On January 28, 1975, a worker at the Dresden Unit 2 in Illinois noticed a hairline crack in the emergency core cooling unit. The crack was so small that it did not leak any moisture. If it had leaked, the automatic monitors would have detected it. If the leak was large, the plant would have been shut down.
This kind of insanity is exactly why the government should be removed from all regulatory oversight. They assume that people are too stupid or reckless to look at the risks and benefits involved with any undertaking. That has not been my experience. And if the risks taken by any organization are too great (by a reasonable standard) to insure the safety of the general public, then and only then the government can step in and put a stop to it. But they would then be required to prove their case in court just like any citizen who takes a self-defensive action that causes harm. If such a standard were in place, we would have just about everything powered by nuclear engines because it far and away makes the most sense efficiency-wise, and cost-wise while affecting the environment the least. When you look hard at any 'problem' we have, it is my experience that it always traces back to the government causing it.
Could insurance policies include the cost of outages should they decide an immediate shutdown is called for? How do insurance policies in other industries treat loss of revenue in the event of a needed repair?
Interesting thought. I guess the short answer is: loss of revenue insurance is possible if there is a willing buyer and seller. But for our tankers we never found such insurance attractive.
Proposing competition for the government? Careful, they might just send the IRS to your door unannounced to make sure you get the message...
This kind of insanity is exactly why the government should be removed from all regulatory oversight. They assume that people are too stupid or reckless to look at the risks and benefits involved with any undertaking. That has not been my experience. And if the risks taken by any organization are too great (by a reasonable standard) to insure the safety of the general public, then and only then the government can step in and put a stop to it. But they would then be required to prove their case in court just like any citizen who takes a self-defensive action that causes harm. If such a standard were in place, we would have just about everything powered by nuclear engines because it far and away makes the most sense efficiency-wise, and cost-wise while affecting the environment the least. When you look hard at any 'problem' we have, it is my experience that it always traces back to the government causing it.
Could insurance policies include the cost of outages should they decide an immediate shutdown is called for? How do insurance policies in other industries treat loss of revenue in the event of a needed repair?
Ike,
Interesting thought. I guess the short answer is: loss of revenue insurance is possible if there is a willing buyer and seller. But for our tankers we never found such insurance attractive.
Notably $50 million 1975 dollars are the equivalent to $280 million 2023 dollars