Journal de bord

Toyoma, Miyagi - 登米町 (Mark Baker/AP Photo).

Natori, Miyagi - 名取市 (Kyodo News/Reuters).

Higashimatsushima, Miyagi - 東松島市 (Kyodo News/Reuters).

Ōtsuchi, Iwate - 大槌町 (Damir Sagolj/Reuters).

Rikuzentakata, Iwate - 陸前高田市 (Lee Jae-Won/Reuters).

As any sane person would point out, now certainly isn’t the time to have a wide-scale debate about civil nuclear policies. Decade-long policies should not be decided in the middle of a day-to-day disaster…

Unfortunately, that is not how some people see it: the debate is already happening. I have no particular animosity against those die-hard anti-nuclear types who have seized on the occasion for their own political purpose, as I know they sincerely mean well. I do certainly find it distasteful when any side uses the emotion generated by such a tragedy to advance points of questionable relevance: if anything, it’s also a bit insulting when reports of anti-nuclear demonstrations trump reports on actual earthquake/tsunami-related fatalities on the front page of German newspapers (yes, I am looking in your direction, Spiegel).

Now, since we are having that debate. Allow me to raise one single point, based on very easily verifiable facts:

[…] So far, all serious nuclear accidents in history have involved older containment models. Some of the newer models currently operating all over Japan have been doing fine through numerous earthquakes, including the last one.

OK. Now, the million-becquerel question: if Mark-1 containment models suck so much and if there’s been so many cool new advances in safety ever since, how come any of these antiquated models are still running and haven’t long been replaced?

Part of the answer is of course the universal instinct of governments, the world over, to cut corners and pinch yens on whatever doesn’t have enough immediate populist appeal. Incidentally a very reasonable argument against trusting anybody in such a critical area as commercial atom-tingling.

But a much larger, and equally universal, reason for the lack of a sensible upgrade policy everywhere is, surprisingly enough, anti-nuclear pressure. Provocative as this may sound, it is actually quite obvious: upgrading an outdated reactor model usually means decommissioning it entirely and building a new one next to it.

[…] And there you have it: because there are arguably few other realistic alternatives at the moment (I’ll grant you this is a much wider debate) and because it is just much easier for politicians to appease all sides by relying on old nuclear plants but pledging to abstain from new construction, the world is riddled with highly dangerous, antiquated nuclear power plants, leading to disasters that could probably be avoided in many ways.

Dr Dave’s Blog : “The Big Nuclear Debate”.