Live data from Hacker News

Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

geekwire.com

341–350 of 353 posts

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The annual revenue alone of the worlds ten largest insurance companies is about 20 thousand billion USD [1]. This sector is prepared to cover larger risks than most governments - for a somewhat competitive profitable amount. I think you mean two thousand billion. Which is problematic since there are more than twenty nuclear power stations in the US (each of which would need to be insured), even if that wasn't reven…

Sorry right I did overcount that. But that is still 2 trillion USD - revenue per year. It establishes the scale of this sectors financial clout. Insurers payed out $135 billion USB in North America last year for natural disasters, and business is continuing as usual. Nuclear plants liability are capped in north america at 13 billion USD the nuclear industry is simply exempt from arranging full cover - unlike other in…

> Insurers payed out $135 billion USB in North America last year for natural disasters, and business is continuing as usual.

Because they expected to. If you take in $145B in premiums and pay out $135B in claims, everything is fine. If one year they took in $145B in premiums and paid out $235B in claims, where does the rest of the money come from?

In theory they could collect the premiums and accumulate them over time so that by the time there is a claim there is the money to pay it, but that allows you to pay a single claim of that size in year 50, what is covering it in year one?

> Nuclear plants liability are capped in north america at 13 billion USD the nuclear industry is simply exempt from arranging full cover - unlike other industries.

What other industries? I don't see oil and coal companies each having to be insured against claims for billions in damages from climate change. PG&E isn't covering the full liability from the camp fire, they're filing for bankruptcy.

> This statement > "which is problematic since there are more than twenty nuclear power stations in the US" shows a misunderstanding about the insurance business. It is not necessary to have assets to cover worst case events everywhere simultaneously. I expect you do understand that but have not given this subject your best attention.

That's assuming you can consider them all to be independent. The problem with very low probability events like this is that if they do happen the cause is often another very low probability event. You get something like the Yellowstone Supervolcano or a coordinated terrorist attack and all the claims come at the same time.

Or even at the same time as other types of claims -- you get damage to a nuclear plant or three from a ten thousand year storm or an 8.5 magnitude earthquake and now you're paying that claim on top of the disaster claims from what caused it. Insurance companies want to pool risk, not assume 100% of the damages from a massive disaster with a single dependent cause.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#342
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing is ever free of a potential for trouble. Solar panel could fall from the roof and hit someone over the head, and I'm sure that happened already, but nobody makes a huge deal out of it. Nuclear incidents are made huge deal of. It's a fight between Jane Fonda and Edward Teller, and Fonda is winning because a movie actress is apparently more trustworthy in a questions of nuclear energy than actual nuclear physic…

Sure, but a very bad nuclear incident (accidental or not) could more or less kill millions of people pretty quickly. Obviously hydrocarbons will kill more than that, but the optics of a nuclear catastrophe are in my opinion far worse than global warming which to many people is pretty abstract.

For killing millions of people quickly, you'd have to use a thermonuclear bomb (Hiroshima bomb killed about 100K people over the period of several months). No nuclear accident has ever happened that done anything like that. Chernobyl accident - where a lot of things went very wrong - killed about 40-50 people. Fukushima Daiichi incident so far has one known victim. To kill millions "pretty quickly", something very extra-ordinary - and probably impossible with current nuclear station designs - should happen, to the term of explosion of most powerful military device purposely built for mass destruction. In other words, you'd have to put an actual hydrogen bomb there - by which time, where you put it is less important.

Don't get me wrong - there are dangers in nuclear energetics. And the long-term effects of radiation incidents are still hotly debated. But as you just demonstrated, the dangers are way overestimated in public imagination and discourse. You use as an argument an imaginable incident that is at least five orders of magnitude worse than any accident that ever happened, and that is pretty much impossible given current technology, and are comparing it to very real dangers of the alternatives.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry right I did overcount that. But that is still 2 trillion USD - revenue per year. It establishes the scale of this sectors financial clout. Insurers payed out $135 billion USB in North America last year for natural disasters, and business is continuing as usual. Nuclear plants liability are capped in north america at 13 billion USD the nuclear industry is simply exempt from arranging full cover - unlike other in…

> Insurers payed out $135 billion USB in North America last year for natural disasters, and business is continuing as usual. Because they expected to. If you take in $145B in premiums and pay out $135B in claims, everything is fine. If one year they took in $145B in premiums and paid out $235B in claims, where does the rest of the money come from? In theory they could collect the premiums and accumulate them over tim…

All industries need to arrange cover for accidents (this should not be news in an argument about industrial insurance and liabilities). Some companies are big enough to hold their own funds, for example Shell has payed out $20 billion in settlements for the Deepwater horizon accident. That is more than the $13 billion dollar fund arranged to spend in the event of nuclear accidents in the whole of the US.

The idea of holding oil companies liable for climate change has a ring to it, but insurance wont cover it because there is no legal precedent. There is legal precedent to claiming damages on industrial accidents and nuclear industry accidents. If one nuclear plant fails badly for any number of reasons and fallout is blown towards a city or across valuable farmland, the claims could easily exceed 13 billion USD.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#344
post #44

I'm pro-nuclear fission (full disclosure, I work on fusion related research, but I don't care about who wins more than I want society to win), but I think talking to any random person in the public who are already skeptical about fusion, to them fission has not had a great track record. Make as many arguments you want to make about fukushima facing a natural disaster, w/e, and how the field has advanced since three-m…

The public opinion isn’t skeptical of nuclear. They assume nuclear is some white hole of cancer that’s going to kill them and everyone around the plant or uses its power. It kills people, makes them turn green, and grow a third eye/flippers. It’s prejudice.

