←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
476 points spking | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.703s | source | bottom
Show context
bluedevil2k ◴[] No.42733208[source]
Like we see in California, when the government sets a price ceiling, insurance companies just leave. Same in Florida. If the free market truly was allowed run normally, the insurance rates in Pacific Palisades or on the Florida coast would be so high that no one could afford to live there. Is that a bad thing? If someone was living in a house near where they tested missiles, we'd call them crazy. At what point can we say the same about people building and rebuilding over and over in these disaster areas.
replies(20): >>42733219 #>>42733293 #>>42733338 #>>42733367 #>>42733486 #>>42733536 #>>42733984 #>>42734013 #>>42734047 #>>42734060 #>>42734202 #>>42734459 #>>42734714 #>>42734874 #>>42739590 #>>42740487 #>>42741749 #>>42742138 #>>42743881 #>>42744799 #
Dig1t ◴[] No.42733338[source]
There should be a way to build fire resistant buildings to reduce the cost of insuring them, likely this would be the solution in California without price caps.

You can build out of concrete and use fire resistant materials like metal or tile for the roof and your house is nearly fireproof. These buildings would be realistically insurable in both California or Florida. They would cost more to build, not THAT much more though especially if land costs many millions, an extra 50k - 100k to build out of concrete is a very reasonable expense.

replies(5): >>42733371 #>>42733453 #>>42733677 #>>42734267 #>>42734815 #
1. michpoch ◴[] No.42733453[source]
> You can build out of concrete and use fire resistant materials like metal or tile for the roof and your house is nearly fireproof

Just like exactly the rest of the world? We, the non-USA folks, are looking yearly at either fires or hurricanes destroying these wooden houses there and people keep rebuilding them. Insanity.

replies(4): >>42733498 #>>42733689 #>>42734414 #>>42737585 #
2. Enginerrrd ◴[] No.42733498[source]
Earthquakes make this a much more expensive option. To give you some idea, the design seismic acceleration for my house is like 3g. That's more sideways than down. The forces involved are the weight of the structure times this value. Concrete ways a LOT more. It absolutely can be done, but it's not clearly a superior material compared to wood.
3. throw0101a ◴[] No.42733689[source]
> We, the non-USA folks, are looking yearly at either fires or hurricanes destroying these wooden houses there and people keep rebuilding them.

You can build wood framed (2x4, 2x6) buildings that are resistant to fire:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZe-TlYxm9g

A stucco, brick, or fibre cement siding, have 2m/6' clear around the base of your house, tempered windows, and either a metal roof or shingles with a Class A fire rating.

replies(1): >>42739136 #
4. rafram ◴[] No.42734414[source]
The US has a practically limitless amount of wood. Europe doesn’t. Wood also holds up well to earthquakes and can be treated to hold up to fire. And if there’s a catastrophic failure, it hurts a lot less than concrete does when it falls on your head. It’s a great material that the US is right to use.
5. carlosjobim ◴[] No.42737585[source]
The rest of the world has mudslides, floods, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, etc. Or they have no natural disasters, just like so many parts of the US.

> We, the non-USA folks

Isn't that a sad way to look at yourself?

6. marcosdumay ◴[] No.42739136[source]
Place a piece of wood inside the hot environment of a fire and it will burn down releasing more heat than it absorbs, adding to the fire. It doesn't matter what stuff you add to it.

You can make wood not burn on the kind of environment where it would be the only or main object releasing heat. That is still a completely different category from non-flammable materials.