[Dn_Ab]

Right, the only real argument against nuclear is unfortunately a big one. Humans are simply not far-thinking and reliable enough to be trusted to properly manage all stages of a nuclear plant's lifecycle. But rather than give up -

Is there any research being done to automate as much as possible such that the required operators becomes small enough for it to be feasible to confidently vet that they are intelligent and scrupled enough to understand the consequences of cutting corners? And also make it hard to build it the wrong way by removing as many variables as possible?

[bluedanieru]

Research that removes the human element from nuclear power operation? Like, AI and robot armies? Anything short of that and we can still fuck it up. The consequences of disregarding the safety and integrity of a nuclear power facility are well-understood. That is, the physical consequences are, as opposed to the legal consequences. The legal consequences, sadly, do not exist.

In the aftermath of the earthquake while the radiation scare was at a fever pitch, I could be found in various places around the Internet (including here) defending nuclear power. So it's been a long journey to arrive at this opinion. And it's had consequences beyond just what I think of fission.

Like, speaking of AI and robot armies, how are we going to handle that? We'll be able to build both eventually, and probably sooner rather than later. How will we react? I'm not talking about the Skynet scenario or whatever. Rather, when we build something that passes the Turing test easily and is, by all outward appearances, a sapient and sentient being, are we going to respect that creature's basic rights? I suspect not.

I think that nuclear power is merely the first in what will become a long chain of technologies that humans are incapable of wielding responsibly.