U.S. stands by nuclear power, Energy secretary says - Polidicks

Source: [url]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-steven-chu-20110316,0,2062754.story[/url] [quote] Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Tuesday restated the Obama administration's commitment to keeping nuclear power in the mix of renewable sources under development in the U.S., but treaded carefully around questions of how the nuclear disaster in Japan might affect that effort. "The administration believes we must rely on a diverse set of energy sources, including renewables like wind and solar, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power," Chu said before a House subcommittee. "The administration is committed to learning from Japan's experience as we work to continue to strengthen America's nuclear industry." No new reactors have been fully developed in the U.S. since 1979, when the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania made investors and the public skittish about the safety of nuclear power. As the memory of Three Mile Island faded and concern over fossil fuels and global warming increased, the nuclear industry seemed poised for a comeback. Applications to build 20 new reactors are pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the White House had proposed billions of dollars to support the expansion of atomic power. But the crisis in Japan threatens to change the equation. Some U.S. lawmakers have already called for a time-out in approving funding and new applications. Chu said Tuesday that more than 30 experts from the Energy Department had been deployed to assist Japanese officials as they struggled to stabilize reactors and assess the potential fallout. Emergency response experts stationed at U.S. consulates and military installations will assist with surveying and sampling. The U.S. has sent more than 17,000 pounds of monitoring equipment intended for early detection of contamination on the ground. "We can be assured that whatever [radiation] does get released, we can give people fair warning," Chu told the energy and water subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. Chu said that U.S. reactors, which generate about 20% of the nation's electricity, meet the highest safety standards. Those near seismic fault lines and the coasts, he said, were designed to withstand the double blow of an earthquake and tsunami that rocked the reactors in Japan. About 50 nuclear power plants are under construction worldwide, 25 of them in China, Chu said. In the U.S., the industry has been looking at a first wave of expansion with four nuclear projects. The future of three is unclear, Chu told lawmakers, while the fourth — at the Vogtle plant near Augusta, Ga. — remains contingent on regulatory approval. Asked whether he thought the crisis in Japan would put the brakes on nuclear expansion, Chu demurred. "I still feel it's probably premature to say anything other than, 'We will learn from this, and all forms of energy do present risks,' " Chu said. Chu is scheduled to return to Capitol Hill on Wednesday with Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Jaczko is also scheduled to brief the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Jaczko will probably face more detailed questions about the safety of U.S. reactors. In a letter sent Tuesday, Reps. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) noted that there were eight nuclear reactors in the earthquake-prone West and 27 near the New Madrid fault line in the Midwest. They raised concerns about whether those reactors were built to withstand the largest seismic shifts predicted by scientists for those regions and whether they had necessary backup power sources to deal with disruptions. [/quote] In the wake of apocalypse these men will always stand firm for what we need.

More good news. Shut the fuck up greenpeace.

There's nothing fucking wrong with nuclear power plants; just regulations and safety procedures. People need to stop believing everything they see on those artsy fartsy green movement ads.

good. so fucking tired of reading raging hippies ranting how nuclear power is dangerous, not needed, and inefficient. seriously iʻm pretty sure there are more health problems caused by fossil fuels

[QUOTE=Sleepy Head;28629152]good. so fucking tired of reading raging hippies ranting how nuclear power is dangerous, not needed, and inefficient. seriously iʻm pretty sure there are more health problems caused by fossil fuels[/QUOTE] that's a fact basically

Awesome. Was watching a news report on the future of Nuclear power and this smug ass Greenpeace guy had to come on talking about how unsafe it is. They're one of the few people benefiting from this and you almost want to punch them in the face because they're acting so "I told you so". It's not even justified, they're acting like dipshits and riding a wave of uninformed fear.

As a great man once said, [i]"Nothing is more dangerous than large groups of idiots with video-editing software."[/i]

People die mining coal. People die drilling oil, People fall off wind farms too I'm sure. Progress is dangerous. Deal with it Greenpeace, no one likes you.

Greenpeace is such a shit interest group. I hope they get investigated.

It's about time a country actually stood up and said "Fuck you, We're keeping it"

[QUOTE=Noth;28629355]It's about time a country actually stood up and said "Fuck you, We're keeping it"[/QUOTE] It's badass enough to please the hicks, and viable enough to please just about everyone else, except for misinformed hippies.

[QUOTE=Matix;28629125]There's nothing fucking wrong with nuclear power plants; just regulations and safety procedures. People need to stop believing everything they see on those artsy fartsy green movement ads. I'll die before I see "clean coal" win this stupid battle.[/QUOTE] Haha no actual environmentalist groups support "clean coal"

[QUOTE=TH89;28629378]Haha no actual environmentalist groups support "clean coal"[/QUOTE] The Sierra Club and World Wildlife Fund are not opposed to it. I've also seen at least three different commercials glorifying it, and a magazine ad that ignorantly claimed its superiority to nuclear power. I think the commercials were funded by political constituents, but the ad had some kind of environmentalist badge on it.

