[LINK] Should Australia consider nuclear electricity?

[Karl Auer]

On Wed, 2021-11-24 at 17:34 +1100, David wrote:
> In any case, there are many other reasons why nuclear power at this
> point in our development is dangerous.  Here are some of them:

An apocryphal large policeman is said to have said to have replied in
court, when asked how the defendant had been apprehended, "'Twas meself
that surrounded him, yer Honour".

While I agree with your points, I can't help feeling that they are
superfluous. It is testament to the level of ignorance and purblind
optimism around nuclear power that it is remotely necessary to advance
such arguments except maybe (e), yet here we are.

By way of analogy:

It is a very bad idea to leap out of a second-floor window. You'll
almost certainly be injured; you may even die.

But that's not all! You will probably scuff those nice shoes (bet they
were expensive). Oh, and almost certainly tear your clothing (suits you
sir!) In the ensuing confusion you may well lose things like your car
keys and loose change. Deary me.

By which I mean that those other things you list are indeed risks, but
they pale into insignificance beside the other, far greater risks
inherent in the supply of fuel, the disposal of waste, and the daily
operation of the plant.

Listing those other risks alongside the inherent risks puts all the
risks into the same category. This is damagingly misleading. The risks
you list (except (e)) are basically manageable on a human scale and in
human timeframes - that's one category.

The inherent risks are in a completely different category. They extend
over far more time than most humans (and politicians) are capable of
thinking about without effort or training. The worst of it is that most
people are *unaware* of their own incapability, because it is
demonstrated to them so rarely.

Many (most?) people do not understand without help, i.e., education,
that even a very small risk, carried over large time-frames[1], becomes
a near-certainty. That a small risk, replicated many times
simultaneously, becomes a near-certainty in the NEAR future. There are
relatively few nuclear reactors on the planet - yet we have already had
Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and literally dozens of
smaller events. Which strongly suggests that nuclear reactors thus far
have been WAY more risky that anyone was led to believe.[2]

Without a functional risk assessment capability, people will tend to
either believe what they want to believe, or (more often, I think)
proceed with a hugely erroneous risk assessment.[3]

Regards, K.

[1] Different waste products have different half-lives. Half-lives are
another thing that people tend not to "get". U234 has a half-life
somewhere around a quarter of a million years. If you start with a ton
of the stuff, then after all that time, you will still have half a ton
of it left. Well - you won't. Your great-great-great[...etc...]-great-
grandchildren will though. If they are not already dead or mutated back
to radiation-proof lemurs.

But that's not all! Nuclear waste is generally a mix of various
radioactive elements - some of which keep the reactions in others
going. This leads to the waste, under some conditions, getting more
radioactive over time (a LONG time) and generating more, different
waste products. Delightful, isn't it? I can see the people in Mosman
getting very excited over the opportunity this all represents for them
to do their civic duty and welcome a nuclear waste dump to the North
Shore.

[2] If the people selling nuclear reactors had to sign contracts
enabling them to be *immediately* imprisoned for life if their reactors
failed, I think you would see a sudden lack of hitherto very optimistic
nuclear reactor sales-people.

[3] Also look up "the Dunning-Kruger effect"[4]

[4] Which I do SO hope is not applicable to me here :-) Full
disclosure, I'm no physicist, I just read lots...

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer

GPG fingerprint: 61A0 99A9 8823 3A75 871E 5D90 BADB B237 260C 9C58
Old fingerprint: 2561 E9EC D868 E73C 8AF1 49CF EE50 4B1D CCA1 5170