Should nuclear liability limits be removed. Yes
Arguing in favor of unlimited liability in the event of a nuclear accident, the author cites a mathematical probability of a core meltdown in the US as 45% during the next 20 years. The liability insurance carried by the nuclear industry is less than for large hotels and industrial parks, and is only a small fraction of the potential costs of damage and compensation. If nuclear technology is safe, limits are not needed. If liability is limited, it removes the incentive to improve safety and sends inaccurate price signals to utilities choosing among competing technologies. There is also the ethical aspect of shifting liability costs from ratepayers and stockholders to accident victims and general taxpayers. There are other ways to finance nuclear risks, such as a sinking fund, the removal of the nuclear exclusion in property insurance policies, and annual retrospective assessments per reactors.
- Research Organization:
- Clallum County PUD, Port Angeles, WA
- OSTI ID:
- 5119237
- Journal Information:
- Public Power; (United States), Vol. 43:5
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Oil pollution caused by tanker accidents: liability versus regulation
Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act. House of Representatives, Ninety-Eighth Congress, First Session
Related Subjects
29 ENERGY PLANNING
POLICY AND ECONOMY
NUCLEAR INSURANCE
FINANCING
PUBLIC POLICY
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
REACTOR ACCIDENTS
PRICE-ANDERSON ACT
ETHICAL ASPECTS
LIABILITIES
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
VICTIMS COMPENSATION
ACCIDENTS
INDUSTRY
INSURANCE
LAWS
NUCLEAR FACILITIES
POWER PLANTS
THERMAL POWER PLANTS
220901* - Nuclear Reactor Technology- Reactor Safety- Accident Liability
290600 - Energy Planning & Policy- Nuclear Energy