h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh, and by the way, the real disaster at Chernobyl hasn't happened yet. It's due any year now. Only 5% of the nuclear material in Chernobyl was released into the world 20 years ago. The other 95% is sitting there while the station falls apart around it. Nobody can get close, to do anything about it. Workers are allowed in the building for less than a minute before they have reached their safe dosage.

There's more on Human Factors in Nuclear Power in the Grauniad's Notes and Queries today (not yet online).

The Three Mile Island incident happened, in part, because of the appaling design of the control room. Controls and displays were scattered around haphazardly, some too far away to be seen, or even behind equipment. The operators had little chance of recognising the symptoms of a developing incident. Then, when it all kicked off, everything started flashing and ringing at once.

(A colleague illustrates this sort of problem with a clip from The China Syndrome)

There are quite advanced plans to place a huge concrete sarcophagus around the Chernobyl reactor. It will be wheeled on rails on top of the existing reactor and then shut. It's got a life of about 100 years until something else is dreamed up.

I'm just wondering though: if nuclear really is one of the only good alternatives to fossil-fuel then do we not have to bite the bullet in any case? There will never be a perfect organisation to manage anything, be it government, business or non-profit. Screw-ups are always likely to happen.

You're possibly right. The question is 'How much of the bullet do we bite?' Blair's favoured option would doubtless be to leave it as much as possible to private enterprise (in the guise of 'Public-Private Partnership.') But we wouldn't want them to have as slack a safety regime as UK private rail operators. On the other hand...private enterprise is less likely to invest in risky ventures unless it can find corners to cut.

Traditional Marxist analysis tells us that capitalists are almost *obliged* to maximise their profits by exploiting workers. Fewer, moor poorly paid, less-skilled, demotivated operators and maintainers, contracted out to the lowest bidder. Given that most of the problems are human, does this make us feel safe?

I don't believe nuclear is the only way forward. I believe that we can survive if we (a) reduce our use of power enormously, (b) make as much as possible from wind and wave power and (c) grow a lot of combustible material which can be burnt to make up the difference.

I'm not sure how feasible point a) is on a voluntary basis. People in our little corner of the world might be doing our best to reduce energy dependence, while other areas work on gaining the biggest share of the existing pie as possible without necessarily taking too much heed to reducing their own demands. Isn't it a kind of "hey lets all be nice to each other guys" type of plea? It only needs one or two defectors to break down.

Ultimately it seems as if we will either be forced to reduce our energy needs (because its not there any more), or we find some alternative energy source quickly to meet the demand that's there. I read an article some time back from a former Greenpeace boss who said that we should concentrate on option 2 before option 1 becomes a reality. I'll see if I can dig it up.

This isn't it, but it's close...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

It seems interesting that the same sort of societal changes that would be needed to make nuclear power safe would also be needed to deliver a more sensible level ond more equitable distribution of energy use.

Until then we're pishing in the wind, aren't we?

I must be missing something - I can't really see how a societal change would help to make nuclear energy generation safer. Screw ups will happen irrespective of what organisation is in place, and I would argue that any organisational form you can imagine will bring with it a degree of face-saving, cover-ups and blame-avoidance.

Instead, we would have to take the pragmatic attitude and accept that nuclear power is not nirvana, that there would most likely be problems down the line, but if in the long run, the benefits greatly exceed its down-sides, then maybe it's a worthwhile pursuit.

>>I can't really see how a societal change would help to make nuclear energy generation safer

Because am unbridled profit motive militates against a) safety in general and b) the openness that allows safety be monitored, maintained and continuously improved.

>>Screw ups will happen irrespective of what organisation is in place, and I would argue that any organisational form you can imagine will bring with it a degree of face-saving, cover-ups and blame-avoidance

True...but some forms of organisation *generate* poor behaviours.

>>Instead, we would have to take the pragmatic attitude and accept that nuclear power is not nirvana

Good point. But surely we want it to get as close to Nirvana as practicable?

(Hmm. Would we trust Kurt Cobain to run a nuclear power plant?)

Certainly not in his present state...