Akka
Moody old mage.
?
Fusion, if it can be achieved, will probably lead to a revolutionary era, with a totally clean and nearly limitless source of energy. It will perhaps allow to have at last greens and industrials all agreeing on one point.
-
📚 Admin Project Update: I've added a major feature to PictureBooks.io called Avatar Studio! You can now upload photos to instantly turn your kids (and pets! 🐶) into illustrated characters that star in their own stories. Give it a try and let me know what you think!
More German fun
- Thread starter thestonesfan
- Start date
Fusion, if it can be achieved, will probably lead to a revolutionary era, with a totally clean and nearly limitless source of energy. It will perhaps allow to have at last greens and industrials all agreeing on one point.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Fusion is a great goal, but I agree that its a long term one. In the short term, hydrogen power is a technology thats already here and being used. All thats needed is some investment to make it more commercially viable on a mass scale.
Akka
Moody old mage.
I highly doubt that solar and wind can produce sufficient amount of energy. I don't see anything but geothermical and fusion plants to be able to supply the necessary power.
Hydrogen power, no.
Hydrogen engines, yes.
newfangle
hates you.
Isn't nuclear power one of the most expensive sources of energy per kW? I figure that's the real reason why the German government doesn't want to support it anymore.
EDIT: kilowatt is a unit of power, not energy "slaps genitals"
EDIT: kilowatt is a unit of power, not energy "slaps genitals"
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
HUH? WTH is that supposed to mean??
One windmill can currently produce up to 3MW of power, I'm sure they'll develop that technology further, and there are windfarms all around the world already providing to power grids and there are more and more of them everyday.
Geothermal is also part of the future, I agree on that.
Fusion is still stuck in the lab, with a myriad of problems still to overcome. Personally I only see fusion as technology for the sake of technology, with no practical use. Even once they get it operating at scale, the economics of it will be dreadful, the same problems currently facing fission.
Indeed that is true. Originally it was seen to be the most cost efficient, but like I said, nuclear plants have been shown not to age very well and the maintenance costs to keep them going are immense.
One good thing about it is that the cost of fuel (i.e. uranium) is much more stable than that of oil other fossil fuels, and economically speaking that stability is very important.
Then of course, there are the legacy issues that col pointed out.
The current windmills have very low losses, and this means they can't be much improved. Chances are wind energy generation will remain as an expensive option in the medium term.
Geothermal energy is only avaiable in a minority of countrys.
We have already achieved Hydrogen Fusion, but only the "dirty" fusion(H-Bomb), that takes an Atomic Bomb to begin. However, developments may lead to a more powerfull laser that may be able to do the job of the A-Bomb.
smalltalk
monkey business
You asked for it.
Nuclear Power is a many facetted issue - especially in Germany.
Politics:
Backing out of nuclear power was a declared goal of the Green party since its foundation.
Claiming to have accomplished this goal was one of their biggest annoucments in their last campaign.
I doubt, that the Greens can claim political success here. As Sean Lindstrom has already pointed out, this Stade reactor has reached the end of its life cycle. The Greens have nagotiated no more, than to get fixed dates from the industry, when a certain reactor will go off the grid. Like stating, that reactor will be switched off in 2024 or 2025, whereas before, it was: it will go off in the '20ies.
More important: the actual decision, that no new nuclear power plants will be built, was already made in the late seventies or early eighties. Whoever did this (maybe I can find out), is the real father of the German "Atomausstieg".
Energy Technology
About nuclear power being the cleanest form of energy production: This is wrong - and not only IMO.
Nuclear power leaves behind highly toxic waste, that will bother us for millenia. Imagine: if mankind would have had nuclear plants back when we invented writing, half of that waste would still be around. OTOH, we could still go on with nuclear power for a few years. After all, does it really matter if we have to handle 500,000 or 1,000,000 tons of highly radioactive material for 10,000 years.
Clean power is something like geothermal energy or wave energy, that only uses the resources for building such a facility. Wind energy is also clean, but has a smalish and unstable output. Solar cells are not a good means for clean enery production. They are expansive, they are sensitive against damage, and maybe not very healthy in production. Fusion energy could also be a clean energy.
The most dirty energy comes from mineral oil and coal. And I don't mean particle emissions like smoke or soot which lead to deseases like pseudo-krupp. I also don't mean SO2 and the acid rain phenomenon of the 1980s. I am talking of CO2 and global warming.
