More German fun

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

I have to quote Reagan on this: "I don't think they'll be happy until the White House looks like a bird's nest."

I dont get how this is related. I do seriously wonder why the Greens are anti-nuclear? It only makes logical sense to be pro-enivo and pro-nuclear

 

[Stapel]

I don't understand greens anyway! If one group is extremely happy to use false arguements, it are the greens.

I think many greens are blinded by their hate for capitalism.

On the point of nuclear waste, which seems to be the only disadvantage of nuclear power (chances on a meltdown in a modern plant are close to 0%, even when a plane crashes on it):

If there is a way to hide it in a safe place, I consider the problem solved.

So, I don't see the point.

 

[col]

The economics of nuclear power are clear. It is more expensive than other forms of energy by a long way if one includes the cost of decommisioning the power stations at the end of their useful life. This factor was conveniently left out of earlier calculations.

As far as I know, no-one has successfully cleaned up a nuclear site and returned it to use afterwards.

There are many such sites in the UK.

 

[Kinniken]

Originally posted by sysyphus
I certainly hope the Germans know what they're doing, looks to me like they're setting themselves up for a power deficit. Their neighbouring countries had better prepare themselves to make up the difference and profit from it immensely!

Quite possibly. And by far the country best placed to export electricity to Germany is France, who thanks to EDF's numerous Nuclear power-plants produces a rather big surplus (most of which is exported to our neighbours). The irony is amusing.

Originally posted by Stapel
If there is a way to hide it in a safe place, I consider the problem solved.

*If* only... For the moment, we have pretty good medium-term solutions, like burying them in deep pits, but nothing like a definitive solution.

On the whole though I agree that the German decision is somewhat hasty and that unless the renewable energies become much more efficient Nuclear power is probably the least bad of the solutions we have. However, the whole thing is certainly debatable and at least the Germans had a real debate on the issue, unlike countries like France or the US who are preparing a new wave of nuclear plants construction without any democratic debate on the subject.

 

[Kinniken]

Originally posted by col
The economics of nuclear power are clear. It is more expensive than other forms of energy by a long way if one includes the cost of decommisioning the power stations at the end of their useful life. This factor was conveniently left out of earlier calculations.

True, but the cost of the release of greenhouse gas and of other air pollution by traditional plants is not included either. Neither is the visual pollution of hundreds of thousands wind turbine or of massive solar panels.
The increased dependancy on middle-east dictatorships that oil and gas plants brings about also add an important "geopolitical" cost to the issue. It's an issue than cannot be settled by economic analysis alone IMHO.

 

[Adebisi]

Well, you can read the reason in the article,

"the Greens making a phase-out a condition for forming a coalition with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrats in 1998."

Without closing down nuclear power, there would be no left-wing coalition for Schröder.

As to why the Greens oppose it? Who knows... Wishful thinking.

 

[Pongui]

The plant was 32 years old, and I'll bet its operational life, upon construction, was set at 30. So the ill-informed (among the) Greens get to feel powerful, in the action.

We do something similar here in BC. We use the Greens to keep land off the real-estate market - by protesting for, and winning, parks. This keeps property values absurdly high, which is very much in certain peoples' interests. Few Greens understand the role they're playing.

Pawns, I think.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by col

As far as I know, no-one has successfully cleaned up a nuclear site and returned it to use afterwards.

Canada's prototype reactor at Douglas Point is now office and warehouse space, including the area where the reactor core was.

Nonetheless, you are correct that decomissioning is VERY expensive, and leaves a long running legacy.

Cost per kW, nuclear power is economically competitive, but I don't see that situation lasting, hence why I'd better find a job in a new industry before it's too late for me.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by sysyphus
I'd better find a job in a new industry before it's too late for me.

I recommend the hydrogen business. Hydrogen is the most abundant elemnt in the universe, and we literally have oceans of the stuff. Its the fuel of the future (the near future).

 

[Akka]

I can only say : the faster we can finally get the fusion working, the better everyone will be.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
I recommend the hydrogen business. Hydrogen is the most abundant elemnt in the universe, and we literally have oceans of the stuff. Its the fuel of the future (the near future).

