Decrepit nuclear reactors operate without meaningful inspections or insurance.
Convicted of 92 federal felony manslaughter counts, Diablo’s Pacific Gas & Electric is a criminal operation. Its 2010 negligence at San Bruno gas lines incinerated eight people. Its faulty transmission lines killed 84 people in northern California’s infamous 2017 Camp Fire. No PG&E executive went to prison any of those killings. In 2021 its CEO was paid $51.2 million.
.
Nuclear Power’s Lethal, Larcenous End Game, BY HARVEY WASSERMAN, 26 Apr 24
“………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Thus Congress has just extended the 1957 Price-Anderson Act which exempts reactor owners from liability for a major disaster, an official vote of no confidence in the industry’s ability to guarantee the public safety.
With the February 29 passage of the Advanced Atomic Reactor Act, the industry stands to grift billions in public subsidies for decrepit reactors whose licenses they want to extend for 60-80 years while fighting basic safety inspections from federal regulators.
Thus the Nuclear Regulatory Commission—whose financial support comes from the operation of the reactors it supposedly regulates—is infamous for its blind eye to the deep structural and operational holes that could soon doom the aging US fleet.
The NRC is currently green-lighting operations at Diablo’s 40-year-old Unit One despite a dangerously embrittled core that could irradiate all of downwind California. Ohio’s Davis-Besse is riddled with mismanagement and decay. Ohio’s Perry, Virginia’s North Anna and Diablo have all been recently shaken earthquakes. California’s San Onofre shut in 2014 because its newly-installed unfixable steam turbines leaked radiation.
Convicted of 92 federal felony manslaughter counts, Diablo’s Pacific Gas & Electric is a criminal operation. Its 2010 negligence at San Bruno gas lines incinerated eight people. Its faulty transmission lines killed 84 people in northern California’s infamous 2017 Camp Fire. No PG&E executive went to prison any of those killings. In 2021 its CEO was paid $51.2 million.
For the public, the costs in health, ecological and economic damage at any US reactor could climb into the trillions, with radioactive clouds and multiple bankruptcies leaving countless victims dead, destroyed, destitute.
According to the US Government Accountability Office, from 2001 to 2006 alone, more than 150 reactor incidents violated acceptable safety guidelines. A 2010 survey of US nuclear accidents showed least 56 by then involved loss of human life or more than $50,000 in property damage.
Said former Vice President Al Gore in 2009:
“Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.[53]
Yet New York is dumping $7.6+ billion into keeping four decrepit reactors on line (one of which opened in 1969). Ohio’s legislature recently pocketed $61 million in bribes to scam a $1 billion taxpayer bailout for two 40 and 50-year old nukes irradiating Lake Erie. Michigan wants $8 billion to revive the 51-year-old Palisades reactor—which shut two years ago—even though Holtec (the waste management company designated to revive Palisades) has no experience building or operating any nuclear power reactor. Pieces of the reactor have already been sold off for scrap.………………………………………..more https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/04/26/nuclear-powers-lethal-larcenous-end-game/
.
Insurance giant halts sale of new home policies in California due to wildfires
The insurance giant State Farm, America’s biggest car and home insurer
by premium volume, will halt the sale of new home insurance policies in
California, citing wildfire risk and inflation of construction costs.
Starting on Saturday, the company will not accept insurance applications
for business and personal lines property and casualty insurance. The
company will still accept auto insurance applicants.
Guardian 27th May 2023
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/27/state-farm-home-insurance-california-wildfires
Does India have enough insurance coverage for a nuclear disaster?
India has barely half the insurance amount required by law for its current nuclear plants, and has many more plants in the works.
Aljazeera, By Urvashi Sarkar 21 Apr 2023
India has barely half the insurance amount it needs in the event of a nuclear disaster, raising concerns among experts about the lack of oversight on the nuclear sector.
The India Nuclear Insurance Pool (INIP) has collected around 7 billion to 8 billion rupees ($84.5m to $96.6m) of the 15 billion rupees ($182.9m) required under the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (CLND), indicating a critical shortfall in funds that will be needed to compensate victims and pay for cleanup in case of a nuclear disaster………………………………………………………..
“The fact that the nuclear insurance pool has not even met what is required by law is concerning — it shows that the Parliament is not overseeing how the nuclear sector is operating,” said MV Ramana, professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia and author of The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India. “My greater concern is the approach of NPCIL and other parties involved, which seem to think of liability requirements as a box to check off, rather than something they need to prudently plan for.”