Radioactive isitopes have a decay time up about 10,000 years. But how long is the decay time of CO2? In fact, it does not really decay, it might be stored in sediment rocks, water, live-stock or oil though.
Risks
San Pellegrino already said that, while the risk of a plant going blowing up is rather low, the potential damage is huge. Counting in millions of people.
I doubt that any insurance company would sign a contract that would hold em financially liable for the possible damage done. At least, insurance fees would be unbearable high, rendering nuclear power economically unsound.
Anyway, I wouldn't want to be the one security officer, that has technically approved of a certain facility and then it goes boom.
On the other hand:
Is there a money figure counting the risk of global warming? The risks of raising CO2 levels in our atmosphere is probably less understood than the ill effects of radiation. The possible danger that comes with global warming, is perhaps even higher. The danger is global and will not be locally confined. People in hot lattitudes will face drought and famine.
Oceania will be drowned. (The only gaining regions might be Siberia and Canada, maybe Patagonia ...)
What is worse: millions of people dying a slow death through radiation or millions of people having their soil/life-base destroyed?)
(It feels strange to make comparisons about the misery of millions of people.
)Mental dispostion in Germany
Most Germans think abandoning nuclear power is a good idea, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum.
Why is that so? A few possible reasons, but please note, that I can't really look into the heads of my countryman. I might be far off.
<smart-ass mode:>
"nuclear power" in Germany is often called "atomic power", ingnoring the physical fact, that burning oil set free energy from an atomic reaction, while splitting atoms is happening at the nucleus level.
<over>
Anything, that has the word Atom sticked to it is suspicious to some German minds. Perhaps this is because for quite a while, it looked like, come nuclear armagaddon/WWIII, we Germans would be right in the middle of the frying pan.
Interestingly, the Greens gathered about the time when Pershing cruise-missiles were stationed in Germany. "The Atom" became the symbol for all that was considered negative: atomic bombs and war, big companies and capitalism, big science and technocracy.
Personally
Nuclear power plants are not a good solution. We should abandon them asap.
Coal and oil power plants are an even worse solution. We should abandon them even before the nuclear plants.
As with fission, the use of fusion for weapons versus energy productiona re very different. Acheiving fusion is one thing, making it operable as an economic energy source is something else entirely.
Wind power is not the entire future, but I still maintain it's a big part of it. There are still improvements which can be made, don't forget costs can also be reduced in reduction, not just efficiency. The versatility of its use is also very broad, something which one simply cannot say about fusion.
Germany(and all other countrys) don't have nearly the amount of capital needed to have all of it's energy generation provided by wind energy or solar energy. Geothermal energy is not an option in Germany(in fact, it's only really viable in Iceland). You'll have to chose the lesser of two evils: fossil fuels or nuclear power. And I am sure nuclear power is very better.
The radiactive waste can be disposed in special barrels that don't allow them to contaminate the environment. Earth is huge: there are numerous areas that can receive such barrels. And in the future it'll be viable to send the waste to space(really farway space, where it'll harm no one).
Nuclear powers is not perfect, but it's foolish to ban it.
Nuclear power is the short to medium term solution, wind and solar will be phased in over time. They will never, of course, be the primary source of supply, but will be making a more than significant contribution, I am sure of it.
Zwelgje
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2001
- Messages
- 3,953
I can't understand why so many people here support nuclear energy. Surely nuclear plants are completely safe now, hey it's already 17 years ago since the last one exploded 
Maybe the plants in the west are "safe" but don't believe that's the case in other countries.
Then there's that minor issue of nuclear waste that everybody sets aside so easily. It's quite essential that it is stored in a location that is stable and safe for thousands of years. The only structures that I know of to stand the test of time for so long are the pyramids...
In the long run I think nuclear energy will prove to be very expensive with all those storages that have to be maintained and protected for the next few thousands of years.
Call me a leftist tree-hugging cynic if you want to...
Maybe the plants in the west are "safe" but don't believe that's the case in other countries.Then there's that minor issue of nuclear waste that everybody sets aside so easily. It's quite essential that it is stored in a location that is stable and safe for thousands of years. The only structures that I know of to stand the test of time for so long are the pyramids...
In the long run I think nuclear energy will prove to be very expensive with all those storages that have to be maintained and protected for the next few thousands of years.
