Best of a bad lot? Likely so. I’ve been trying to adjust to nuke power because, just as is said, it may very well be unavoidable. And I must take a moment to remind you guys, once again, that if you had listened to us crazy ass moonbats forty years ago, and started plowing some serious bucks into alternative energy resources, we might not be in this mess. We didn’t, because there was no profit to be had. Oh, sure, some gestures were made, a bit of research here and there, looks good for the PR front.
And thereby hangs the tale.
We are a capitalist/consumerist nation, and that presents us with certain inherent weaknesses. Our science follows money. Just for instance, we know a whole lot about viruses that cause cancer, we are pretty thoroughly researched on that. Why? Because tobacco companies cheerfully funded such research, hoping to get out from under lung cancer. Turns out, viruses don’t cause very much cancer, but we know lots and lots about it! Yay!
There’s an inherent bias in our information. That is not the same as saying the books are cooked, or the science is faked, not at all. But if a scientists approaches these issues from a strictly non-biased viewpoint, he is a fool if he doesn’t know that one set of results will be greeted with glad cries and hosannas, and another set of results might ensure that he never gets another research grant as long as he lives. TL:DR - we don’t pay for non-biased research, we demand practical results. Results that cost us money and/or profitability are not welcome.
And how much are we willing to pay for safety? Sure, the engineers can cook up a plan with double, triple safeguards. What is the cost of implementing those safeguards, at what point will a bean-counter say “Well, really, this is going to cost us 10 percent of our profit margin, we probably don’t need it, why, Ive got research right here from Unbiased University that says the odds are a million to one against! And we know the research is good because we paid for it!”
Unbiased decisions cannot meaningfully exist where profit is a motivator.
And then there’s Catch 22, where “22” is an exponent: water. I am compelled in the direction of nuke plants largely from the threat of global warming. But nuke plants must have water. And brothers and sisters, pals and gals, the next big fight isn’t going to be about oil. Its gonna be about water. If we’re gonna build a buttload of nuke plants, well, where?
The middle of American used to be called the Great American Desert. (Take a moment to plug a history by Jonathon Raban, Badlands, helluva story, true story, grim story…) So there’s plenty of places to put nuke plants where hardly anybody lives. But the reason nobody lives there is because there’s no water. So we either build in highly populated areas, with another set of concerns, because that’s where the water is, or we find water we there is none. Maybe we could build them all in Canada? Canada has lots of water, they won’t mind. The love us to pieces up there, they’ll be happy to take on our risk. Besides, give us any shit, we raise their rent.
The only answer is the Holy Grail of Cheap, Clean Energy. The Green Goblet. But nuke power isn’t a cure, its a crutch. And sure as shit, if we get a bunch of nuke energy, we most likely will squander it just like we squandered all the others. Its what we do, we’re consumers. We consume.
Anyway, I’m trying to adjust to what appears to be the Inevitable. I was heartened by the admirable safety record. I’d have to be, I’ve been beaten about the head and shoulders with that safety record for years. “Look at France! Look at Japan! Shuttup, you Luddite moonbat, and look at France and…OK, look at France!”
