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

[QUOTE=OvB;28629773][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZreEBnqlZlk[/media] God I hate Greenpeace.[/QUOTE] I don't even understand what the fuck this is arguing. Nuclear power is vulnerable to planes flying into it?

[QUOTE=OvB;28629773] [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/"]View YouTUBE video[/URL] [URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZreEBnqlZlk[/URL] God I hate Greenpeace.[/QUOTE] Oh wow.

[QUOTE=OvB;28629773][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZreEBnqlZlk[/media] God I hate Greenpeace.[/QUOTE] The amount of security that goes into a nuclear power plant is insane, everything from armed guards to reinforced walls to withstand things exactly like this.

[QUOTE=OvB;28629773][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZreEBnqlZlk[/media] God I hate Greenpeace.[/QUOTE] What the... that's not even... ugh.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;28629831]The amount of security that goes into a nuclear power plant is insane, everything from armed guards to reinforced walls to withstand things exactly like this.[/QUOTE] Iran's made thier plants built into the side of mountains, they could probably withstand a cruise missile.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;28629831]The amount of security that goes into a nuclear power plant is insane, everything from armed guards to reinforced walls to withstand things exactly like this.[/QUOTE] Not to mention: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0[/media] The reason why the advert doesn't show you the plane hitting the power station is because nothing would happen.

[QUOTE=OvB;28629889]Not to mention: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0[/media] The reason why the advert doesn't show you the plane hitting the power station is because nothing would happen.[/QUOTE] Haha, it's like that video was made to combat the Greenpeace one.

[QUOTE=OvB;28629889]Not to mention: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0[/media] The reason why the advert doesn't show you the plane hitting the power station is because nothing would happen.[/QUOTE] Hurr that's not a JUMBO JET :downs:

This is good. People who know what they are talking about standing by what they know. I don't like people who argue nuclear power is unsafe because all the evidence goes against it. That whole side's argument is intended to cause terror in people. It's a common tactic and was used in justifying the Iraq war. "If we want doesn't happen, there are going to be thousands of deaths on our soil, and it is going to be your fault". Fear should never provide justification.

The EU is not being as friendly. [quote]France's Nuclear Safety Authority said the disaster now equated to a six on the seven-point international scale for nuclear accidents, ranking the crisis second only in gravity to Chernobyl. Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger went further and dubbed the nuclear disaster an "apocalypse", saying Tokyo had almost lost control of events at the Fukushima plant. "There is talk of an apocalypse and I think the word is particularly well chosen," he said in remarks to the European Parliament.[/quote] [url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/Fresh-fire-at-Japan-nuclear-reactor-radiation-fears-rise/Article1-673974.aspx]**SOURCE**[/url] Also, Greenpeace is just kind of...bad. Unfortunately you can't shut them up because then the human rights activists come out of the woodwork and then you REALLY have issues. They also walk hand in hand with lawyers and if they don't get their way, they'll gum up the courts for years. Just look at that shipment of boilers from the Bruce power station in Ontario. They can't transport it by land, sea, or air and they certainly can't bury it. It amazes me how just a handful of people can cause so much trouble.

[QUOTE=MIPS;28630055]The EU is not being as friendly. [url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/Fresh-fire-at-Japan-nuclear-reactor-radiation-fears-rise/Article1-673974.aspx]**SOURCE**[/url] Also, Greenpeace is just kind of...bad. Unfortunately you can't shut them up because then the human rights activists come out of the woodwork and then you REALLY have issues. They also walk hand in hand with lawyers and if they don't get their way, they'll gum up the courts for years. Just look at that shipment of boilers from the Bruce power station in Ontario. They can't transport it by land, sea, or air and they certainly can't bury it. It amazes me how just a handful of people can cause so much trouble.[/QUOTE] They understand how bad things are but they aren't going to turn away from it. Most of France's electricity comes from Nuclear plants, they're just gloating about how their plants are safer and would never have this kind of meltdown. Can't shut them down but you can run a smear campaign against them showing how stupid they are. Currently though, no-one has been bothered to do it since they are just spreading benign misinformation rather than actually being a problem.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;28629436]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] Not really. Life is there and all, which is great, but it isn't really flourishing. All animal life in the area has undergone some sort of mutation due the the effects of chernobyl.

