Closing all nuclear plants by 2022? Just how much forests and megatons of coal do they plan to burn to compensate for that?
Fuckin' dark greens and their luddite, self-destroying ignorant attitudes. I can't believe this is happening.
Germans take perverse pleasure in making complete fools of themselves.
They are also strongly lobbying Poland not to open its planned nuclear plant near the German border. :sleep:
Well, there's always the French nuclear power plants (Elsass-Mosel anyone?). Fessenheim won't close anytime soon now (Germans and Swiss wanted it to close).
More likely, more and more Russian Gas (spasiba Schröder).
Btw, is anyone outside of Poland talking about the shale gas resources we allegedly have in Poland?
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:02:38 AMFuckin' dark greens and their luddite, self-destroying ignorant attitudes. I can't believe this is happening.
You're aware that the ones pulling the plug are the conservatives and liberals, right? :P
2022 is still far enough away for it not to actually happen.
After all, aren't we supposed to have humans on Mars by then as well?
Quote from: The Larch on May 30, 2011, 03:16:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:02:38 AMFuckin' dark greens and their luddite, self-destroying ignorant attitudes. I can't believe this is happening.
You're aware that the ones pulling the plug are the conservatives and liberals, right? :P
yes, but it was fuckin' green propaganda that got them here.
Quote from: Martinus on May 30, 2011, 03:13:34 AM
Btw, is anyone outside of Poland talking about the shale gas resources we allegedly have in Poland?
They're finding that shit all over the place. If you wanna talk damage to your environment, shale gas is the way.
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:27:29 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 30, 2011, 03:16:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:02:38 AMFuckin' dark greens and their luddite, self-destroying ignorant attitudes. I can't believe this is happening.
You're aware that the ones pulling the plug are the conservatives and liberals, right? :P
yes, but it was fuckin' green propaganda that got them here.
Yeah, yeah, right, propaganda. Any way you want to slice it, the fact is that there's widespread public rejection to nuclear power, enough for it to be damaging for politicians to support it. It's really no wonder that they get to this situation.
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:27:29 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 30, 2011, 03:16:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:02:38 AMFuckin' dark greens and their luddite, self-destroying ignorant attitudes. I can't believe this is happening.
You're aware that the ones pulling the plug are the conservatives and liberals, right? :P
yes, but it was fuckin' green propaganda that got them here.
Not really. It has nothing to do with environment, and a lot with people freaking out after Fukushima.
Quote from: Martinus on May 30, 2011, 03:46:04 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:27:29 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 30, 2011, 03:16:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:02:38 AMFuckin' dark greens and their luddite, self-destroying ignorant attitudes. I can't believe this is happening.
You're aware that the ones pulling the plug are the conservatives and liberals, right? :P
yes, but it was fuckin' green propaganda that got them here.
Not really. It has nothing to do with environment, and a lot with people freaking out after Fukushima.
It must have been news to the Germans that they were in a major earthquake zone.
Oh, wait a second...THEY'RE NOT...
Fucking retards. I just hope my own government doesn't catch this latest "let's see how stupid we can be" virus. :glare:
Quote from: The Larch on May 30, 2011, 03:43:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:27:29 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 30, 2011, 03:16:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:02:38 AMFuckin' dark greens and their luddite, self-destroying ignorant attitudes. I can't believe this is happening.
You're aware that the ones pulling the plug are the conservatives and liberals, right? :P
yes, but it was fuckin' green propaganda that got them here.
Yeah, yeah, right, propaganda. Any way you want to slice it, the fact is that there's widespread public rejection to nuclear power, enough for it to be damaging for politicians to support it. It's really no wonder that they get to this situation.
A rejection borne of ignorance.
Quote from: Martinus on May 30, 2011, 03:46:04 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:27:29 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 30, 2011, 03:16:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:02:38 AMFuckin' dark greens and their luddite, self-destroying ignorant attitudes. I can't believe this is happening.
You're aware that the ones pulling the plug are the conservatives and liberals, right? :P
yes, but it was fuckin' green propaganda that got them here.
Not really. It has nothing to do with environment, and a lot with people freaking out after Fukushima.
Maybe, but that makes the whole thing even more stupid.
When was the last time the German landscape was devastated by a level 9 earthquake and a tsunami?
Haven't the Germans always had a bit more of an issue with nuclear than most Euros? My impression is that they've had one of the earliest and strongest anti-nuclear movements for decades.
