 |
| |
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
As Dauphin mentioned, there is such a thing as reinsurance. If you spread the risk across the entire insurance industry, and charge enough premium, it's fine. So it's not so much about the potential cost, it's about whether or not you can accurately predict the potential cost, and then set rates so you can make a profit.
Some things are just considered too unpredictable to be insurable. There is enough data on, say, auto accidents for the industry to be able to figure out what rates to charge for the policies (and hell, even then insurers **** up and go bust all the time).
-Arrian |
The hurrcame that hit Florade in 1992 bankrupy from insurance and reinsurance compies include some of the larger one in the bussien. They have to payout in total over 25 billion dollar in claim.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:36
|
|
Its a three-tiered (insurers, operators, government) public-private insurance system. Point is that while private operators pay some liability (thorugh insurance or contribution), they do not pay the full amount, so it is a subsidy.
quote:
Consider the following statements from the 1956 and 1957 hearings on the then-proposed Price-Anderson amendment. A vice president of Westinghouse, Charles Weaver, stated: "Obviously we cannot risk the financial stability of our company for a relatively small project no matter how important it is to the country's reactor development effort, if it could result in a major liability in relation to our assets."[8]
In further testimony Weaver indicated that even Westinghouse's suppliers were unwilling to go ahead with the contract unless Westinghouse agreed to indemnify them against risks.[9] General Electric also indicated during the hearings that it was prepared to halt its work in the nuclear industry should a limitation on liability not be passed.[10] Suppliers of reactor shields also indicated their unwillingness "to undertake contracts in this field without being relieved of uninsurable liability in some way."[11] |
SOURCE
quote:
Price-Anderson sets up two tiers of insurance. Each utility is required to maintain the maximum amount of coverage available from the private insurance industry - currently $200 million per reactor. If claims following an accident exceed that amount, all nuclear operators must pay up to $88 million for each reactor they operate. As of August 1998, Price-Anderson capped insurance coverage for any nuclear accident at $9.43 billion |
SOURCE
edits: for clarity
Last edited by Adam Smith on 28-05-2004 at 02:02
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VJ
[Joe Sixpack]
With the present amount of consumption, we'll run out of it in about 200 years. Not a real threat considering that we'll have plenty of time to develope other energy sources, but drastical boost in uranium consumption (that is very drastical, as in over quadrupling it) is out of the question. 10% increases in nuclear-based energy producing would be welcome, however, to lessen the amount of coal burning and to spare oil reserves.
[/Joe Sixpack] |
Saudi Arabia will benfit from solar power sat that bean power down to than ground station use MASER which are alot like LASER but use micro-wave with a huge reciever pannel in a area with little life like a desert to act as than main power supplies to Eupore and Asia. They have than area call the empty Quater which never get rain at all, very little planet life and animal life and no person live there. Temp reach 160 degree Fath in the
shade temp in the sun over 200 degree fath.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by East Street Trader
The de-commissioning costs for nuclear power stations are so very large I cannot believe the power produced can be comparable in price.
If you leave ecological damage out of account.
If you count it in, then it gets beyond me to balance off all the factors as regards nuclear plants.
Fossil fuels, though, have plainly got to go. Only, I think, the USA clings to the hope that fossil fuels can continue to be burned up in vast quantities with impunity.
They elect weak politicians without the strength of character or mind to lead. So the "leaders" are led by their fear of what they think will be unpopular with the electorate. |
the actualy cost per MW is a lot cheaper though
just start up costs and closing costs are more expensice
I beleive that the overall economics between the two, with modern reactors, is that they are roughly the same
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
Fusion power is another pie in the sky project which they have than very hard time getting to work. First you need to reach than temp above 100 million degree cel to get electic power from fusion hydrogen atoms. How to you protect the walls of the fusion chamber from turning into gases by the heat generate. Well magnet walls can be use. In exper they got the fusion chamber to generate alittle surplus power before the magnetic wall collspce on then and the fusion reaction stop because the tempurate went below than critical point. They where working on fusion power since the 1950's.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-05-2004 01:45
|
|