Mastodawn

@CraigKendrickNZ Also geologically extremely unstable + prone to massive wather eventsmight not be ideal for nuclear

RenamedPM

@annamal @CraigKendrickNZ Depends where you put it, and what kind of facility is built. There are certainly some good options open to us.

Obviously there are some stupid choices available too re location or reactor design, but avoiding unsafe options should not be particularly controversial, and there are enough good ones that the bad ones should not be attractive to anybody.

@renamedpm @CraigKendrickNZ I remember chatting to one of our infra folks and they were pretty clear on the fact that there are *no* true safe spots in NZ....and that's just for data centres...

@annamal @CraigKendrickNZ Depends how you define safe - and ultimately, that definition will vary wildly depending on what you need the location to be safe for, from what kinds of consequences, and what degree of risk is considered acceptable.

There are some reactor designs I'd never want anywhere near NZ. And there are others which can be sited here perfectly safely, with many suitable locations to choose from.

@renamedpm @CraigKendrickNZ combine the frequent natural disasters with a healthy and safety approach that has to constantly fight against "she'll be right" and I don't think it would be a great idea

@annamal @CraigKendrickNZ I disagree. While the threat of a natural disaster *occurring* is high everywhere, it's also easily addressed by selecting an appropriate design and location to mitigate any radiation risk. Natural disaster risk does not preclude safe nuclear energy; it's just another thing to plan around.

"She'll be right" attitude is definitely a risk, but it's also one that can be sufficiently mitigated, as is also the case in many other countries. NZ is not unique in that respect.

@renamedpm @CraigKendrickNZ no but after reading about some of the careless behaviour in the US and coupled with the blase attitude to toxic discharge here...I don't believe that we as a country would be willing to pay to maintain the mitigation. We're too prone to cutting corners when the risks are invisible.

@annamal @CraigKendrickNZ I think I disagree with you on that point as well. There are many areas where we are clearly quite happy to pay in order to mitigate risk; why do you think that this area is uniquely immune to that?

Certainly there has been some pretty sloppy behavior elsewhere on occasion, but that does not mean we must repeat the mistake here. As is the case in any sector; there are always examples of how *not* to do it.

@renamedpm @CraigKendrickNZ Most areas where we're happy to pay to mitigate risk are areas where we've specifically been burned. I don't think *anything* in nz is immune to slowly degrading budgets and "cost cutting" even when the costs cut can lead to a lot of harm in the long term (our slowly degrading water infrastructure being one example). All it takes is a few rounds of cost cutting and a lack of enforcement and eventually even the most safety focused organisation will informally get lax.

@annamal @CraigKendrickNZ Of course nothing is immune. That is why it is a risk to manage and mitigate. There is nothing unique about that kind of risk which makes it magically unaddressable; I'm confused as to why you think that is the case.

Can you expand a bit on why you don't feel that this particular risk can be safely managed? Because there are certainly plenty of options for doing so, and many, many examples around the world we can learn from, both good and bad.

@renamedpm @CraigKendrickNZ It's not that this risk is different from other risks, it's that we've proven ourselves quite bad at managing other risks over a long term (we're usually quite good for a time immediately after a disaster).
Pike River is a really good example of this.

@annamal @CraigKendrickNZ It really depends on the risk and the stakes. There's clear evidence that we are quite good at managing some risks, and terrible at others, and then kinda average at a whole lot more.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether there is sufficient will to manage risks properly in the first place - and with things as high-stakes as nuclear energy tends to be, there's usually plenty of will to do a proper job of risk management.

Agree Pike River's a great 'terrible' example 🙂.

@renamedpm @CraigKendrickNZ there would absolutely be sufficient will at first but we have a horrific habit of ignoring risks once a few years have passed. All it would take is a few years of gently pruned budgets and great risk management would morph into slight corner cutting and then more than slight.
Kinda average doesn't seem sufficient in this case.

@annamal @CraigKendrickNZ You seem to be forgetting the "management" part of risk management. If it's identified, then you can put measures in place ahead of time to prevent it. That includes the kind of risks you're talking about here.

E.g. if concern about lax inspections is an issue, can add external inspections or review. If funding is an issue, can use ultra long term allocations & mechanisms. If political will is a concern, can make it embarrassing / electorally problematic to lapse. Etc.

@renamedpm @CraigKendrickNZ If we don't have the political will to implement the methods you suggest for managing any other risks, why do you think there would be a political will to implement them for nuclear?
Basically until we have a proper safety overhall and prove we can stick with it across multiple governments, I don't think introducing nuclear is a good idea.

@annamal @CraigKendrickNZ For some risks, we do. I'm unsure why you seem to be under the impression that nuclear is somehow an insurmountable challenge.

With nuclear in particular, the incredibly high stakes of screwing up also help to focus the will to do the risk management properly in the first place. And any risk you can forecast, you can take measures against - and the nature of risks involved with nuclear energy are very well known at this point; it's not some new mystery.

@annamal @CraigKendrickNZ Remember there's also design decisions you can make to ensure safety even in the event of lax oversight - e.g. picking a reactor type that cannot explode or leak radioactive compounds into the surrounding environment. Could even go further and pick something that has a worst-case scenario of "melts into a contained puddle". An annoying and expensive cleanup if it happens, but not something that's going to realistically threaten anybody.

@renamedpm @CraigKendrickNZ We are currently sitting on so many safety risks that we actively ignore until tragedy happens (and often after that). Why do you think nuclear would be any different and if it is different why not expend the cost and political will on the huge existing risks.

@annamal @CraigKendrickNZ The whole point of failsafe design is to ensure the worst-case outcome is one you can live with. When you're dealing with risks that have a potentially catastrophic consequence arising from human error or negligence, designing failsafe systems is one of the primary ways to mitigate it. It's an approach to risk that is inherently a sensible one to take with nuclear energy, because it brings the scale of the potential problem down from "catastrophe" to "large bill".

@renamedpm @CraigKendrickNZ Again, if there is the energy and political will available why not spend it on the existing risks.

@annamal @CraigKendrickNZ @annamal @CraigKendrickNZ Re why this risk vs others - most of our major unmanaged risks of the kind you're describing are natural disasters. They aren't projects we initiated and planned properly from the start, but rather ones that we just got stuck with after the fact.

Spending resources on dealing with stuff that isn't a problem *now* is not something humans are naturally good at. We're much more inclined to head-in-the-sand thinking.

@annamal @CraigKendrickNZ When you design a system from scratch, the risks are all problems during the design phase, which have to be addressed during the design phase, and ultimately inform the CBR of the entire project, and whether / how it proceeds. Having upfront will is enough to ensure the integrity of the project throughout its lifetime.

@renamedpm @CraigKendrickNZ Pike River, Leaky Houses and Water Infrastructure were all projects that were initiated once. All the upfront will in the world can't contend with lack of funding, lowest bidder and personnel reduction over the life of a project.