1) Shale gas was is everywhere, in shitloads. The luddites are trying to stop that as well with their attacks on Fracking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing).
2) The Fukushima Reactor survived the earthquake and the tsunami without any problem. The powerplants problem was, however, that the eartquake took out the local electricity grid and the tsunami took out the powerplants diesel generators. This was the worst case scenario, biggest possible earthquake followed by the biggest possible tsunami. Note, the modern reactors at fukushima have provided no problems, while the 1960s era reactors had the problems.
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 04:11:05 AM
1) Shale gas was is everywhere, in shitloads. The luddites are trying to stop that as well with their attacks on Fracking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing).
2) The Fukushima Reactor survived the earthquake and the tsunami without any problem. The powerplants problem was, however, that the eartquake took out the local electricity grid and the tsunami took out the powerplants diesel generators. This was the worst case scenario, biggest possible earthquake followed by the biggest possible tsunami. Note, the modern reactors at fukushima have provided no problems, while the 1960s era reactors had the problems.
With your second point, I think you overextended the average voter's attention span at "Reactor surviv..."
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 04:13:01 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 04:11:05 AM
1) Shale gas was is everywhere, in shitloads. The luddites are trying to stop that as well with their attacks on Fracking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing).
2) The Fukushima Reactor survived the earthquake and the tsunami without any problem. The powerplants problem was, however, that the eartquake took out the local electricity grid and the tsunami took out the powerplants diesel generators. This was the worst case scenario, biggest possible earthquake followed by the biggest possible tsunami. Note, the modern reactors at fukushima have provided no problems, while the 1960s era reactors had the problems.
With your second point, I think you overextended the average voter's attention span at "Reactor surviv..."
Quote from: H.L. MenckenFor every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
I'd normally just say, screw them let them live with the consequences of their actions.. but their actions affect me...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 30, 2011, 03:49:20 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 30, 2011, 03:43:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:27:29 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 30, 2011, 03:16:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:02:38 AMFuckin' dark greens and their luddite, self-destroying ignorant attitudes. I can't believe this is happening.
You're aware that the ones pulling the plug are the conservatives and liberals, right? :P
yes, but it was fuckin' green propaganda that got them here.
Yeah, yeah, right, propaganda. Any way you want to slice it, the fact is that there's widespread public rejection to nuclear power, enough for it to be damaging for politicians to support it. It's really no wonder that they get to this situation.
A rejection borne of ignorance.
So? Your country is hindering stem cell research out of ignorance too. Every country is full of ignorant fucks. They are called "voters".
Are we certain the Germany is doing this out of ignorance? Is there a possibility that someone has done the math and concluded that the cost of using another energy source, e.g. natural gas, is actually cheaper than nuclear? Fukushima may have done more than change public perceptions - it may well have increased the costs of installing extra safety precautions in new power plants, making them less economically competitive. And, how old are Germany's nuclear plants anyway? These things are designed to operate for a limited number of years, right? Maybe they need to be decommissioned by 2022 or so anyway?
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:54:19 AM
When was the last time the German landscape was devastated by a level 9 earthquake and a tsunami?
Early 1945
Quote from: Bluebook on May 30, 2011, 04:45:10 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 03:54:19 AM
When was the last time the German landscape was devastated by a level 9 earthquake and a tsunami?
Early 1945
:lol: good one
nice to see you again Hort
Quote from: Monoriu on May 30, 2011, 04:36:57 AM
Are we certain the Germany is doing this out of ignorance? Is there a possibility that someone has done the math and concluded that the cost of using another energy source, e.g. natural gas, is actually cheaper than nuclear? Fukushima may have done more than change public perceptions - it may well have increased the costs of installing extra safety precautions in new power plants, making them less economically competitive. And, how old are Germany's nuclear plants anyway? These things are designed to operate for a limited number of years, right? Maybe they need to be decommissioned by 2022 or so anyway?
Natural gas is cheaper than nuclear (as Britain's idiotic "Dash for Gas" of a couple of decades ago shows.)
It is also more finite than nuclear considering the long term.
It is also a hell of a lot easier to be cut off from supply than nuclear is.
Western Europe was returning to nuclear due to fears over having to rely on Russia and other external sources of gas as much as greenhouse gas emission requirements; now thanks to an irrational reaction to Fukushima, Germany seems to have forgotten that. And, as another poster has pointed out, it was the older reactors at Fukushima that went which indicates that current safety standards are more than adequate - especially as Germany is NOT in an earthquake zone.
