Reply #37: The Black Swan

[arachadillo]

A quick review of all the recent nuclear energy posts here shows that the nuclear energy argument sells (both the pro and con sides).

FWIW, here's one more POV...

In his article The Fourth Quadrant: A Map of the Limits of Statistics, Nassim Nicholas Taleb reminds us,

"you can't be a modern intellectual and not think probabilistically - but... let's not be suckers. The problem is much more complicated than it seems to the casual, mechanistic user who picked it up in graduate school. Statistics can fool you."

So, it looks as if we are once again a bunch of suckers, fooled by the statistics wielded by the oil companies that told us, given technological improvements, the risk of a catastrophic oil spill were virtually nil.

When you listen closely, it's the same statistical language used by proponents of nuclear energy. In effect the new push for nuclear is the new push to discover the next black swan.

The link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons can not be undone, placing it squarely in the fourth quadrant, "Complex decisions in Extremistan".

The current push for nuclear energy would result in the exponential spread of nuclear knowledge throughout the world, including nuclear weapons knowledge.

More nuclear plants also increases the possibility for human caused accidents and/or technology failures.

More nuclear plants also increases the number of both stationary terrorist targets and mobile targets (as fuel is moved for storage or recycling).

With all of those increased probabilities, it's difficult to understand how an exponential spread in nuclear energy makes the world a safer place.

There are some ugly truths in life. With respect to safe nuclear power, we may as well be hunting snarks.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."