Nuclear Power is Safest Way to Make Electricity

In other news a hole developed in a SWA 737 jet flying to Sacremento and did an emergency descent from 32000 to 12000 feet. Will it cause people to stop flying? Some, perhaps, but for the most part no.

When you read that someone on the freeway died driving a '72 Buick that only had lap belts and no air bags you say "gee, its great we have them now, we've just had fewer highway deaths than have ever been recorded since 1949.

The same is certainly true with nuclear power plants, if we were rational we would say, "fine" lets relicense "older" reactors on the provision they are dismantled and replaced. Have we learned a lot about building reactors? Sure, could we get rid of the older ones faster if we built new safe ones more quickly? Absolutely. But we have to either learn not to be afraid (respectful yes, afraid no) of nuclear power and radiation. Perhaps we should learn about it in school, perhaps we should provide low cost detectors for folks.

I think its part of growing up as a species.

This is crucial, and is why blanket statements like "nuclear power is safe" are dangerous. There is an absolutely essential qualifier required on the end of any assertion about nuclear safety, and I'm glad to see that you put it in parentheses here. Nuclear power is the best...at scale. It's completely rational to recognize that for what it is.

I will be the first to praise the virtues of renewable energy. Solar, wind, tidal, and so on are all far better implementations to solve the problem of producing electricity. All of them, however, have a crippling fault that prevents them from reaching the potential of economics and supply that nuclear can. Importantly, that doesn't doom them -- that just means more investment and thinking is required before they can reach their potential.

Hell, renewable energy is the energy sector's Python 3. We'll get there someday, you can use it now, and it's a fabulous nirvana of harmony. Today, however, it's just a little rough around the edges, and a challenge to work with because the full support of the ecosystem isn't there. So, for now, we advise Python 2: let's split some atoms.

Watching HN's reaction to Fukushima has aggravated me at times, and made me cheer at others; it's naïveté to exclaim that nuclear power is completely safe, but a roughly equal helping of naïveté to claim that there are superior alternatives at this moment.

(Edited for brevity.)

This was precisely my point. Why the fark CANT we come together over the singularly most important resource modern and future civilization needs, energy.

We humans are really lacking in the high-level critical thought area. For example, we have yet to formalize a civilizations hierarchy of needs. Much like the individual hierarchy of needs set forth by Maslow, all levels of biology have one.

Taking a look at civilizations then, what would be the hierarchy of needs that require nurture, protection, support etc...

I have come up with the following first attempt:

Progress

Organization

Wellbeing

Energy

Resources

Sustenance

First: a civilization needs sustainable methods of feeding itself which is not a net drain on the planet. (potentially combined with Resources)

Second: they need to be able to access, extract/harvest and refine appropriate Resources.

Third: they need to be able to produce and support the energy consumption requirements they have in a similar sustainable manner.

Fourth: They need to be able to provide for the wellbeing of the civilization through both proper physical protections as well as appropriate health care services that are not, themselves, a diseased burden on the energy, resources, or sustenance of the civilization.

Fifth: Proper methods, models and modes of organization are required -- organization of people and the modes by which they communicate and manage the other needs.

Finally: the civilization needs to progress. Review, refine, reinvent.

The problem is that with the Kardashev Scale, there is a fundamental failure to address something akin to a civilizations hierarchy of needs which must be addressed if there is any hope of evolving along this scale.

Using nuclear power as a way to awaken people to this might work.

The problem is that we are completely consumed with individual greed which manifests in the very fabric of our society to such a degree that we cannot even fix the current systems of resource/political/energy control to build consensus around a plan to evolve as a whole.

We are far to in the weeds on every single level of such a hierarchy, pulled with distractions, disinfo and FUD to make real progress.

---

BTW check out these pics of the reactor... I am amazed that it is as good as it is given the state of the reactor buildings. Given the fact that the spent fuel storage were in the TOPS of these structures which we now see lay in practically rubble, leads me to believe that we really do not have any clue where this really will head as we don't have concrete evidence (the outside public, not those really dealing with this) that the materials haven't simply just spilled all over the place.

http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp/daiichi-photos.htm

There is plenty of suggestive evidence, like the nytimes article EScott11 referenced, showing cesium 137 contamination 200% of Chernobyl levels 25 miles from the plant, or the recent Greenpeace video where they max out their Geiger handhelds 35km from the plant, that there are going to be some fairly widespread consequences to the contamination of soil by radioactive material.