[QUOTE=TH89;28629378]Haha no actual environmentalist groups support "clean coal"[/QUOTE] And yet plenty oppose Nuclear power ignoring the fact that leaks are incredibly rare and the waste products are less than from Solar. Funny thing is if you look at Chernobyl, the plants don't care about the radiation and are living perfectly fine. If anything the radiation got rid of all the nasty humans and let the plants flourish. Nuclear radiation is good for the plant life!

[QUOTE=Matix;28629433]The Sierra Club and World Wildlife Fund support it. I've also seen at least three different commercials glorifying it, and a magazine ad that ignorantly claimed its superiority to nuclear power.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/coal.asp[/url]

Im glad the Australian government still rejects nuclear power, we have enough renewable energy sources.

[QUOTE=TH89;28629445][url]http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/coal.asp[/url][/QUOTE] That's the funny part, because they support CCS after wind and solar. They just complain about the economic disadvantage.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;28629436]And yet plenty oppose Nuclear power ignoring the fact that leaks are incredibly rare and the waste products are less than from Solar. Funny thing is if you look at Chernobyl, the plants don't care about the radiation and are living perfectly fine. If anything the radiation got rid of all the nasty humans and let the plants flourish. Nuclear radiation is good for the plant life![/QUOTE] We can pretend that competent, professional environmentalist advocates like the Sierra Club are all smelly hippies who want the human race to die, or we can have a discussion about real life, like grown-ups. Call it friendo.

[QUOTE=TH89;28629559]We can pretend that competent, professional environmentalist advocates like the Sierra Club are all smelly hippies who want the human race to die, or we can have a discussion about real life, like grown-ups. Call it friendo.[/QUOTE] I'm sure the Sierra Club know what they're talking about, I was referring more to the ones like Greenpeace who maintain an image of being proper environmentalists but know jack shit. Most people can't quite tell the difference.

If they dump the waste into the Mariana Trench (or whatever it's called), doesn't it basically get re-absorbed by the earth and we never see it again?

[QUOTE=Ardosos;28629620]If they dump the waste into the Mariana Trench (or whatever it's called), doesn't it basically get re-absorbed by the earth and we never see it again?[/QUOTE] Yes. People have trouble grasping the nature of radioactivity. Although, some radioisotopes such as plutonium-239 have to be properly isolated for a very long time. Like, hundreds of thousands of years. It's not the best idea, however. We learned in the early 60's that there is, in fact, a lot of life down there.

[QUOTE=mr apple;28629463]Im glad the Australian government still rejects nuclear power, we have enough renewable energy sources.[/QUOTE] Oh jesus, we have too much renewable energy. We need more coal up in this bitch.

[QUOTE=Matix;28629636]Yes. People have trouble grasping the nature of radioactivity. Although, some radioisotopes such as plutonium-239 have to be properly isolated for a very long time. Like, hundreds of thousands of years.[/QUOTE] But radioactivity is evil, I'll grow 4 testicles and a third arm if I'm exposed to it for a few seconds! :downs: Some of these environmentalists need to learn2physics.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;28629620]If they dump the waste into the Mariana Trench (or whatever it's called), doesn't it basically get re-absorbed by the earth and we never see it again?[/QUOTE] I like the mountain idea better.

[QUOTE=OvB;28629278]People die mining coal. People die drilling oil, People fall off wind farms too I'm sure. Progress is dangerous. Deal with it Greenpeace, no one likes you.[/QUOTE] Don't forget the many people who also die installing solar panels! That's dangerous work man... So long as you build your nuclear reactors in a very VERY stable location, nobody will die :buddy:

[QUOTE=OvB;28629700]I like the mountain idea better.[/QUOTE] Or we could launch it into space. There's already a fuckton of radioactivity out there.

People in my city are fucking idiots, there is an iodine pill shortage because retards are all rushing to buy them, keep in mind that I live in Canada/Alberta.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZreEBnqlZlk[/media] God I hate Greenpeace.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;28629436]And yet plenty oppose Nuclear power ignoring the fact that leaks are incredibly rare and the waste products are less than from Solar. Funny thing is if you look at Chernobyl, the plants don't care about the radiation and are living perfectly fine. If anything the radiation got rid of all the nasty humans and let the plants flourish. Nuclear radiation is good for the plant life![/QUOTE] Your'e right! It's not like the plants will grow a 'third branch' or anything :downs:

[QUOTE=OvB;28629773][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZreEBnqlZlk[/media] God I hate Greenpeace.[/QUOTE] You missed the message. The nuclear plants are not airplane proof they're too dangerous without it.