 miles from DC and about 60 miles from Baltimore.
They then ignore that fact that consequences drop off as distance from the plant increases.
In doing so, they have unrealistically postulated an overly large population at risk, which of course
dilutes the coverage.

They also refer to what Calvert Cliff's share of the payment is. Is that at all pertinent? The Price-Anderson coverage has ALL nuclear power plants "chipping in" to cover the cost of an accident at one. Since we have about 100 reactors, with all operators chipping in equally; then the percentage that is paid by the one operator that had the accident will be 1% Why is that a big deal? Who cares what Baltimore Edison's share will be - as long as we have this large pool of insurance.

Would you like it better if only Baltimore Edison had to pay in case of an accident? The company could declare bankruptcy and leave claims unsettled. Do you think that would be better? Clearly it is an ADVANTAGE to have ALL of the operators chipping in, but Kris and his source are belittling that feature of the Price-Anderson coverage.

Price-Anderson also stipulates that Congress can up the amount that the nuclear operators have to chip in, if the original limits are exceeded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government.

PamW