[QUOTE=Habsburg;28630399]Not really. Life is there and all, which is great, but it isn't really flourishing. All animal life in the area has undergone some sort of mutation due the the effects of chernobyl.[/QUOTE] Mutation as in died. It was a joke mostly, it's obvious what the radiation does to things. Kinda relevant to some of the crazy environmentalists talking about humans destroying everything and if you count plants as life then it certainly is flourishing.

[QUOTE=Habsburg;28630399]Not really. Life is there and all, which is great, but it isn't really flourishing. All animal life in the area has undergone some sort of mutation due the the effects of chernobyl.[/QUOTE] For several years there were areas around the plant where plant life was sterilized and died off and had to grow back. There was one particular forest that was wiped out but you don't see it anymore because all the saplings have grown up.

[QUOTE=Pepin;28630049]I don't like people who argue nuclear power is unsafe because all the evidence goes against it.[/QUOTE] I'm not really throwing down my chips on either side here but are we just going to ignore the massive meltdown that is happening in Japan right now? In the past the argument was always "Chernobyl was bad, but that was a long time ago and nuclear plants today have too many failsafes to have a dangerous meltdown." And I bought that. And now there is a dangerous meltdown, which is [i]why this is a story right now[/i], and the pro-nuke people ITT are seemingly just ignoring that.

[QUOTE=TH89;28630798]I'm not really throwing down my chips on either side here but are we just going to ignore the massive meltdown that is happening in Japan right now?[/QUOTE] I feel like the emotional response is to go "oh fuck, look at Japan, we can't have that happen to us". But really, if nuclear reactors are kept up to date and modern, and have safety checks more often, things like this won't ever happen. Those plants were 40+ years old. We can't ever predict devastating earthquakes, but we can make sure things don't get fucked up in prone areas.

[QUOTE=deathstarboot;28630840]I feel like the emotional response is to go "oh fuck, look at Japan, we can't have that happen to us". But really, if nuclear reactors are kept up to date and modern, and have safety checks more often, things like this won't ever happen. Those plants were 40+ years old. We can't ever predict devastating earthquakes, but we can make sure things don't get fucked up in prone areas.[/QUOTE] Japan is a first-world country. As nations go they're one of the most heavily invested in modern technology in the world. If they can't keep their plants safe, why should we expect a tech-phobic, penny-pinching country like the United States to be able to? And the "grr I fucking HATE Greenpeace so much they are dumb idiots fuck environmentalists" is at least as much of an emotional response as saying "oh wow a catastrophic nuclear meltdown maybe nuclear power isn't as safe as they say."

[QUOTE=TH89;28630798]I'm not really throwing down my chips on either side here but are we just going to ignore the massive meltdown that is happening in Japan right now? In the past the argument was always "Chernobyl was bad, but that was a long time ago and nuclear plants today have too many failsafes to have a dangerous meltdown." And I bought that. And now there is a dangerous meltdown, which is [i]why this is a story right now[/i], and the pro-nuke people ITT are seemingly just ignoring that.[/QUOTE] Chernobyl wasn't that long ago really. For both it and Japan though, they are extreme conditions. The Soviet Union was dying and fucked over all their own safety procedures, Japan just had some of the worst natural disasters in history. Obviously any accident is bad and we should take into account these kind of cirsumstances, but we still have to be rational about it. There is no excuse for the Soviet Union, that was a complete breakdown of their own principles and in such a state of decay where they cannot maintain the high standard required, they should know when not to. Japan was mostly prepared, the plant could handle a significantly large earthquake anyway, this was beyond their safety tolerances though. It is almost impossible to make it completely safe, but they can still make it safe in normal operating procedures, they can even account for things like this. [editline]16th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=TH89;28631074]Japan is a first-world country. As nations go they're one of the most heavily invested in modern technology in the world. If they can't keep their plants safe, why should we expect a tech-phobic, penny-pinching country like the United States to be able to? And the "grr I fucking HATE Greenpeace so much they are dumb idiots fuck environmentalists" is at least as much of an emotional response as saying "oh wow a catastrophic nuclear meltdown maybe nuclear power isn't as safe as they say."[/QUOTE] They can maintain it, and they do maintain them well. This was more than they had safety checks for given they didn't think such an event could occur. Obviously now they will be making their safety measures able to withstand something far greater, but this was more than they anticipated. That video of a jet flying into the side of a Nuclear plant concrete wall, it's made to be safe from that but probably wouldn't withstand being hit by a 747 as well. They can make it as safe as possible but there is a point where it becomes pointless to go further.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;28631081]There is no excuse for the Soviet Union, that was a complete breakdown of their own principles and in such a state of decay where they cannot maintain the high standard required, they should know when not to.[/QUOTE] Agreed. I don't think Chernobyl, on its own, is an argument against nuclear power in principle. Japan, on the other hand... [QUOTE=Devodiere;28631081]Japan was mostly prepared, the plant could handle a significantly large earthquake anyway, this was beyond their safety tolerances though. It is almost impossible to make it completely safe, but they can still make it safe in normal operating procedures, they can even account for things like this.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying, you can see how "don't worry, we've prepared for disaster, so it's safe, unless the disaster is worse than we prepared for" isn't very reassuring, given the circumstances.

