Here's the thing. Nuclear power isn't automatic. It isn't static. It isn't founded on anything so reliable or durable as, say The Pyramids of Egypt or South America.
We don't build these things to last thousands of years. We build them to last a few decades.
And the people that run them? You can select dependable people, but no one seems to be able to quantify the objective details that make for an ideal nuclear engineer. Is there an unlimited supply? What if market forces apply pressure to our feedstock of nuclear engineers?
How do you know there will always be people to tend the flame?
Look at New York City's MTA and its subway system. There are people willing to spend time running those trains and maintaining those tunnels and booths, but how much skill does that require, and how much does it cost?
Given the option to take on a role operating a train as an engineer on an NYC subway line (pick any line), underground in smelly, toxic soot covered tunnels inhabited by roaches, rats and bums all urinating and defecating as needed, drunks on the weekends, commuters punching and fighting each other in the morning and on the way home during rush hours, 12 hours a day for the rest of your life, which other jobs would you take first, provided matching pay?
Garbage man? Dishwasher? Short order cook? Professional baseball player? Basketball player? Porn star? Cashier? Branch manager at a bank? Librarian? Truck driver?
Now perform the same exercise for nuclear engineer.
Nevermind the science, What about the social forces? The human factors are the issue.
If it were as simple as stacking bricks and leaving them where they are, with a failure mode rendering the system dead and little more than an explorable landmark, without consequence no one would complain. But that's not what happens when these things fail.
If the potential is so valuable, why not build them with all the reverance of an international landmark?
People can see through this fact. Such a plan will never see the light of day. Nuclear plants will always be bult with all the charm of an American public school. A place with all the charm of a child prison, running on a razor thin margin.
If the power they can produce is so plentiful, why are they not built to lend the impression of an unlimited budget?
Here's the thing. Nuclear power isn't automatic. It isn't static. It isn't founded on anything so reliable or durable as, say The Pyramids of Egypt or South America.
We don't build these things to last thousands of years. We build them to last a few decades.
And the people that run them? You can select dependable people, but no one seems to be able to quantify the objective details that make for an ideal nuclear engineer. Is there an unlimited supply? What if market forces apply pressure to our feedstock of nuclear engineers?
How do you know there will always be people to tend the flame?
Look at New York City's MTA and its subway system. There are people willing to spend time running those trains and maintaining those tunnels and booths, but how much skill does that require, and how much does it cost?
Given the option to take on a role operating a train as an engineer on an NYC subway line (pick any line), underground in smelly, toxic soot covered tunnels inhabited by roaches, rats and bums all urinating and defecating as needed, drunks on the weekends, commuters punching and fighting each other in the morning and on the way home during rush hours, 12 hours a day for the rest of your life, which other jobs would you take first, provided matching pay?
Garbage man? Dishwasher? Short order cook? Professional baseball player? Basketball player? Porn star? Cashier? Branch manager at a bank? Librarian? Truck driver?
Now perform the same exercise for nuclear engineer.
Nevermind the science, What about the social forces? The human factors are the issue.
If it were as simple as stacking bricks and leaving them where they are, with a failure mode rendering the system dead and little more than an explorable landmark, without consequence no one would complain. But that's not what happens when these things fail.
If the potential is so valuable, why not build them with all the reverance of an international landmark?
People can see through this fact. Such a plan will never see the light of day. Nuclear plants will always be bult with all the charm of an American public school. A place with all the charm of a child prison, running on a razor thin margin.
If the power they can produce is so plentiful, why are they not built to lend the impression of an unlimited budget?