Call me a leftist tree-hugging cynic if you want to...
Zwelgje
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2001
- Messages
- 3,953
It's silly (yes, SILLY) to think that there will ever be a 100% reliable way to send stuff up in space (trains, cars and planes have been around for for a longer time than rockets and still aren't perfect). So nobody in a right state of mind will ever consider of putting nuclear waste into space with the risk of a rocket blowing up and contaminating the entire planet.
Originally posted by Zwelgje
I can't understand why so many people here support nuclear energy. Surely nuclear plants are completely safe now, hey it's already 17 years ago since the last one exploded
Get a real understanding of what really happened at Chernobyl before commenting on it, and more importantly that it was a boiler explosion (the very same boilers that are used in all steam-turbine based power plants), not a nuclear explosion.
...and the Colloseum. Anyway, like I said before, many great advances have been made in waste storage, it is a much smaller issue than it is made out to be.
Okay, you're a leftist tree-hugging cynic. So am I.
The more informed people are about nuclear power, the less fearful of it they are.
Zwelgje
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2001
- Messages
- 3,953
What's the difference???
A big part of Europe was covered with nuclear material, that's the only thing that counts. I couldn't care less about how it exactly happened.
Don't talk about how safe the nuclear plants and waste dumps are now. Weaknesses are only apparent when the sh!t hits the fan, until then everything is fine and perfectly safe. (sure
)I believe that when humanity would invest more into hydro-, solar- and wind energy, eventually we will be able to get all our energy from those sources.
edit: changed the tone of the message I would like to get through.
John Smith
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2002
- Messages
- 9
Just two points:
1. "Why does the greens hate nuclear power?"
Of course, many people are anxious about nuclear power because of the meltdown risk, and the problems with the disposal of the waste, but there is also another reason why greens hate it:
The people who calls themselves "greens" are mostly situated on the far left-wing, and so had a strong sympathy for the Soviet Union during the cold war. The Soviets actually financed many communist parties in Europe, and thus made sure that members did and said, exactly what Moscow wanted them to.
If a country develops atomic energy, even if it is for peaceful purposes, there is a very short way from there to getting atomic weapons. So if you was a big country, who planned to invade a small country, it would be bad for you if the small country got nukes, and you should therefore make your fifth column campaign for making Europe a nuclear free zone.
...This obviously doesn't apply now ten years after the fall of the Soviets, and it is not the only reason why so many people dont like nuclear power, but it's worth thinking about...
2. "Even if the chance of a disaster is very little, it would still be very dangerous"
It's bad, but in our demand for oil, we finance people like Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, and oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia. IMO, enriching these people is far more dangerous than having nuclear power.
(After all, I only think that nuclear power should be used for short- or mediumterm energy supply, while we make better energy forms like fusion or wind or solar etc. more effective.)
1. "Why does the greens hate nuclear power?"
Of course, many people are anxious about nuclear power because of the meltdown risk, and the problems with the disposal of the waste, but there is also another reason why greens hate it:
The people who calls themselves "greens" are mostly situated on the far left-wing, and so had a strong sympathy for the Soviet Union during the cold war. The Soviets actually financed many communist parties in Europe, and thus made sure that members did and said, exactly what Moscow wanted them to.
If a country develops atomic energy, even if it is for peaceful purposes, there is a very short way from there to getting atomic weapons. So if you was a big country, who planned to invade a small country, it would be bad for you if the small country got nukes, and you should therefore make your fifth column campaign for making Europe a nuclear free zone.
...This obviously doesn't apply now ten years after the fall of the Soviets, and it is not the only reason why so many people dont like nuclear power, but it's worth thinking about...
2. "Even if the chance of a disaster is very little, it would still be very dangerous"
It's bad, but in our demand for oil, we finance people like Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, and oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia. IMO, enriching these people is far more dangerous than having nuclear power.
(After all, I only think that nuclear power should be used for short- or mediumterm energy supply, while we make better energy forms like fusion or wind or solar etc. more effective.)
You probably don't know it, but we already send rockets with radioactive components to space(some rockets have a partly-nuclear propulsion system).
Sure there is a (very small) chance somthing can go wrong. But the best thing we can do is minimise risks. It's SILLY to stop everything that may lead to damage. Should we ban the cars? The airplanes? Don't you know how harmfull can the airplanes be? They've killed FAR more than nuclear plants.
Similar threads