I just hope that Britain doesn't jump off a cliff - there's a lot of muttering over here about "tighter safety standards" and "reviews" as if we were Japan and under threat from massive earthquakes and tsunamis. :glare:
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 04:11:05 AM
1) Shale gas was is everywhere, in shitloads. The luddites are trying to stop that as well with their attacks on Fracking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing).
And with good reason.
Quote from: Agelastus on May 30, 2011, 03:49:07 AM
It must have been news to the Germans that they were in a major earthquake zone.
Oh, wait a second...THEY'RE NOT...
Fucking retards. I just hope my own government doesn't catch this latest "let's see how stupid we can be" virus. :glare:
And you think the UK energy/power generation policy over the last couple of decades has been sensible ? :hmm:
Welcome to 1973:
Power Station in England:Nuclear power stations:OpenDungeness B Power Station 1080MW (predicted
closure 2018)
Hartlepool Power Station 1210MW (predicted
closure 2014)Heysham Power Station Stage 1 1200MW (predicted
closure 2014)
Heysham Power Station Stage 2 1200MW (predicted closure 2023)
Hinkley Point B Power Station 1260MW (predicted
closure 2016)
Oldbury Power Station 470MW (predicted
closure 2011)
Sizewell B Power Station 1190MW (predicted closure 2035)
ClosedBerkeley Power Station
Bradwell Power Station
Calder Hall Power Station
Dungeness A Power Station
Hinkley Point A Power Station
Sizewell A Power Station
Windscale Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor
Winfrith Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor
Coal-fired power stations:OpenCottam Power Station 2008MW, EDF
Didcot A Power Station 1958MW, RWE, co-fires gas and biofuel (to
close by end 2015)Drax power station 3870MW, Drax Group, co-fires biofuel
Eggborough Power Station 1960MW, Eggborough Power Limited
Ferrybridge Power Station 1995MW, SSE, co-fires biofuel (units 1 and 2 to
close by end 2015)Fiddlers Ferry Power Station 1961MW, SSE, co-fires biofuel
Ironbridge Power Station (or Buildwas Power Station) 970MW, E.On (to
close by end 2015)
Kingsnorth power station 1940MW, E.On, co-fires oil (A station to
close by end 2015)
Lynemouth Power Station 420MW, Alcan, co-fires biofuel
Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station 2000MW, E.On
Rugeley Power Station 1006MW, IP
Tilbury Power Station 1038MW, RWE, co-fires oil (to
close by end 2015)
West Burton Power Station 1972MW, EDF
Wilton Power Station 197MW, SembCorp Industries
Oil-fired power stations:OpenFawley Power Station 968MW, RWE (to
close by end 2015)Grain Power Station 1300MW, E.On (to
close by end 2015)
Littlebrook D Power Station 2055MW, RWE (to
close by end 2015)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_England)
Quote from: Monoriu on May 30, 2011, 04:36:57 AM
Are we certain the Germany is doing this out of ignorance? Is there a possibility that someone has done the math and concluded that the cost of using another energy source, e.g. natural gas, is actually cheaper than nuclear? Fukushima may have done more than change public perceptions - it may well have increased the costs of installing extra safety precautions in new power plants, making them less economically competitive. And, how old are Germany's nuclear plants anyway? These things are designed to operate for a limited number of years, right? Maybe they need to be decommissioned by 2022 or so anyway?
It's really hard to come up with a valid comparison. Coal and gas have externalities from pollution, nuclear has externalities from waste disposal and the fact that the state insures the risk because no insurance company would take that business.
The last nuclear powerplants were built in the 1980s and their lifecycle would allow them to operate until the 2030s or so.
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 04:11:05 AM2) The Fukushima Reactor survived the earthquake and the tsunami without any problem. The powerplants problem was, however, that the eartquake took out the local electricity grid and the tsunami took out the powerplants diesel generators. This was the worst case scenario, biggest possible earthquake followed by the biggest possible tsunami. Note, the modern reactors at fukushima have provided no problems, while the 1960s era reactors had the problems.
So? The result is still that there is a considerable area around the reactor that is possibly uninhabitable for decades. I bet that we will all witness another of those once in a million years nuclear disasters in our lifetime.
