Pengwuino said:
We KNOW something bad MIGHT happen, but you can't never ever do anything because of stuff that may possible happen if all the planets align and the correct butterfly flaps it's wings. It's not that the cost of failure is acceptable or not, it's about whether the RISK of failure and associated cost is acceptable. Is it acceptable for a building in san francisco to collapse and killing 10,000 people? What does acceptable even mean in that case?
I will spare you the embarrassment of discussing the overall tone and quality of your post.
To the points you make: yes, it's true we can't sit on our hands while population is increasing. We need power, food, shelter, and lots. All of that power is going to come with associated costs, in terms of lives and money. This is a given.
You state "it's not that the cost of failure is acceptable or not, it's about whether the RISK of failure and associated cost is acceptable". Let us discuss this for a bit.
NPPs in the United States are uninsured. This is because they are not insurable. That is, absolutely no-one who cares about their money is prepared to bet that the risk of a NPP failing and the subsequent associated cost is smaller than any insurance premium a NPP operator might reasonably pay. That, to me, is the very definition of unacceptable risk.
Let's approach this from another angle. We now have enough data to say that for a population of about 400 NPPs, we will get one total failure every twenty years or so. That's the risk. Now for the associated cost. A lower bound estimate for Fukushima is 250 billion dollars,
so far. But what does this "so far" mean? Well, we know that some land will become unusable for decades if not centuries. The economic cost is, thus, unbounded.
You ask "
Is it acceptable for a building in san francisco to collapse and killing 10,000 people? What does acceptable even mean in that case? " Let's talk about this from a systemic risk perspective.
Yes, it is acceptable for one building to collapse, out of all the similar buildings that have been built. HOWEVER, if I find out that all buildings which house 10000 people or more in them share a common failure mode and thus will ALL fail in an earthquake, well then, I don't think that's acceptable anymore.
No BWR can survive a total loss of coolant accident . That's a common failure mode. Furthermore, most BWRs would suffer meltdowns if offsite power becomes unavailable and remains unavailable for more than eight hours. That's two common, catastrophic failure modes. Furthermore, all BWRs in existence store "spent" fuel onsite, in non-hardened buildings, with little security and ZERO contingency planning for loss of coolant, loss of power, missiles of any sort (yes, meteorites and errant turbine blades do count), earthquakes disturbing the geometry of close-packed fuel racks... That's three, no, make that six or seven common, catastrophic failure modes.
No need for the butterfly's wings to resonate with the orbital irregularities of Jupiter I'm afraid.