Kalle reflects on the burden of proof, who owns it?

Takeaway for Leaders at All Levels, Everywhere
On one side, we have scientists applying robust theory grounded in natural laws to demonstrate technical systems that don’t have a future vs. those that do. Let’s use nuclear power as an example. In this particular case, it is already too late to escape huge and unneccessary and escalating costs already for the history of this power system. On the other, we also see those who propose continued public investment in nuclear power ― based on empirical calculations that merely guarantee true uncertainty as regards the exact date of points of no return for much worse consequences. So, who owns the burden of proof?

Robust theory, logically derived from natural laws, outweighs empirical studies. No one needs to attend conferences to argue that perpetual motion machines are theoretically impossible, pending further empirical confirmation. Similarly, we need no empirical evidence to prove that it is beneficial to look both ways before crossing a street.

This principle of robust theory vs. empirical calculations applies equally when nuclear power is examined through the lens of our sustainability framework ― an “Operative System” based on backcasting from scientifically robust sustainability principles. The conclusion is not “almost certain,” but absolutely certain: nuclear power has no future, and never did. It was, from upfront, a power system with a true un-certainty as regards its precise doomsday (See previous reflections on all forms of nuclear power.) 

From a meta-perspective, this is due to its inherently linear fuel flows ― finite reserves that must be consumed at the same rate as they are used, while further impacts and damages along the line have to keep escalating. While engineering can address challenges upstream (raw material extraction), midstream (reactor downtimes and accidents), and downstream (waste management and the linkage to nuclear arms and terrorism), no technology can resolve the fundamental dead-end dictated by this linearity.

Here, logic takes over again. We cannot pinpoint exactly when or how things will go really wrong if we pursue nuclear power as proposed. But we can be certain that they will. The outcome depends on a complex interplay of factors: technological advances in new reactor types, the unforeseen problems and costs and delays they in turn may introduce, and the comparative progress of energy systems that are infinitely scalable ― precisely because they rely not on fuels, but on eternal, harmless flows that are free of charge.

This leads us to a critical question: how do the learning curves of these two energy paradigms compare ― one doomed by its linear fuel dependency, the other liberated by its scalability and independency of fuels? Any attempt to forecast even worse tipping points for nuclear power’s unsustainability will be speculative. Just as it would be complex to empirically determine the exact health hazard of sending well-paid volunteers into traffic wearing headphones and blinders. The outcome would depend on traffic density, speed, road width, proximity to emergency care, and more.

Now comes the decisive blow: the uncertainty about when the definitive cliff edge will be reached ― the point at which everyone would regret further investment in this theoretically doomed technology ― is, in fact, the strongest argument for accelerating an orderly phase-out of nuclear power, whose historical expansion was either uninformed by theory or driven by cynical motives related to nuclear weapons. Empirically, we already know that cost curves between nuclear and renewables crossed decades ago ― and have diverged ever since, to nuclear’s disadvantage. No technology can change that!

It’s like enjoying a comfortable ride in a car speeding at 100 km/h through dense fog. The driver suddenly learns from the radio that there’s a cliff ahead on the road ― just not how far away it is. What do you do in such a car, faced with genuine uncertainty about the cliff’s location? Perhaps a matter of personality, where some might choose to enjoy the ride a bit longer. But most of us would slam the brakes ― precisely because of the true uncertainty surrounding the catastrophic end of the journey.

So again, who owns the burden of proof? Those who propose spending public money to build more nuclear power (see previous reflections) based on debated empirical calculations on reductionist choices of data ― or those who advocate restraint, based on robust theory for the whole system?

All hot topic Reflections are direct consequences of our Operative System.

For a deeper dive into the science behind the Operative System that informs all Reflections, see the peer-reviewed Open-Source paper with all its references: doi.org/10.1002/sd.3357. For the full title, see footnote below.

Or, for concluding reflections, practical insights and training, click on “Kalle Reflects” to see all reflections.

If you need any further advice, perhaps getting some further references, please send a question to us from the homepage.