[LINK] Should Australia consider nuclear electricity?

[Karl Auer]

On Thu, 2021-11-25 at 00:02 +1100, David wrote:
> Karl, that's an interesting criticism...

It was not meant to be a criticism either of you or the arguments you
made. Your arguments are cogent and correct. They just do not belong in
the same list as a discussion of the risks inherent in the storage,
transport, refining and operational use of nuclear fuel.

Listing extraordinary risks alongside mundane ones can make the
extraordinary seem mundane, or make the mundane seem extraordinary.
Both of these can be - and have been! - used by opponents of rational
argument, because it is a ready-made set of straw men.

We have seen this in wave after wave of vested-interest misinformation,
from the tobacco lobby, the fossil fuel lobby, climate change deniers
of every stripe, the anti-vax brigade... ("There are some possible side
effects - a little pain in the arm, possibly a slight fever, or you
might die." "Aha! You see? I might DIE!" That's what happens when you
deliver an undifferentiated list. I'm exaggerating for effect, but it's
not far from what really happened.)

None of the matters you listed (except (e)) are even remotely as
serious as the risks associated with the storage, transport, refining
and operational use of nuclear fuel. I exclude (e) because it is one of
the risks associated with the storage, transport, refining and
operational use of nuclear fuel.

The cost of new infrastructure? Compared to having to safely store some
of the deadliest materials on the planet for hundreds of thousands of
years and what might happen if we fail to store it safely enough for
long enough? The two things just do not compare.

Supporting industries? We can build them in a single generation at
most. Capitalism will provide - with the costs, especially that of
waste disposal, externalised to the taxpayer of course. No comparison;
a problem that disappears into history in the blink of an eye. Not the
consequences if we screw it up though.

Social licence? The waste disposal risks span tens of thousands of
human generations. When nobody can live within a hundred miles (or a
thousand miles downwind) of where Australia's first commercial nuclear
power station once stood, the site now shrouded in concrete, our
children and our children's children will look back at our "social
licence" with a very special kind of anger. Imagine about a billion
Greta Thunbergs looking right at us. Brrrr. But in another ten thousand
years after that, and another, and another, who will even remember why
or how we could have been so arrogant and stupid?

Some things are inconvenient or costly, or politically less palatable
or whatever. But such things are mayflies. Short-term problems. Nothing
that will last more than a generation or two. But the others pose a
dire threat that will just keep on giving - forever, in human terms.

"A complete, mutually inter-dependent system"? No. The consequences of
failure are not connected with any of the things you mentioned in any
significant way at all. We and all our makings will be ancient history,
as ancient as the first Neanderthals are to us, while the legacy of our
collective insanity is still cooking and deadly in deep holes and ocean
trenches.

Again - the problems you outlined are not meaningless. They are just a
totally different class of problem. Keeping the distinction clear is
IMHO vital to this debate.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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