Nuclear industry too big to fail?

No it really isn't, we are not discussing the health consequences.

While it's not totally comprehensive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Events_Scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents

Ok cool, so at least in terms of those events in the past decade the only incident that has cost lives outside of the nuclear plant has been Fukushima. And aside from the steam explosion the only fatalities caused in that period were due to human error.

Ah, finally a balanced and reasoned response. I don't think it can be either or, we just need to minimise reliance on nuclear, it seems wastfull to pump huge amounts into it.

The seawater damage was as a result of total loss of coolant. Seawater injection was the only option to cool the reactor. Had it been not necessary to use seawater, there would have been no core damage as the backup diesels would have been functioning. The use of seawater is the effect of the loss of cooling. The core damage is the effect of the loss of cooling. The two are inextricably linked.

It's also worth emphasising that the Nuclear Industry is arguably the safest industry in the world.

Sorry to derail the thread a little but do you know why they're still pumping seawater into the reactors? Surely they must've cooled down by now...?

Clearly not worth reading past this howler.

If this is the case then insurance can cover the costs.

The taxpayer doesn't need to be exposed to the risks of clean up, even if the potential costs of clean up run into the billions, the nuclear industry should be able to get quite low insurance premiums when they show insurers the exemplary safety record of nuclear energy.

Infact, more modern cooling systems would cope 100% with what happened at Fukushima.

I figured they would, but they should have retro-fitted some kind of solution onto Fukushima.

Now we just need to think about what else could have gone wrong, and fix that!

Yes, they really do.

Insurers refuse to insure Nuclear Power Plants simply because while accidents on the scale of Chernobyl are ridiculously unlikely, the risks the insurer would be exposed to should it happen are unacceptable. Besides, it's far less expensive to just adopt good safety practices and redundant systems than it would be to pay a "comprehensive" insurance policy.

I'm sorry, did you ignore my original reply? I clearly stated that Nuclear and renewables both have their place in the UK's energy generation; you've just chosen to ignore it because I'm in favour of greater investment in Nuclear energy generation capacity.

The seawater damage was as a result of total loss of coolant. Seawater injection was the only option to cool the reactor. Had it been not necessary to use seawater, there would have been no core damage as the backup diesels would have been functioning. The use of seawater is the effect of the loss of cooling. The core damage is the effect of the loss of cooling. The two are inextricably linked.

So who is going to over the costs if it goes wrong? Do the energy companies themselves have the money to cover it?

Or is it a case of "if it goes wrong, the taxpayer foots the bill"

No didn't ignore, while you made the same valid points it was hidden amougnst irrelavent and questionable points.

Quite, however if we ignore the sea water damage they would still be unrecoverable. Going in circles on this one but either way the point remains it wasn't superficial damage.

The operator of the plant has strict and exclusive liability for anything that happens at the affected site. The operators have third party liability insurance to pay for damages caused by any accident and have to absorb the costs of fixing (or in the case of Fukushima Dai-ichi, decommissioning) the damage at their site.

I don't see your point here - I've already said that the seawater damage and the core damage are inextricably linked by the loss of cooling.

Something that has confused me about Fukushima is the public’s reaction. When the banks screwed up there was a massive backlash. When Fukushima went tits up the general consensus seemed to be, oh well no one died and we need energy.