“They seem to be victims of the same ‘safety myth’ that was at the root of the inadequate preparations for nuclear accidents revealed in the aftermath of the multiple reactor accidents at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan [in March 2011],” Ramana said…………………………………….
India currently has 22 reactors, all of which are operated by the NPCIL. The INIP provides insurance to all of them. Apart from this, it has 10 reactors that are at various stages of construction (one of which has been connected to the grid) and New Delhi has sanctioned another 10 — all of which are expected to start functioning by 2031. But how these plants will be insured is unknown………………………………………………………… more https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/4/21/does-india-have-enough-insurance-coverage-for-a-nuclear-disaster
Government to phase out insurance fee exemption for Fukushima evacuees
Apr 8, 2022
The government said Friday it will start phasing out from as early as fiscal 2023 medical insurance fee exemptions for evacuees affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster, a move that will increase the financial burdens on such people.
The phase-out affects evacuees who are now able to return or have already returned to the areas of their former residency following the lifting of evacuation orders.
The government aims to completely end the exemptions of health and nursing care insurance fees about 10 years after the evacuation orders were lifted in principle, with the 10-year period calculated as starting from April in the year after the lifting.
Reconstruction minister Kosaburo Nishime said the phase-out specifically took into account when evacuation orders were lifted to “avoid sharply increasing the burden” on the evacuees.
As for the 10-year timeframe, Nishime told a news conference the government believes that by then, the former residents would have returned to their hometowns and made some progress in rebuilding their livelihoods.
As for steps for former residents of zones still designated as off-limits in the Fukushima Prefecture towns of Okuma and Futaba, which host the Fukushima No. 1 plant crippled by the 2011 quake and tsunami disaster, the government will hold further discussions.
Many low-income people evacuated due to the nuclear crisis have so far been completely exempted from paying insurance fees as well as from a proportion of charges for the medical and nursing care services they receive.
As of late March, more than 32,000 people who evacuated after the nuclear disaster remain in other areas within Fukushima or outside the prefecture, according to government data.
The immediate target of the phase-out policy will be those who lived in areas where evacuations orders were lifted by 2014, such as the town of Hirono.
At first, the evacuees will be requested to shoulder half the amount of insurance fees before preferential treatment is scrapped completely in fiscal 2024.
Former residents of areas where the evacuation orders were lifted between 2015 and 2017 will see the phase-out policy begin in the period of fiscal 2024 to 2026, with the exemption ending entirely in two years.
The Fukushima No. 1 plant spewed out a massive amount of radioactive materials after the tsunami triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake flooded the facility, causing multiple meltdowns and hydrogen blasts at the complex and forcing some 160,000 people to flee at one point.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/04/08/national/fukushima-medical-insurance/
Insurance industry not convinced that nuclear power is ”green”, and is wary of nuclear as an investment risk.
INSURANCE ASSET RISK
IAR 2021 EMEA conference: highlights from day 2
”…………what constitutes a ‘green’ asset is not yet universally accepted, and this became apparent during a panel on infrastructure investing. The question of nuclear financing crept in the debate, and although politicians may have their ideas on the topic, the jury is still out for investors.….. https://www.insuranceassetrisk.com/content/news/iar-2021-emea-conference-highlights-form-day-2.html
Swedish insurance group Länsförsäkringar cuts off investment to nuclear weapons.
ICAN. 9 Oct 21, Last week, Swedish insurance group Länsförsäkringar, which has over $40 billion in assets, named the TPNW in its policy as a reason not to invest in nuclear weapons business. Our work to cut off funding for weapons of mass destruction is starting to pay off and we expect more financial institutions to follow suit.
USA’s nuclear insurance places the big responsibility on the tax-payer
The US government insurance scheme for nuclear power plant accidents no longer makes sense, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Victor Gilinsky, February 26, 2020 The Japan Center for Economic Research, a source sympathetic to nuclear power, recently put the long-term costs of the 2011 Fukushima accident as about $750 billion. Contrast that with the maximum of $13 billion that could be available after a catastrophic US nuclear accident under the plant owners’ self-insurance scheme defined by the Price-Anderson Act. The Act will have to be renewed before 2025; Congress should seize the opportunity not only to reflect on the lack of insurance in the event of a catastrophic accident, but also to reconsider our approach to nuclear power plant safety altogether.