By the way, at the moment just 4 out of 17 remaining nuclear reactors are online in Germany. And we still don't have blackouts or anything. Mainly because Germany used to be a big electricity exporter before the nuclear moratorium and can now fulfill its demand by importing a small amount of electricity.
Fukushima was just the catalyst of this policy by the way. In 2002, the government agreed with the nuclear industry to phase out nuclear power by 2022. In 2010, the current government decided to prolong the lifetime of some reactors by up to 14 years. Now they go back to the original date of 2022. So what you guys seem to think of as a new policy is actually already almost 10 years old.
Another luddite shit from Europe:
http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/news/110529_Field_destroyed
One year's worth of scientific work is destroyed by a few punks, who by the way, in their green fury, used PESTICIDES to kill the crops
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 30, 2011, 07:43:47 AM
Fukushima was just the catalyst of this policy by the way. In 2002, the government agreed with the nuclear industry to phase out nuclear power by 2022. In 2010, the current government decided to prolong the lifetime of some reactors by up to 14 years. Now they go back to the original date of 2022. So what you guys seem to think of as a new policy is actually already almost 10 years old.
Stop trying to give a German's perspective on Germany :mad:
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2011, 07:51:50 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 30, 2011, 07:43:47 AM
Fukushima was just the catalyst of this policy by the way. In 2002, the government agreed with the nuclear industry to phase out nuclear power by 2022. In 2010, the current government decided to prolong the lifetime of some reactors by up to 14 years. Now they go back to the original date of 2022. So what you guys seem to think of as a new policy is actually already almost 10 years old.
Stop trying to give a German's perspective on Germany :mad:
Do you want to know a German who tried to gave the German perspective on Germany to the world?
Hitler
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 07:49:12 AM
Another luddite shit from Europe:
http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/news/110529_Field_destroyed
One year's worth of scientific work is destroyed by a few punks, who by the way, in their green fury, used PESTICIDES to kill the crops
:bleeding: Fucktards
Quote from: Martinus on May 30, 2011, 04:30:56 AM
So? Your country is hindering stem cell research out of ignorance too. Every country is full of ignorant fucks. They are called "voters".
I don't know, I think most reasonable people would have some tinge of moral feeling over the creation or destruction of human embryos for research purposes.
Quote from: garbon on May 30, 2011, 08:58:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 30, 2011, 04:30:56 AM
So? Your country is hindering stem cell research out of ignorance too. Every country is full of ignorant fucks. They are called "voters".
I don't know, I think most reasonable people would have some tinge of moral feeling over the creation or destruction of human embryos for research purposes.
Bullshit. We cannot afford a Feoetus Gap.
Personally, I have a moral feeling over letting the victims of various gruesome diseases and forms of cancer suffer because we won't touch embryos who would not even come to existence if not for this research.
I would take any opposers of stem cell research to say it to the face of someone with a probably cure-able but presently horrendous condition that he/she and his/her brethren with the same problem are much less important than never-born embryos.
What's the problem with stem cell research in Hungary?
Quote from: The Larch on May 30, 2011, 09:19:54 AM
What's the problem with stem cell research in Hungary?
que?
Mart just wants some vat grown feet.
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 09:07:50 AM
Personally, I have a moral feeling over letting the victims of various gruesome diseases and forms of cancer suffer because we won't touch embryos who would not even come to existence if not for this research.
I disagree. Not so much about the embryos, which I couldn't care less about, but rather about the diseases. Without war and disease, how will we keep our numbers in check?
Quote from: jamesww on May 30, 2011, 07:14:30 AM
And you think the UK energy/power generation policy over the last couple of decades has been sensible ? :hmm:
I believe my phrase "idiotic dash for gas" adequately expressed my general feelings concerning British energy policy; the only decent decision made in the last two decades was the one to build new nuclear plants, and that is now endangered by a bunch of panicking retards.
Quote from: Martinus on May 30, 2011, 09:44:38 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 30, 2011, 09:42:40 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 09:21:22 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 30, 2011, 09:19:54 AM
What's the problem with stem cell research in Hungary?
que?
The hindering Mart is talking about.
I was talking to Timmah.
Sorry then, Tamas, I thought that he was talking with you. :blush:
We scrapped plans for a 3rd reactor at Calvert Cliffs, because the shareholders didn't want to pony up the $800 million marker for the 10 year federal loan guarantee, and because natural gas prices are so low.
So much for forward thinking.
