UN clean energy forum accused of bias after excluding nuclear - Sensationalist Headlines

sigh, the same song all over again ... both Ch. and F. catastrophes happened on 40 years old design and 30 years old construction try build new low yield secure reactors and they will last 50-100 years ... hell there was even discussion (i think on Siemens) some year ago that they could build such low yield reactor which even if you disassembled it by force you would not be able to gain enough material for dirt bomb (in short it would be easier get it from medical facilities)

Global warming is a big problem and environmental health should be a huge concern for humanity going forward, but for some people it feels like these issues are either a way to validate themselves or make money. It seems like some people get too attached to these issues, and only look for the solutions that they've deemed positive. Things like cutting back on emissions and increasing the amount of solar and wind energy are a great way to temporarily help the environment, but ultimately either science is going to have to find an energy source as efficient as fossil fuels, or we're going to have to change our lifestyles pretty drastically.

[QUOTE=Dwarden;52846606]sigh, the same song all over again ... both Ch. and F. catastrophes happened on 40 years old design and 30 years old construction[/QUOTE] And both times, disaster was predicted. And both times, those in charge (Soviet officials, TEPCO) made no attempt to rectify the problem. If the first 'Safety' was [I]"actually just don't be an idiot and ignore things that could lead to meltdown"[/I], both catastrophes would have been averted. For Chernobyl disaster, there were operators in the control room bringing up concerns about the reactor test, such as the fact that part of the test meant bringing reactor power down far lower than the minimum safe level, but the Soviet official directing the test threatened to dismiss them if they did not proceed. For Fukushima, TEPCO was warned that a tsunami could flood the plant and trigger a meltdown, but TEPCO ignored the warnings and Japan's regulators were corrupt and did not take action.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52846913]And both times, disaster was predicted. And both times, those in charge (Soviet officials, TEPCO) made no attempt to rectify the problem. If the first 'Safety' was "actually just don't be an idiot and ignore things that could lead to meltdown", both catastrophes would have been averted. For Chernobyl disaster, there were operators in the control room bringing up concerns about the reactor test, such as the fact that part of the test meant bringing reactor power down far lower than the minimum safe level, but the Soviet official directing the test threatened to dismiss them if they did not proceed. For Fukushima, TEPCO was warned that a tsunami could flood the plant and trigger a meltdown, but TEPCO ignored the warnings and Japan's regulators were corrupt and did not take action.[/QUOTE] The tsunami risk report for Fukushima was actually an internal report at TEPCO as well iirc.