It's also a prejudice not shared by people who live near reactors, who tend to be better informed and have much more positive opinions.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Insurers payed out $135 billion USB in North America last year for natural disasters, and business is continuing as usual. Because they expected to. If you take in $145B in premiums and pay out $135B in claims, everything is fine. If one year they took in $145B in premiums and paid out $235B in claims, where does the rest of the money come from? In theory they could collect the premiums and accumulate them over tim…

All industries need to arrange cover for accidents (this should not be news in an argument about industrial insurance and liabilities). Some companies are big enough to hold their own funds, for example Shell has payed out $20 billion in settlements for the Deepwater horizon accident. That is more than the $13 billion dollar fund arranged to spend in the event of nuclear accidents in the whole of the US. The idea of…

> All industries need to arrange cover for accidents (this should not be news in an argument about industrial insurance and liabilities).

Rarely in the amount of the theoretical maximum amount of damage they could possibly do. In practice when a company has more liability than insurance coverage, they end up in bankruptcy and it's the insurance policies of the victims that end up paying out, or some kind of government assistance. This is especially true for very rare and very large claims, because nobody really carries that much insurance.

For example, Boeing no doubt has insurance, but their worst case failure mode is something like the hypothesized worst-case scenarios for the Y2K or Y2038 bug where some integer rolls over and every plane they've ever made crashes into the ground at the same time. There is no way they have enough insurance to cover that -- it would be a trillion dollars. But neither do we expect them to, because it's very unlikely even though it could theoretically actually happen.

The same kind of thing could happen to a major auto company, or really any company that runs the same software on a million different pieces of industrial hardware. A company could sell a million pacemakers and have them all fail at once, or elevators, or emergency dispatch equipment. None of them are insured for that amount of liability.

The oil companies are rare in the sense of having extremely deep pockets, enough to cover a major claim like that on their own, but they're about the only instance of that. And even they would be completely bankrupt if the courts ever start allowing claims against them for the damage from climate change.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure about that. Gamma radiation is one thing, getting a bunch of alpha and beta emitters more or less permanently stuck in your body, is another.

> I'm not so sure about that. Gamma radiation is one thing, getting a bunch of alpha and beta emitters more or less permanently stuck in your body, is another. About the only practical way to do that is to eat them, at which point you're in the same category as any other adulterated food. How is caesium any scarier than prions or mercury or various pesticides or a thousand different chemical carcinogens?

Or getting fallout raining on you? Or eating stuff that's been growing in fallout rain. Or eating meat from livestock grazing on polluted areas. I don't know, but I thought Chernobyl was pretty damn scary when it happened. Iodine supplemented in table salt as a prophylactic. Pretty grim stuff when you think about it and lived in the Cold War. It scared me.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#347
post #200

As a temporary measure, why don't we use renewables with a fallback to fossil fuels? During the day, solar could meet demand and at night, we use coal/gas/whatever.

I think there's a lot of inefficiency in only operating coal plants during some times of day. That was one of the major complaints that utilities in California used for crediting users with residential solar for their power generation. It wasn't actually worth the market rate to the utility if they had to run the plant anyways. I don't have any independent data on this, unfortunately.

There are interesting initiatives around the country to curb peaks in usage, however. For example, my parents are signed up for a service where they collect bill credits as they minimize power usage during a pre-announced hour of the week which exceeds normal capacity and would require dirtier and more expensive power plants to operate.

https://www.ohmconnect.com/

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The energy storage problem isn’t solved for current generation renewables as far as I know. Laying out a ton of solar panels everywhere is great but if we have rolling blackouts when it’s too cloudy for a while people will be very upset.

Given that Costa Rica, Uruguay, Iceland, Norway, Paraguay, and Tajikistan already run on 100% renewables (and Tokelau runs on 100% solar + batteries): I would judge this to be extremely solved.

I believe this is incorrect, at least according to this source I found: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.FEC.RNEW.ZS?year_hig...

You may be mistaking energy production with energy consumption. However, I'm not entirely sure what qualifies as "energy" in the list that I found. If we mean only electricity, then I believe some of these countries are still less than 100% run on renewables.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that Costa Rica, Uruguay, Iceland, Norway, Paraguay, and Tajikistan already run on 100% renewables (and Tokelau runs on 100% solar + batteries): I would judge this to be extremely solved.

I believe this is incorrect, at least according to this source I found: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.FEC.RNEW.ZS?year_hig... You may be mistaking energy production with energy consumption. However, I'm not entirely sure what qualifies as "energy" in the list that I found. If we mean only electricity, then I believe some of these countries are still less than 100% run on renewables.

Your data is from 2015.

There are plenty of sources illustrating that things have changed in that time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay#Green_energy_supply

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is incorrect, at least according to this source I found: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.FEC.RNEW.ZS?year_hig... You may be mistaking energy production with energy consumption. However, I'm not entirely sure what qualifies as "energy" in the list that I found. If we mean only electricity, then I believe some of these countries are still less than 100% run on renewables.

Your data is from 2015. There are plenty of sources illustrating that things have changed in that time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay#Green_energy_supply

Providing evidence that is speculative for one country is a far cry from the evidence needed to support a definitive statement about several countries, particularly when I provided a source that strongly suggests something to the contrary. I doubt every country on that list completely halted the use of non-renewables in the last 3-4 years given that use was in the double digits in many cases.
Post reply on HN