Watch: Greenpeace Crashes 'Superman Drone' Into Nuclear Power Plant To Expose Facility's Dangers

Greenpeace France on Tuesday crashed a drone dressed as Superman into the Bugey nuclear energy plant, located about 20 miles east of Lyon, to expose how vulnerable that facility is to a terrorist attack and highlight the broader dangers of this type of power generation.

Yeah not so much.

These systems are operational around many installations currently.





Back to freaking out over nothing.

Oh yeah people.

That's definitely another Fukashima waiting to happen.

And about as successful as Wile Coyote.



Me Meep!

originally posted by: autopat51
a reply to: Lumenari
so..your not smart enough to realize how stupid nuclear power is? that is what i said, we shouldnt have to rely on the antics of green peace, we should know this on our own....clear enough for you?

Nuclear power has been around since1951. That's 67 years of clean energy. Yup, there was Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. The industry should learn from those mistakes and make sure never to repeat them, like airplane manufacturers. Just think, there was a time when people thought electricity was deadly and should be banned. People also feared the automobile because it carries highly combustible fuel in the tank.

Instead of name-calling, you should make a decent argument.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Yeah small problem we have here is that most these things were build with a life expectancy of 30/40 years.

Those years are up, a lot of cracks and politician ignoring the problem because of well....money.

It wasn't really reassuring when I got my family supply of iodine tablets...you know...as a precaution.

Peace

Nuke plant down the lake a mile can see it from m y beach. Lots of friends work there great pay and bennies. 1500 Employees full time average pay nearly $100k many well over that. When a turbine changeout comes about 3000 extra people putting millions into the local economy. Cleaner than anything but hydro.

a reply to: cenpuppie

Natural gas is where it's at.

Its limited and still carries risks. The pipeline's are all over and can blow at any time.

Nuclear Fusion is where it's at. (clean and safe) ... Once we figure it out haha.

So Greenpeace wanted to demonstrate the variability of a building made to withstand attacks and natural disasters by preforming an air attack that resulted in no damage to the building? Thanks for demonstrating why the building was built out of reinforced concrete. Do they want the militarization of civilian power plants?

As much money Greenpeace brings in, and peace being in their name, how about paying for a third party engineering evaluation of the building instead of being media whores.

a reply to: Lumenari

we are at the same time making wildlife habitats.

Yeah that's ALMOST the most ignorant thing i've ever heard... "but it makes lakes and fish live in lakes"

tell that to the salmon.. the FACT of the matter is they are highly destructive to native wildlife habitats

www.internationalrivers.org...

Yup, there was Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

no see that's the problem... there is no "was" with a nuclear disasters, those 3 places will be uninhabitable for thousands of years.

Its totally clean and safe, until something goes wrong. then we don't even have to technology to get near it to fix it. let alone clean it.

why we dont use thorium and why are any of thease plants still running there long past there life cycle

as for the drone hitting a plant yea why fly a drone into it u could drive a truck bomb into it just as easy and the truck bomb would do damage unlike a drone

a reply to: infolurker

No it's not. You can get nuclear reactors that can't melt down. Look into thorium.

Nuclear power is better than coal, petrol, etc. I don't understand why people hate it so much. I don't understand the safety complaints either.

It's not that nuclear power isn't safe, it's that there's barely been any funding for R&D on safety. If people stopped protesting it and corporations stopped being greedy, we can fund research to make nuclear energy safer.

People say that nuclear plants can destroy environments. Well so can oil. Ever heard of the BP oil spill? Hell, ever seen how dangerous it is when a ship starts leaking fuel?
It's all about safety precautions and research. Petrol and coal has been with us for years and trillions have been put into the resource. Of course it will be 'safer' than nuclear at this point. But put more money into nuclear technology and energy and you will find it to be the cleanest, safest, and most efficient source of energy we can possible have in our modern time.

The major downside to nuclear power is handling the spent fuel.

And this action by Greenpeace was a demonstration to show this is the most vulnerable point of the nuclear power facility, the spent fuel pool.

It was interesting to watch the video. Apparently there were 2 drones. One was the cheap sacrificial "super man" drone. And there was another drone behind it with the HD camera. According to the article, the police were able to intercept the 2nd drone.

I suppose a well funded terrorist group could use a dense drone swarm where each individual unit is loaded with a kilogram or so of high explosive. That might do it.

However, all of the buildings I saw appear to be heavily reinforced concrete. Maybe a few rounds from a tank at point blank range could breach it. Drones, maybe not so much.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

And this action by Greenpeace was a demonstration to show this is the most vulnerable point of the nuclear power facility, the spent fuel pool.