The main public risk of nuclear power plants comes from rare but devastating nuclear accidents. Because data on such accidents is sparse, the probability of their occurrence has to be calculated on the basis of a model, rather than obtained from experience. Moreover, the extent of an accident and its monetary consequences are postulated on the basis of models that are limited by analysts’ imagination. Who would have imagined, for example, that the Fukushima accident would involve several reactors? Or that Japan would subsequently shut down all its other nuclear power plants?………. Curiously, from the chairman on down, the NRC misstates the legal standard for its safety decisions. The NRC and its staff claim their job is to provide “reasonable assurance of adequate protection,” whereas the standard in the Atomic Energy Act is “adequate protection.” Under the law, their job is to provide adequate protection, period. Do the commissioners think the extra cushion of “reasonable assurance” justifies weaker regulation? To return to the Price-Anderson Act: As we’ve seen, a catastrophic accident would render the US self-insurance scheme for nuclear power plants pretty much irrelevant. But the indemnification of all industry participants would remain highly relevant: The industry would be free of any liability for offsite death or damage, whereas the victims would have to go hat in hand to Congress for restitution. This is an enormous subsidy—consider, again, the $750 billion and counting tab for Fukushima—that the federal government provides the nuclear industry, one without which not a single US nuclear power plant would or could operate. Freedom from liability also has had a perverse effect on nuclear safety. Without the liability protection of Price-Anderson, industry incentives to develop nuclear designs safer than light water reactors would surely have been higher. Freedom from liability was put into law in the 1950s to get the US commercial nuclear power industry off the ground. It was meant to be temporary, until industry and insurers got some experience with the new technology. But even as time went on, industrial organizations like General Electric and Westinghouse would not participate in the civilian nuclear program if they risked responsibility for offsite damage from a nuclear plant accident……… What is clear is that the nuclear firms—the largest of which possess an understanding of nuclear safety far beyond that of the public—do not believe the NRC safety conclusions that the risk of a catastrophic nuclear accident is infinitesmal. Nor do they accept that probable risk—probability of an accident times the consequences, were one to occur—as the right measure of risk to their companies. They don’t want to risk their companies, period. If they don’t believe the NRC numbers, why should the rest of us accept them? Why shouldn’t we have the same protection from physical harm that the nuclear industry has from financial liability? And just as the nuclear vendors will not participate on terms that do not include indemnification from the overwhelming cost of a severe accident, so should the public have the analogous power to only accept future nuclear designs that can demonstrate that they preclude offsite harm. And the designs should demonstrate that level of safety in a clear way, based on physical principles, not on complicated probabilistic calculations put forward by interested parties. Such new designs would eliminate the current dilemma of a federal nuclear self-insurance scheme that cannot, as a practical matter, cover the financial consequences to the public of catastrophic nuclear power plant accidents. But how to get there? One of the disincentives is the Price-Anderson Act’s limitations on industry liability for offsite accident consequences. That should get phased out. https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-scheme-for-nuclear-power-plant-accidents-no-longer-makes-sense/# |
|
Nuclear energy and Price Anderson Act – too risky for insurance companies – just too dangerous
Should the U.S. Revive Nuclear Energy?, NYT Len Charlap, 10 Apr 19, Princeton, N.J. I will support nuclear power the day after the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act is repealed. If insurance company actuaries consider nuclear power to be so dangerous that they cannot compute premiums that the industry can afford, then that industry is not economically viable. If the government (i.e., taxpayers) has to cover the industry with catastrophic insurance, then the government should own the reactors and provide nonprofit energy.
We were lucky at Three Mile Island. We were minutes away from a complete meltdown that given the plant’s location would have killed thousands and done billions in damage. Investigations of Three Mile Island showed that, like the Deepwater Horizon disaster, extremely dangerous processes cannot be allowed to remain in control of people whose first responsibility is profit or return to shareholders…. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/opinion/letters/nuclear-energy.html
How they work out nuclear liability – insurance and claims
Global Nuclear Liability Insurance And Claims, Mondaq
|
|
|
Fukushima Radiation causing U.S. Insurance Companies to EXCLUDE all Coverage for Radiation Claims
Hiding the costs of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Hurricane costs and corporate bailouts? Insurance report Dec 2017
Posted to nuclear-news.net
Posted by Shaun McGee
29th Dec 2017
For the insurance companies, The Japan 2011 Earthquake and nuclear disaster was not a concern, as I lay out below. The costs were to be managed largely by the government. The Insurance companies were getting of so lightly that they even paid out compensation to the victims, though they were not obliged too!