We'll just do more of this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotografie.fabrik1design.de%2Fwp-content%2Fmyfotos%2Fgarzweiler%2Ftagebau_garzweiler_02.jpg&hash=05f4647d7a7d6e6b8c73eebbf3de8527ee7d7f46)
Quote from: Zanza on May 30, 2011, 10:25:08 AM
We'll just do more of this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotografie.fabrik1design.de%2Fwp-content%2Fmyfotos%2Fgarzweiler%2Ftagebau_garzweiler_02.jpg&hash=05f4647d7a7d6e6b8c73eebbf3de8527ee7d7f46)
Heh, I had a teacher who always complained about that kind of pictures for being misleading and sensationalistic. :lol: Those clouds are almost surely water vapour and non contaminant. The really dangerous and tricky chimneys are the smaller ones with no plumes coming out of them.
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas! Think of the environment and stuff.
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 07:55:18 AM
Do you want to know a German who tried to gave the German perspective on Germany to the world?
Hitler
Hitler was Austrian.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2011, 07:51:50 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 30, 2011, 07:43:47 AM
Fukushima was just the catalyst of this policy by the way. In 2002, the government agreed with the nuclear industry to phase out nuclear power by 2022. In 2010, the current government decided to prolong the lifetime of some reactors by up to 14 years. Now they go back to the original date of 2022. So what you guys seem to think of as a new policy is actually already almost 10 years old.
Stop trying to give a German's perspective on Germany :mad:
The German perspective seems to be that this may be foolishness, but if so it is ten-year-old foolishness and thus... what? Why should anyone, German or not, care whether the policy originally was proposed ten years ago or ten minutes ago?
Quote from: grumbler on May 30, 2011, 11:14:07 AMThe German perspective seems to be that this may be foolishness, but if so it is ten-year-old foolishness and thus... what? Why should anyone, German or not, care whether the policy originally was proposed ten years ago or ten minutes ago?
I am just surprised about the international media echo which I could better understand if this was a new policy and not just going back to an old target date.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2011, 06:06:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 04:11:05 AM
1) Shale gas was is everywhere, in shitloads. The luddites are trying to stop that as well with their attacks on Fracking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing).
And with good reason.
Elaborate?
Quote from: Zanza on May 30, 2011, 11:22:51 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 30, 2011, 11:14:07 AMThe German perspective seems to be that this may be foolishness, but if so it is ten-year-old foolishness and thus... what? Why should anyone, German or not, care whether the policy originally was proposed ten years ago or ten minutes ago?
I am just surprised about the international media echo which I could better understand if this was a new policy and not just going back to an old target date.
Why? People bitched about it ten years ago because it was stupid, and then it changed, and now it changed back, and so now people are bitching about how it's stupid again? Why are you having difficulty understanding that?
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 11:35:47 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2011, 06:06:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 04:11:05 AM
1) Shale gas was is everywhere, in shitloads. The luddites are trying to stop that as well with their attacks on Fracking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing).
And with good reason.
Elaborate?
Gay Fox hates Alberta.
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 30, 2011, 07:38:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 04:11:05 AM2) The Fukushima Reactor survived the earthquake and the tsunami without any problem. The powerplants problem was, however, that the eartquake took out the local electricity grid and the tsunami took out the powerplants diesel generators. This was the worst case scenario, biggest possible earthquake followed by the biggest possible tsunami. Note, the modern reactors at fukushima have provided no problems, while the 1960s era reactors had the problems.
So? The result is still that there is a considerable area around the reactor that is possibly uninhabitable for decades. I bet that we will all witness another of those once in a million years nuclear disasters in our lifetime.
So? Zanza1 posted a nice picture of a considerable area around a reactor (in this case a carbon oxidizing reactor) that will be uninhabitable for decades. I know that each year we witness a disaster from coal waste products ten times larger than all accidents in all nuclear power plants so far in history.
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2011, 11:37:46 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 11:35:47 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2011, 06:06:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 04:11:05 AM
1) Shale gas was is everywhere, in shitloads. The luddites are trying to stop that as well with their attacks on Fracking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing).
And with good reason.
Elaborate?
Gay Fox hates Alberta.
I love alberta, thats why I want to dig up as much of it, shower it with steam and then take the oily water that results, separate out the oil and sell it to the americans for great profit.
