Obviously a nuclear advocacy diary won't be well received today, but I feel it is important to maintain perspective even in the face of calamity. Clarity of thought is often the most valuable resource in times of crisis.
I'd argue the true nature of progressivism is the ability to make rational decisions in the wake of imperfect choices. Conservatism conversely chooses a path of reactionary thought.
So when evaluating nuclear power (or really any social resource), allowing the crisis of the moment to inform all decisions leads to statistically poor outcomes. This kind of reactionary mind operates under the illusion that there are perfect choices always available.
The status quo, however, is continued reliance on oil, coal and natural gas for energy production.
I've been a part of projects designed to evaluate system failure from a manufacturing perspective. The goal is to determine, why a part failed, and what could be done to the manufacturing process to lower the risk associated with the possible failure of the part.
I say "lower the risk", because in reality no system occurs without risk. Ware and tare is part of life. Cumulative tolerance guarantees no two systems will be exactly the same. Certainty is a concept, which exists only in the human brain.
It seems to have become part of American culture to conflate the unknown or the unintended with the immoral.
In my experience I have never seen an engineer with a blatant disregard for the product they've designed. I have seen many mistakes, some of which seem obvious in retrospect. Other mistakes remain hidden in complexity, and are only revealed in conjunction with other factors in an overall system.
Even with due diligence, people who design complicated systems can never see every variation. These systems are built and run by humans, which adds an intrinsic element of error. Even a computer controlled system relies on a programmer.
Engineers, scientists, machinists and programmers aren't by nature business people. We are problem solvers, and most feel an almost affectionate connection to their solutions. I promise you, that all the major players connected to the reactor in Japan haven't slept for days. Each is evaluating their contribution, searching for possible solutions to the overall systemic failure.
While it might be easy for you to say, "why didn't they prepare for a 8.9 earthquake and resulting tsunami?".
The answer is that they thought they had. In the coming days we'll learn of mistakes, which should have been obvious and mistakes, which couldn't have been foreseen without the actual chain of events occurring.
There will be serious inquiries along with kangaroo courts. From the serious inquiries a learning process will occur. From the kangaroo courts public opinion will be skewed. If that public opinion results in reactionary postures, all learning will be for naught.
Even with alternative sources of energy, there are problems. I would love to work for a company in the solar, wind or tidal fields, but the reactionary economy in the US has made those companies hard to find.
You see none of these sources of energy are ready in terms of yield. With each there is a need for technology not yet in existence. Many believe these problems can be overcome with directed research, but banks don't loan money when part of your business exists only in theory.
To continue forward, some capitalist has to be willing to take a risk. So instead I know people, who find just enough grant money to work on developing a small part of the missing technologies. Without working on the system as a whole they often move in small inefficient steps. There is something about doing big stuff, that makes solving small problems easier.
But when I read articles about the stuff being done at CERN, I'm eager to see nuclear power production move forward. The problem is one of perception. Few scientists want to even be called nuclear physicist, preferring the title of particle or quantum physicist. In America the word nuclear carries political overtones.
I'm not going to try to convince anyone that there aren't concerns related to nuclear reactors, because there are. Nuclear power is the most advanced application of science in the energy sector. It is full of unknowns.
But the current course we are on is guaranteed to fail. Our reliance on hydrocarbons has a predestined ending. The argument is an issue of when not what. The results of climate change and economic scarcity is a death sentence for future generations.
It isn't easy to step into a "brave new world", but when the "comfortable old world" can no longer sustain you, what choice do you really have?