SwissRE, whose data this article is based off, compiles reports for the Global insurance industry. The Insurer with the largest impact from the Fukushima 2011 disaster was Lloyds of London with some 2 billion Dollar loss, 20 percent of the total insurance industry costs. This may account for the interest in the UK Government helping cover up the health and environmental impacts of the disaster in the long term, having got “skin in the game”, including the damage to the UK`s nuclear industry (MOX fuel reprocessing and nuclear reactor new builds etc).
The actual costs of the disaster as of April 2017 was 626 Billion Dollars up from the Japanese government total cost of the disaster of roughly 9 billion Dollars. Although, the initial figure seems to be based on the Insurers losses and not the governments calculations. The insurers, probably thinking of their 100`s of billions dollars investments in the nuclear industry (with the big 5 UK based insurers having 300 billion pounds sterling invested until they divested into PFI contracts leaving the UK tax payer holding the nuclear energy bill), played down the total costs and even seemed to bemoan the extra regulations that would be brought in as a response to the nuclear aspect to the Tohuku disaster in 2011.
Finally, In a recent article published on RT concerning the report for the year 2017 from Swiss RE we get dramatic headline of huge increased loses to some 300 Billion Dollars (Less than half of the Fukushima disaster cost) with 100 Billion of that specific to the USA. Once again though we do not get the uninsured loses from the disasters. And that is not the only problem. SwissRE does not mention that the actual US figures for total losses are 135 Billion Dollars for the hurricanes, 9 billion for the fires and the largely uninsured losses of 95 billion for Puerto Rico and similar for the Virgin Islands. Swiss RE`s recent claim that total insured loses from around the world have risen to 136 billion Dollars seems to be more of a PR move to hide the fact that governments are using tax payer money to bail out the Insurance companies over man made and natural disaster costs? I will leave evidence and links below;
“A private think tank says the total cost of the Fukushima disaster could reach ¥70 trillion ($626 billion), or more than three times the government’s latest estimate. In a study Saturday, the Japan Center for Economic Research said costs of dealing with the heavily damaged Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant run by Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. could rise to between ¥50 trillion and ¥70 trillion.
In December, the government estimated the costs would reach roughly ¥22 trillion. “If costs rise, the public burden could greatly increase. The country’s nuclear policy needs to be reviewed,” JCER said. The government’s initial expectations pegged the costs at ¥11 trillion.” https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/01/national/real-cost-fukushima-disaster-will-reach-%C2%A570-trillion-triple-governments-estimate-think-tank/#.WkfdJvZpFhE
Page 21 of this Jan 2012 RE Swiss Global insurance report said of the Fukushima nuclear disaster
http://www.swissre.com/library/Global_Risks_Report_2012.html#inline
In the 2013 Fukushima specific report, Swiss RE did give some figures for the cost of the disaster;
From 2013 report link; http://www.swissre.com/library/archive/A_History_of_Insurance_in_Japan.html
“Economic losses from natural and man-made disasters have soared by 63 percent in 2017 to an estimated $306 billion, according to a report from reinsurance firm Swiss Re.
The company estimates, insured losses from natural and man-made disasters around the world was approximately $136 billion, up from $65 billion in 2016. This is “well-above the annual average of the previous ten years, and the third highest since… records began in 1970,” Swiss Re said in its report. The reinsurance firm said insured losses from disasters have exceeded $100 billion in a number of years.
“The insurance industry has demonstrated it can cope very well with such high losses,” said Martin Bertogg, Head of Catastrophe Perils at Swiss Re.” https://www.rt.com/business/414623-global-disasters-2017-cost/
Insurance companies moved to divest from coal projects
Guardian 15th Nov 2017, A growing number of insurance companies increasingly affected by the
consequences of climate change are selling holdings in coal companies and
refusing to underwrite their operations.
About £15bn has been divested in
the past two years, according to a new report that rates the world’s
leading insurers’ efforts to distance themselves from the fossil fuel
industry that is most responsible for carbon emissions.
Fifteen companies -almost all based in Europe – have fully or partially cut financial ties,
says the study by the Unfriend Coal campaign, which represents a coalition
of a dozen environmental groups incl uding Greenpeace, 350.org and the
Sierra Club.
