South Australian will have a Royal Commission into the nuclear fuel cycle. If this speaks to something in you, whether it is interest or apprehension, my best advice is to get a copy of this ebook:
For the price of saving one large takeaway coffee cup from landfill you can enjoy an accessible primer on attitudes to nuclear power and the actual hazards of reactors and radiation. Geoff Russell’s central premise is the valid comparison between nuclear energy (mistrusted and considered exceptionally dangerous) and passenger aircraft (commonplace and used by almost everyone in developed nations, despite considerably more accidents). Why is it that a plane crash can dominate the news but we still board our flight the next day, while the mere thought of a reactor going wrong somewhere – whether it’s even been built or not – leads some folks to reject essentially every aspect of commercial nuclear power?
But, says the nuclear opponent,
Almost all air travel is after an individual’s own choice. Therefore, people choose to accept or reject the risk, personally. In the unlikely event they are otherwise harmed by a plane, the operator will pay compensation, and there will be little doubt whether they were harmed. Airports are good neighbors, with convenient parking, restaurants, displays, artwork, places to observe take-offs and landings, etc.
Few people have a choice of electricity source or what kind of power plant will be built near them. Therefore, most people cannot choose to accept or reject the risk, personally. In the unlikely event they are, or believe they are, harmed by a nuclear power plant, the operators are unlikely to pay compensation,* and there will be much legal debate over whether or not they were harmed. Nuclear power plants may have a visitor center, but good luck getting close enough to observe operations.
Gotcha? No, because the distinction is illusory and just serves to perpetuate nuclear exceptionalism. We can treat the idea of everyone deciding not to board their flight after the fifth (Sixth? Tenth?) plane crash for the year as totally unrealistic. More fundamentally, though, the comparison dishonestly focuses on only one aspect of energy production – living near a plant and using its electricity – which applies equally to technology other than nuclear, with the tacit implication of exceptional hazard.
Thus, if we let it, it avoids the actual point: to compare the hazards we accept with the ones we don’t, and explore the actual risk involved. After all, the risk of your particular plane meeting a fiery end is tiny. So what might be the risk of a nuclear accident actually harming you? What is the nature and magnitude of that hazard? And what are the hazards of the alternatives?
In August 2012 41 people died and 80 were injured as an oil refinery blazed away in Venezuela.
In July 2013 a 74-car run away freight train carrying crude oil derailed in Quebec. 47 people were killed and the town was half destroyed.
In May 2014 a Turkish coal mine collapsed and 301 miners died.
In January 2015 a propane gas tanker exploded outside a Mexican hospital. The building was utterly destroyed, 2 infants and a nurse were killed. Another nurse died in the act of rescuing babies, and a fifth victim died later from injuries.
All of this happened because of one mundane fact: hydrocarbons are inherently combustible and dangerous. People are pretty careful with them most of the time, but we use so much of them. We effectively have no choice about it.
Every one of these deadly disasters has occurred since the March 2011 Touhoku earthquake devastated large sections of Japan and led to a series of nuclear accidents. No one was killed by radiation and it is not expected to effect the public at all. But in the time since, Japan has relied heavily on expanded imports of the very fossil fuels at the heart of the accidents listed above.
Their use and hazards are so thoroughly normalised that I bet you didn’t remember even one of the location names in which they occurred.^
* Compensation is quite forthcoming for the last accident.
^ Neither did I.
(What if the oil industry had to take the sort of global action as we expected from the nuclear industry?)
Excellent commentary on risk, thank you. Also, a great book and a quick read, for anyone, even if you don’t have a kindle device, one can install a free app http://www.amazon.ca/gp/feature.html?docId=1000817631
Clever-seeming justifications for maintaining the socially engineered aversion to fair consideration of nuclear do nothing to expand the share of fossil abating energy. Thanks fou
Thanks for the comment, Todd!
I think nuclear baseload for SA could replace the Pt Augusta coal station, gas fired baseload such as Torrens Island and Pelican Pt and imports from Victoria of brown coal fired electricity. It could help some power hungry industries such expanded mining and desalination. So far the south eastern spot gas price hasn’t risen but it almost certainly will in a few years.
At ~30% average wind and solar SA may be on the sweet spot. Like eating some kind of health ‘superfood’ there may be no gains by consuming more. That’s for both emissions and electricity prices.