How does bouncing a drone off a reinforced concrete bunker made to withstand natural disasters and attacks demonstrate a “vulnerability”? The only thing demonstrated is reinforced concrete walls stop drones?

Do you have actual engineering data to prove otherwise?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: DexterRiley

And this action by Greenpeace was a demonstration to show this is the most vulnerable point of the nuclear power facility, the spent fuel pool.

How does bouncing a drone off a reinforced concrete bunker made to withstand natural disasters and attacks demonstrate a “vulnerability”? The only thing demonstrated is reinforced concrete walls stop drones?

Do you have actual engineering data to prove otherwise?

I'm just pointing out that the spent fuel pool is the most vulnerable point for a terrorist attack. And they demonstrated that there is an aerial path to attack that vulnerability.

The rest of my previous post addressed the futility of trying to attack the facility at that point using a similar delivery means.

--dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

How is it “vulnerable”?

Most military institutions are vulnerable to a cruise missile attack.

Getting to a barrier is not the same as breaching a barrier? Care to actually do some research, and report back how thick the reinforced concrete containment the drone crashed into is? What is was designed to withstand? Is there another level of containment inside the outer concrete wall?

The only thing demonstrated was reinforced concrete walls win against drones? The concrete wall did its job, but doing its job demonstrated a vulnerability?

Birds fly into prison yards and poop? Does that demonstrate prisons are open to biological attacks? Same goes for most military bases.

a reply to: DexterRiley


Do you know of some flaw in the containment’s design?

DESIGN OF REACTOR CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
SAFETY GUIDE

www-pub.iaea.org...

TABLE 1. TYPICAL EXTERNAL EVENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DESIGN OF CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS
Human origin hazards
Aircraft crash
Explosion of a combustible fluid container (e.g. in a shipping accident, an industrial accident, a pipeline accident or a traffic accident)
Natural hazards
Earthquake
Hurricane and/or tropical cyclone
Flood
Tornado
Wind
Impact of an external missile
Blizzard
Tsunami (tidal wave)
Seiche (fluctuation in water level of a lake or body of water)
Volcanic eruption
Extreme temperature (high and low)

a reply to: neutronflux

The wall is 1,5mtr of reinforced concrete. It's lined with Inox and since most of these plants are outdated usually have some form of carbonation.

Some of these plants even have a couple liters spilling a day because of cracks...

Peace

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: DexterRiley

How is it “vulnerable”?

Most military institutions are vulnerable to a cruise missile attack.

Getting to a barrier is not the same as breaching a barrier? Care to actually do some research, and report back how thick the reinforced concrete containment the drone crashed into is? What is was designed to withstand? Is there another level of containment inside the outer concrete wall?

The only thing demonstrated was reinforced concrete walls win against drones? The concrete wall did its job, but doing its job demonstrated a vulnerability?

Birds fly into prison yards and poop? Does that demonstrate prisons are open to biological attacks? Same goes for most military bases.

As I said before, I have already addressed the futility of attacking the target at all. Please refer to my first post.

However, with respect to referring to this location as a vulnerability, I speak of it in terms of a "strategic vulnerability." If a terrorist were to attack the facility at any point, this point is the best place to do so. The reactors have mechanisms in place to shutdown their reactions and therefore limit damage from radioactive waste. However, the spent fuel rod pools don't have as many redundant systems.

Getting to a target is necessarily the first step in attacking the target. If the target cannot be accessed by a weapon system, then the capabilities of the weapons system is irrelevant. Only once it is determined that a target is accessible do the capabilities of the appropriate weapon system come into the conversation.

Greenpeace demonstrated that the target was accessible. The payload capacity of the demonstrator was not relevant. Now if some group is interested in taking advantage of the accessibility of this target, then it would be up to them to determine the requirements for a device to actually carry out the attack.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

Greenpeace demonstrated that the target was accessible.

The most outer containment is the target?

How? Did they capture any spent fuel?

Did they damage the containment?

Did they breach the containment?

Bouncing off the most outer containment barrier probably made to maintain containment in the event of a missile attack demonstratos variability how?

Again, does the containment not meet standards cited? Is there some flaw in the containment you like to cite? Because something reaches the first barrier does not indicate a vulnerability. Your angry because the outer chain link fence is not a dome? How would a chain link fence and razor wire stop a missile? If you touch an outside prison wall, the prison is vulnerable? Especially when the containment kept the drone out without damage to the containment, and the nuclear material in.

Bottom line, please cite how containment was realistically threatened?