Zurich, the world’s seventh biggest insurer, is the latest to
shift away from coal, announcing this week that it is pulling out of coal
to contribute to broader efforts to achieve the Paris accord goal of
keeping global warming below 2C. Allianz, Aviva and Axa have previously
made similar moves. Lloyd’s and Swiss Re are expected to follow in the
coming months. The campaign has a long way to go. The early movers
represent only 13% of all global insurance assets. None of the major US
insurers such as Berkshire Hathaway, AIG and Liberty Mutual have taken
action, according to the study. Despite this, the authors say the shift of
assets and coverage since 2015 is gaining momentum.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/15/growing-number-of-global-insurance-firms-divesting-from-fossil-fuels
American corporations hope to use Indian insurance companies, for nuclear build in India
GE, Westinghouse keen to take nuclear insurance from Rs 1,500-crore pool BY SHILPY SINHA, ET BUREAU JUN 12, 2017 MUMBAI:After years of stonewalling, India is poised to open up its nuclear liability cover to equipment suppliers, with GE and Westinghouse showing interest in taking insurance from the pool.
Children Still Endangered by Chernobyl Radiation in Russia; Russia Pretends Area Has Improved; Removes Medical, Social Insurance and Compensation
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/chernobyl-fukushima-radiation-light-painting/blog/56178
“Stariye Bobovichi is one of thousands of communities in Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus officially declared contaminated by Chernobyl. Recently, however, the Russian government upgraded the status of this village, claiming it had improved. This claim deprived the residents of this village of the appropriate medical, social insurance and compensation they would get as victims of the disaster.” (Rashid Alimov, Greenpeace – read article below.) Gee, sounds like Fukushima victims in Japan! Have Russia and Japan been talking at Sakhalin? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin-I. When reading about Rosatom, below, bear in mind that Rosatom is a State Corporation and is subordinate to the Russian President (Putin), rather than the government.
From Greenpeace:
“Chernobyl: lessons not learned
Blogpost by Rashid Alimov – 25 April, 2017 at 18:50
A greyish brick building with a bust of Lenin in front of it. A school in Stariye Bobovichi in the Bryansk region…
View original post 884 more words
Insurance companies threatened by huge problems in climate risk
Climate change threatens ability of insurers to manage risk
Extreme weather is driving up uninsured losses and insurers must use investments to fund global warming resilience, says study, Guardian, Damian Carrington, 7 Dec 16, The ability of the global insurance industry to manage society’s risks is being threatened by climate change, according to a new report.
The report finds that more frequent extreme weather events are driving up uninsured losses and making some assets uninsurable.
The analysis, by a coalition of the world’s biggest insurers, concluded that the “protection gap” – the difference between the costs of natural disasters and the amount insured – has quadrupled to $100bn (£79bn) a year since the 1980s.
Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, warns in the new report that: “Over time, the adverse effects of climate change could threaten economic resilience and financial stability [and] insurers are currently at the forefront.”
The ClimateWise coalition of 29 insurers, including Allianz, Aon, Aviva, Lloyd’s, Prudential, Swiss Re and Zurich, conclude that the industry must use more of its $30tn of investments to help fund increased resilience of society to floods, storms and heatwaves.
The Bank of England warned in 2015 that insurance companies could suffer a “huge hit” if their investments in fossil fuel companies were rendered worthless by action on climate change and some insurershave already shed investments in coal.
The ClimateWise report, published on Wednesday, also says the industry must also use its risk management expertise to convince policymakers in both the public and private sector of the urgent need for climate action.
The industry’s traditional response to rising insurance risks – raising premiums or withdrawing cover – would not help deal with the rising risks of global warming, it said……..
The economic impact of these natural catastrophes is growing quickly, according to Swiss Re, with total losses increasing fivefold since the 1980s to about $170bn today. This increase is partly due to an increase in extreme weather but also due to an increase in assets as cities and towns have grown, especially in vulnerable locations such as on coasts……. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/07/climate-change-threatens-ability-insurers-manage-risk?CMP=share_btn_tw
-
Archives
- May 2024 (182)
- April 2024 (366)
- March 2024 (335)
- February 2024 (345)
- January 2024 (375)
- December 2023 (333)
- November 2023 (342)
- October 2023 (366)
- September 2023 (353)
- August 2023 (356)
- July 2023 (362)
- June 2023 (324)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS