Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

ok. that's good..... I am working in construction company... that was maybe reason why I was so surprised :-)

Shredded newspaper is essentially wood ;)

Just read a strong argument in a magazine. If nuclear powerplants are so sure about themselves about the risks they will guarantee 100% of possible damage. That's logical.
They will probably ensure themselves, as everyone would.
But no insurance company would cover the risk for a small fee. What they think is necessary to cover the risk is too high for the power plants.

So in fact the ones that should be convinced are the insurance companies, if the nuceal powerplants are so sure.

Nothing can be granted for sure. The risk isn't too high compared to other types of power plants - the costs if something goes bad... well, that's another question. That's why no insurance company accepts nuclear power plants: if there is a mistake, a problem like in Fukushima... the insurance company would go completely bankrupt - and nobody would risk that.

There are in fact insurances on nuclear power plants. And many countries require insurance by law. But they have a cap, just like any other insurance.

In USA for example accidents on nuclear power plant is regulated by the Price-Anderson Act. The first 375 million dollars of damages are covered by private insurance. And damages from 375 million up to 12,2 billion dollars (~ 8,45 billion euros) are covered by the power companies who's required to have plans to raise up to 111,9 million dollars per reactor in use.

I've linked to this factsheet before. It gives some insight to the subject.

375 million dollars of damages are covered by private insurance

so they do not cover anything..

And damages from 375 million up to 12,2 billion dollars (~ 8,45 billion euros) are covered by the power companies who's required to have plans to raise up to 111,9 million dollars per reactor in use.

ahah..
and where do they find such amount of money???

As tepco teaches...
profit for privates, damages for public..

Read the post for the answer. In fact just read what you qouted from the post.

lol

we're still paying for Chernobyl

I think you'll find that Ukrainians still see the benefits of nuclear power: Nuclear Power in Ukraine.

Nuclear power is a very clean source of energy.

It´s not as clean as wind power and sun power, but much cleaner than oil, coal, ethanol, etc. And does not causes so huge impact in environment as hydro power.

Another interresting post on Barry Brook's blog: Anti-nuclear cartoon book, 1978 – anything changed?. It seems the dreams of plenty and cheap sources of renewable energy in a very near future are not new.

(edited)

BBC - Anti-nuclear protests in Germany and France

Thousands of people in France and Germany have staged protests calling for an end to nuclear power.

Millions have not.

No, but it's absolutely not all sunshine and happiness :)

Millions have not.

Noone has demonstrated to keep using nuclear power either. ;-)