Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's my understanding governments have considered light-touch regulation of nuclear safety with the policy "any nuclear power plant that can get insurance to cover a $100 billion+ meltdown cost can be built" and the result is nobody can provide such insurance, so no plants get built.



From an actuarial standpoint, I wouldn't go near nuclear with a 10' pole either. Simply because the population size is too small.

In the same way I wouldn't offer SR-71 insurance.

That feels like a dodge on the part of regulators.


There's an actual actuarial analysis online somewhere, though I can't remember if it's in German, and the problem is not population size, but a nearly unbounded risk. Take a look at Fukushima and think about what would have happened in terms of cost had the wind blown in another direction.


Maybe this?

https://www.versicherungsforen.at/portal/media/forschung/stu...

Thanks for the pointer! Will be an interesting read.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: