[Gerben42]

The EU is obviously getting nervous about Russia's influence on the Oil & Gas industry and has recommended its members to invest into nuclear power. It seems most governments agree on this except for the German one. Chancellor Merkel said she has agreed moving away from nuclear energy in the coalition agreements and will stick to that.

How do you feel about nuclear power? Would you want your country to invest in it? And: Would you want Iran to invest in nuclear power plants? Why/ why not?

[pbleighton]

1. I am of two minds on nuclear energy. I am against it for the present, but I realize that it may ultimately be necessary, depending on how alternatives pan out.
2. I don't like Iran building nuclear plants, for all of the obvious reasons. I also think it is ENTIRELY their decision whether or not to do so.

Peter

[Gerben42]

Quote

2. I don't like Iran building nuclear plants, for all of the obvious reasons.

Does this mean you don't want anyone in general to build NPP or Iran because you think they will also build nuclear weapons if you allow NPP? You cannot run NPP on weapons grade uranium, nor can you arm nuclear bombs with uranium from the plants.

[hrothgar]

Slightly different take on things than peter...

I like nuclear power. Nuke plants are (admittedly) quite dangerous, however the French and the Japanese have a good track record administering these types of power grids.

From my perspective, the main problem with nuke plants is political. Coal plants produce enormous amounts of pollution (CO2, sulphur, mercury, all sorts of nasty stuff). The aggregrate cost of this pollution is very high, however, its distributed across an enormous number of people. In contrast, if something goes wrong with a nuke plant its going to impose a very high cost on a small number of people.

Accordingly, its very easy to mobilize very active groups that protest when you propose placing a nuke plant in their neighborhood. No one cares all that much about another coal plant.

As for the Iranians...

Here I'm in complete agreement with Peter. I'd prefer things if the Iranians didn't build their own nuke plants. However, I think that the cost of trying to stop them would be extremely high...

[pbleighton]

"Does this mean you don't want anyone in general to build NPP or Iran because you think they will also build nuclear weapons if you allow NPP? You cannot run NPP on weapons grade uranium, nor can you arm nuclear bombs with uranium from the plants."

1. I'm not crazy about anyone building NPP, until we exhaust alternatives.

2. When a country develops NPP technology, it gets a technical infrastructure which can be used to devlop nuclear weapons.

Peter

[hotShot]

Let us take a look at manned space flight. Since everybody is aware that the live of the crew is at stake, we can assume that everybody tried to do the best job possible for each shuttle mission. But they failed twice.
The Transrapid technology is designed not to allow 2 trains in the same area, but they managed to hit a service vehicle.
The disaster in Chernobyl happened because safety devices were deactivated for an experiment.
Almost every car, train and 'you name it' accident is caused by human misjudegment, laziness or error during design, production, maintenance or usage (abuse).

Even the events at 9-11 needed a long chain of human "errors".
1) How could the terrorist get weapons on board? Laziness of security?
2) Why were the cockpit doors not secured enough? Design misjudgement? (El AL's cockpit doors have been looked against terrorists for ages)
3) Why can the transponder be deactivated? Design misjudgement?
4) Why can't flight security locate plains without transponder? Design misjudgement?
...
All these little: "Who would have thought.." or "Nobody expected...." were important.

Now the questions are:
Can humans design, build, maintain and use a NPP without a severe accident to happen, and is it's safety against attacks (military or terroristic) guaranteed?
And does this guarantee include the thousands of years the polluted waste could be abused or find it's way into nature.
And are NPPs payable, if all these costs are included.
And lets not forget, do we want more people to be able to build nuclear weapons?

I don't think there are acceptable answers that would convince me to approve NPPs by anyone.

[Al_U_Card]

NP is a boondoggle. (I won't mention oil or coal as being like heating your house with burning dung).

Solar, geothermal, wind.....all are preferred to noocular (à la Bush) and even hydroelectric ....which can really screw up the environment even without a dam bursting....

[pclayton]

I don't think NP is a boondoggle at all. Its a helluva lot better than coal fired generators.

Im on the same wavelength as RW; nuclear power is a better option, barring the once-a-generation disaster like Chernobyl. And its different than making weapons-grade plutonium.

That being said, I don't really trust Iran. I have a big problem with groups that question the legitimacy of WWII concentration camps, the annhilation of Israel, and invite David Duke to its state sponspored symposiums. I'd watch them carefully.

[Winstonm]

Nuclear power is to be preferred over coal, IMO, for the reason's pointed out by Richard; however, solar is by far the most practical solution for many applications.

As to Iran, unless we are prepared to have a Congressionally declared real war against that country, we are not at liberty to intervene in their affairs.

[pbleighton]

"That being said, I don't really trust Iran. I have a big problem with groups that question the legitimacy of WWII concentration camps, the annhilation of Israel, and invite David Duke to its state sponspored symposiums. I'd watch them carefully."

Agreed, but would you bomb them?

Peter

[Gerben42]

I really don't trust the Iranian and US government either but I would not bomb either one.

Quote

barring the once-a-generation disaster like Chernobyl

I would bet against another such accident this century unless deliberately caused by blowing up such a plant in some way.

Quote

solar is by far the most practical solution for many applications.

Sure it's best to use the limitless supply of solar energy. But it has to become more efficient first. And in many places (especially in the more wealthy European countries) it is not that sunny. So far nuclear beats the alternatives but I guess this will change in the future. The question is when.

[cherdano]

The main problem of nuclear power is the nuclear waste. I haven't seen any solutions yet that matches the size of the problem (some of it has to be stored for a couple of thousand years, no matter how unstable your respective government at that time will be, which earthquakes/floods/wars will happen until then, etc.).

If the power companies can afford the insurance to cover Chernobyl-like accidents AND the safety of the generated nuclear waste, then I am all fine with nuclear power. Until then, I would rather hope we stay away from it.

[Al_U_Card]

Benefit versus risk analysis.

The risk of solar, geothermal and wind?

Nuclear is a disaster waiting to happen by chance or by misdeed. Look at the plans they have for "burying" nuclear waste.....preposterous!

Oil and coal are just blights and diseases waiting to be developed.

Natural gas is, well, dangerous but only a bit more than electricity per se. Both cause fires and individual deaths but the explosion hazard with NG is a bit more daunting.

Hydro electric, if done sensibly, still has a significant risk in terms of devastation even if the likelihood is fairly low ( I drove through the dam burst in the Saguenay in 96, it was quite an experience. I also went by 3 mile Island in the 70's on the way back from a golf holiday in NC) These events may be few and far between, but their effects are huge and long lasting.

If our desire to stay safe and clean exceeded our greed, would human ingenuity not already have found efficient and cost-effective ways of producing the "alternate" energy needs from these sources? Of course....the question is only who has been impeding their progress? Go to those who have interest in the oil in Iraq and ask them....

[pclayton]

pbleighton, on Jan 12 2007, 11:27 AM, said:

"That being said, I don't really trust Iran. I have a big problem with groups that question the legitimacy of WWII concentration camps, the annhilation of Israel, and invite David Duke to its state sponspored symposiums. I'd watch them carefully."

Agreed, but would you bomb them?

Peter

What does this have to do with Iran developing nuclear power?

If you are asking me what would I do if they developed plutonium (or WMD's - sorry bad joke I know ) what would I do?

Couldn't tell you; my last name isn't Clinton, Obama or McCain

[Winstonm]

I am not trying to defend the president of Iran, but I did take the time to read an interview he did with a European magazine (can't recall which one).

When asked about the holocaust, his reply was that if it had occured, it had occured in Europe, so therefore the punishment should have been Europe's punishment, not Palestine's. If land had to be sacrificed, Israel should have been granted a statehood in Germany.

Although this statement is certainly slanted pro-Palestine, it wasn't an outright denial of the holocaust.

[cherdano]

Winstonm, on Jan 13 2007, 12:33 AM, said:

I am not trying to defend the president of Iran, but I did take the time to read an interview he did with a European magazine (can't recall which one).

When asked about the holocaust, his reply was that if it had occured, it had occured in Europe, so therefore the punishment should have been Europe's punishment, not Palestine's. If land had to be sacrificed, Israel should have been granted a statehood in Germany.

Although this statement is certainly slanted pro-Palestine, it wasn't an outright denial of the holocaust.

Sorry, "if the Holocaust had occurred" is already enough of a denial for me to disqualify a person from being the president of a country.

And to suggest to found Israel in Germany is, uhm, ....
...I won't try to find words for this.

[pbleighton]

"Sorry, "if the Holocaust had occurred" is already enough of a denial for me to disqualify a person from being the president of a country."

Totally agree.

"And to suggest to found Israel in Germany is, uhm, ....
...I won't try to find words for this."

How about "appropriate" and "practical" (in retrospect, of course)?

Peter

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on Jan 12 2007, 05:56 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 13 2007, 12:33 AM, said:

I am not trying to defend the president of Iran, but I did take the time to read an interview he did with a European magazine (can't recall which one).

When asked about the holocaust, his reply was that if it had occured, it had occured in Europe, so therefore the punishment should have been Europe's punishment, not Palestine's.  If land had to be sacrificed, Israel should have been granted a statehood in Germany. 

Although this statement is certainly slanted pro-Palestine, it wasn't an outright denial of the holocaust.

Sorry, "if the Holocaust had occurred" is already enough of a denial for me to disqualify a person from being the president of a country.

And to suggest to found Israel in Germany is, uhm, ....
...I won't try to find words for this.

Don't get me wrong - I am not defending his position - just trying to show what I am aware of as his actual words. If he has denied the holocaust, then nothing else he says should be given any credence.

However, I can understand the point he made that Palestine has suffered for the atrocities of Nazi Germany, and it should have been Germany who paid the price instead.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 12 2007, 06:43 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong - I am not defending his position - just trying to show what I am aware of as his actual words.

his actual words, from the speech you reference, ""They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews ... "

so the holocaust was a myth, according to him... as for nuclear energy, from a personal (ie not economic, etc) point of view i'd prefer that we stay away from it until safety concerns can be handled 100%, or until we have no choice... by 'safety concerns' i mean the things arend spoke of

as far as iran going nuclear, i honestly don't think america will have to do anything much about it, except perhaps to have israel's back

[mike777]

More people have died from non nuke power plants and the related activities than all NP in the world. Geez I know people who have died. There seems to be some fantasy world where non NP plants are safe?

As for Iran, I do not see why the Shia and then the Sunni cannot have all the nukes they want and sell them to whoever they choose, it is their bombs. USA sells war machines why can't anyone else.