[QUOTE=TH89;28631074]Japan is a first-world country. As nations go they're one of the most heavily invested in modern technology in the world. If they can't keep their plants safe, why should we expect a tech-phobic, penny-pinching country like the United States to be able to? And the "grr I fucking HATE Greenpeace so much they are dumb idiots fuck environmentalists" is at least as much of an emotional response as saying "oh wow a catastrophic nuclear meltdown maybe nuclear power isn't as safe as they say."[/QUOTE] I agree completely, but I think the problem then is people managing these nuclear operations rather than the harnessing of nuclear energy itself.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;28631081]They can maintain it, and they do maintain them well. This was more than they had safety checks for given they didn't think such an event could occur. Obviously now they will be making their safety measures able to withstand something far greater, but this was more than they anticipated. That video of a jet flying into the side of a Nuclear plant concrete wall, it's made to be safe from that but probably wouldn't withstand being hit by a 747 as well. They can make it as safe as possible but there is a point where it becomes pointless to go further.[/QUOTE] See, that's the problem--"pointless to go further" implies that somewhere, someone is doing cost-benefit analyses of the possibility of a nuclear disaster. aka gambling with people's lives. The guys in charge of Japan's reactor obviously thought it was "pointless" to go further with earthquake protection, and look what happened. American nuclear people might think it's "pointless" to build a plant that can withstand being hit by a 747, but given the precedent of 9/11 that's really not that far out of the realm of possibility. I used to be a big fan of nuclear power, when the line from proponents was "nuclear power is completely safe! Disasters are a thing of the past!" Now there's a huge disaster and the line has changed to "nuclear power is really safe, unless something crazy that nobody expected happens!" Given the potential for damage when something DOES go wrong, that's a really big difference. [editline]16th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=deathstarboot;28631177]I agree completely, but I think the problem then is people managing these nuclear operations rather than the harnessing of nuclear energy itself.[/QUOTE] Okay, but if nuclear power is like communism, a great idea as long as there's no human beings to screw it up, should we be advocating for it?

[QUOTE=TH89;28631131]Agreed. I don't think Chernobyl, on its own, is an argument against nuclear power in principle. Japan, on the other hand... I'm just saying, you can see how "don't worry, we've prepared for disaster, so it's safe, unless the disaster is worse than we prepared for" isn't very reassuring, given the circumstances.[/QUOTE] Everything is like that though. Most bomb shelters are safe as long as they don't get a direct hit. Airplanes are safe as long as they don't have some random failure in their equipment. The plant is safe as long as it's not hit by one of the largest earthquakes recorded. It's almost impossible to make it safe when you don't even know how high you are supposed to make the safety levels.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;28631215]Everything is like that though. Most bomb shelters are safe as long as they don't get a direct hit. Airplanes are safe as long as they don't have some random failure in their equipment. The plant is safe as long as it's not hit by one of the largest earthquakes recorded. It's almost impossible to make it safe when you don't even know how high you are supposed to make the safety levels.[/QUOTE] Airplane crashes don't have the potential to kill thousands of people and make massive areas uninhabitable for decades. When you have incredibly high risks you have to have incredibly good failsafes. Nuclear plants shouldn't be doing this unless they get hit by an asteroid.