Hydrogen is NOT the solution to our energy problems. To obtain hydrogen from the atmosphere we must use the same amount of energy that the hydrogen will release - so to obtain it we must burn fossil fuels or other energy source. Hydrogen is merely a way of storaging energy.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by luiz


Hydrogen is NOT the solution to our energy problems. To obtain hydrogen from the atmosphere we must use the same amount of energy that the hydrogen will release - so to obtain it we must burn fossil fuels or other energy source. Hydrogen is merely a way of storaging energy.

Talk about making things harder than they are

Hydrogen can be simply obtained via water. Much simpler, much more efficient and nearly endless supplies.

 

[SanPellegrino]

Originally posted by Stapel
On the point of nuclear waste, which seems to be the only disadvantage of nuclear power (chances on a meltdown in a modern plant are close to 0%, even when a plane crashes on it):

I don't think so, like I wrote before the carriers acknowledged that the domes are only built to hold off a crashed jet fighter, not a freight or passenger plane flied in there with purpose.

nuclear waste maybe the "only" disadvantage, but what a disadvantage! it is highly toxical, causes cancer, mutations and I know the Netherlands like Germany are densely populated and I consider it a crime to built a reactor in the adjacency of villages or farms.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

So I hear the Germans are going to correct their future energy deficit with imports. Most of those will be coming from France, which, you guessed it, get's it's energy from nuclear plants So basically for each nuclear plant decomissioned in Germany there will be one built somewherelse...

 

[SanPellegrino]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
So I hear the Germans are going to correct their future energy deficit with imports. Most of those will be coming from France, which, you guessed it, get's it's energy from nuclear plants So basically for each nuclear plant decomissioned in Germany there will be one built somewherelse...

I don't think that is true. Germany plays already one of the lead roles in sun and wind technology. And if there is a huge incentive in the future the developing speed will further increase.

How come you guys have all the idea nuclear power is "clean", because there is no steam? in fact Nuclear power is one of the "dirtiest" inventions mankind ever made.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Akka

Talk about making things harder than they are

Hydrogen can be simply obtained via water. Much simpler, much more efficient and nearly endless supplies.

Still, to obtain it we must spend energy in the same amount that it will liberate. There is no energetic surplus.
The only real solution to all energy problems is, IMHO, fusion.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by SanPellegrino


I don't think that is true. Germany plays already one of the lead roles in sun and wind technology. And if there is a huge incentive in the future the developing speed will further increase.

Sun and wind energy generation have extremely high cost per kW. It's not a viable option to make them the main energy sources in a country like Germany.

Originally posted by SanPellegrino

How come you guys have all the idea nuclear power is "clean", because there is no steam? in fact Nuclear power is one of the "dirtiest" inventions mankind ever made.

It causes no harm to the atmosphere or the wildlife, it's celan. Radioactive waste can be efficiently dealt with.

 

[Speedo]

I don't think so, like I wrote before the carriers acknowledged that the domes are only built to hold off a crashed jet fighter, not a freight or passenger plane flied in there with purpose.

A large aircraft full of explosive? Probably not. A large aircraft with just fuel and passengers? Yeah, it'll should stop it. Remember, that 747 may weigh 100 tons (or whatever) but the only truly solid objects on the airframe are the engines.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by luiz


Still, to obtain it we must spend energy in the same amount that it will liberate. There is no energetic surplus.
The only real solution to all energy problems is, IMHO, fusion.

Fusion is precisely using hydrogen ^^

But the regular explosion engine with hydrogen is not really aimed at replacing thermal plant, I think. It's rather for clean automobile engines. Hydrogen can be created with tidewaves plants, and then handed down to transport. Much cleaner.

 

[sysyphus]

The future of energy is not in a single source but in many. As technology develops, solar, wind and geothermal will all combine together to meet humainty's energy needs.

Indeed hydrogen is a mere transport medium and not a source, it's abundance will have many economic benefits (as well as geopolitical ones!).

Fusion in my mind is nothing more than a bad form of music. Solar, wind and geothermal will become viable long before fusion.