[QUOTE=TH89;28631208]See, that's the problem--"pointless to go further" implies that somewhere, someone is doing cost-benefit analyses of the possibility of a nuclear disaster. aka gambling with people's lives. The guys in charge of Japan's reactor obviously thought it was "pointless" to go further with earthquake protection, and look what happened. American nuclear people might think it's "pointless" to build a plant that can withstand being hit by a 747, but given the precedent of 9/11 that's really not that far out of the realm of possibility. I used to be a big fan of nuclear power, when the line from proponents was "nuclear power is completely safe! Disasters are a thing of the past!" Now there's a huge disaster and the line has changed to "nuclear power is really safe, unless something crazy that nobody expected happens!" Given the potential for damage when something DOES go wrong, that's a really big difference.[/QUOTE] The risk is high admittedly, but they still didn't stop at where it was capable simply because they thought that was good enough. Every upgrade to the tolerance costs a lot. To make something that is just capable of withstanding such an earthquake, even to survive it completely intact is absurdly high. They did not think it would happen, and obviously they were wrong. The line has certainly changed, but their attitude would have also. Japan certainly isn't going to be sticking with the same safety limits given this incident. I'd think after 9/11, if Nuclear power plants were thought to be a target then they would make it more than secure to them. Hell, China has some modern plants that the structure of the reactor almost can't melt down. The safety is improving all the time. Even if this kind of thing only occurs rarely, everyone will be prepared for it after this. [editline]16th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=TH89;28631237]Airplane crashes don't have the potential to kill thousands of people and make massive areas uninhabitable for decades. When you have incredibly high risks you have to have incredibly good failsafes. Nuclear plants shouldn't be doing this unless they get hit by an asteroid.[/QUOTE] And then when an asteroid hits a plant, people will be complaining that it wasn't able to withstand that. All of these requirements are arbitrary, what is the difference between making it able to withstand an especially large earthquake or a direct hit from a nuke? They can hedge their bets as much as they can but there's always the chance something unexpected will happen.

So if it can't be avoided, maybe we need to find an energy source that doesn't have such a catastrophically high risk involved?

[QUOTE=TH89;28631326]So if it can't be avoided, maybe we need to find an energy source that doesn't have such a catastrophically high risk involved?[/QUOTE] Off the extra calories that Americans consume each day.

[QUOTE=TH89;28631326]So if it can't be avoided, maybe we need to find an energy source that doesn't have such a catastrophically high risk involved?[/QUOTE] My car is powered by unicorn blood and kitten farts.

[QUOTE=TH89;28631326]So if it can't be avoided, maybe we need to find an energy source that doesn't have such a catastrophically high risk involved?[/QUOTE] No, you need to evaluate how likely the risk is and the potential effect it could have. This fear that "anything can happen" does not justify your position. Fear is never realistic. You have to weigh out real risks on a real scale of danger.

[QUOTE=Pepin;28631497]No, you need to evaluate how likely the risk is and the potential effect it could have. This fear that "anything can happen" does not justify your position. Fear is never realistic. You have to weigh out real risks on a real scale of danger.[/QUOTE] There is no other form of power that even comes close to being as dangerous as nuclear power. For years I have been hearing nuclear proponents say "don't worry, nuclear power isn't dangerous anymore!" And that has obviously turned out to be false. And the idea that nobody could have expected a giant earthquake in a part of the world famous for giant earthquakes is kinda lame. But more troubling is the fact that they COULD have built it safer, but didn't because it was too expensive. If the thing that kept them from building safe plants was technology, that could be solved with time. But if the problem is cost, it's not going to go away as easily. That leaves us with two shitty options: let power companies build insufficiently safeguarded nuclear reactors, or have the federal government issue stringent safety standards, which will make nuclear reactors unprofitable, so none will be built.

40 years old plant hit by both earthquake much more powerful than what it were designed for and what they expected would ever happen AND a tsunami. Considering all those things the plant's been handling it all great actually. But it should've been shut down and replaced with a new generation nuclear plant around 10 years ago.