Quote from: grumbler on May 30, 2011, 11:14:07 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2011, 07:51:50 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 30, 2011, 07:43:47 AM
Fukushima was just the catalyst of this policy by the way. In 2002, the government agreed with the nuclear industry to phase out nuclear power by 2022. In 2010, the current government decided to prolong the lifetime of some reactors by up to 14 years. Now they go back to the original date of 2022. So what you guys seem to think of as a new policy is actually already almost 10 years old.
Stop trying to give a German's perspective on Germany :mad:
The German perspective seems to be that this may be foolishness, but if so it is ten-year-old foolishness and thus... what? Why should anyone, German or not, care whether the policy originally was proposed ten years ago or ten minutes ago?
Zanza could have also mentioned that the agreement of 2002 was Schröder at its finest, getting the Greens on his side (no more nuclear power) and being a good comrade to Putin (natural gas). The German right-wing e.g Merkel was against it back then.
In the meantime, more coal !
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 30, 2011, 04:04:09 AM
Haven't the Germans always had a bit more of an issue with nuclear than most Euros? My impression is that they've had one of the earliest and strongest anti-nuclear movements for decades.
It goes well with the "we're pussies now, look, we're not scary no more" persona.
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 11:35:47 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2011, 06:06:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 04:11:05 AM
1) Shale gas was is everywhere, in shitloads. The luddites are trying to stop that as well with their attacks on Fracking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing).
And with good reason.
Elaborate?
Watch Gasland. They're digging for that shit all around my grandparent's village back in France. Documentary is spot on. What really flabergasts me is that instead of investing in renewable energy or at least building another reactor, they wanna go for shale instead. LOL LETS FUCK UP EVERYBODY'S LIFE COZ WE CAN LULZ.
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 11:35:47 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2011, 06:06:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 04:11:05 AM
1) Shale gas was is everywhere, in shitloads. The luddites are trying to stop that as well with their attacks on Fracking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing).
And with good reason.
Elaborate?
Stop. Wasting. Perfectly. Good. Water.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 30, 2011, 12:12:05 PM
LOL LETS FUCK UP EVERYBODY'S LIFE COZ WE CAN LULZ.
LOLZ LET'S MAKE UP STRAWMEN COS WE CAN LOLZ
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2011, 12:26:46 PM
Stop. Wasting. Perfectly. Good. Water.
I don't think the water being "wasted" is the strongest argument against fracking. The negative externalities are the better arguments.
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 11:38:34 AMSo? Zanza1 posted a nice picture of a considerable area around a reactor (in this case a carbon oxidizing reactor) that will be uninhabitable for decades. I know that each year we witness a disaster from coal waste products ten times larger than all accidents in all nuclear power plants so far in history.
Definitely.
I am actually ambivalent regarding nuclear power. I don't think it is particularly risky in Germany, but I am also not convinced that it is really that cheap and there is the unsolved question of nuclear waste. It's huge benefit is of course that it is free of CO2. But it is a hard sell for a politician to convince people to build a nuclear powerplant in their backyard or perhaps some island in the South Pacific ceases to exist in 50 years...
Furthermore, there is a considerable political cost to this debate in Germany by now. It creates deep polarization in the population, which is against our consensus-based model. And the whole debate immensely benefits the Green party, which I dislike for a variety of policies they promote. So once the nuclear question is no longer contentious, other topics decide elections again and I hope that saner parties than the Greens will get elected then. So I hope this silly debate is over soon.
Your have a cheap power source next door. Burn the Poles. That should last y'all a decade or two.
Quote from: Zanza on May 30, 2011, 01:04:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 11:38:34 AMSo? Zanza1 posted a nice picture of a considerable area around a reactor (in this case a carbon oxidizing reactor) that will be uninhabitable for decades. I know that each year we witness a disaster from coal waste products ten times larger than all accidents in all nuclear power plants so far in history.
Definitely.
I am actually ambivalent regarding nuclear power. I don't think it is particularly risky in Germany, but I am also not convinced that it is really that cheap and there is the unsolved question of nuclear waste. It's huge benefit is of course that it is free of CO2.
Price, energy independence or low CO2 emissions are not even the best reasons to go nuclear: on a death per Kwh basis, it outclasses anything else by orders of magnitude, solar and wind included. It is just as simple as that.
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2011, 09:07:50 AM
Personally, I have a moral feeling over letting the victims of various gruesome diseases and forms of cancer suffer because we won't touch embryos who would not even come to existence if not for this research.
I would take any opposers of stem cell research to say it to the face of someone with a probably cure-able but presently horrendous condition that he/she and his/her brethren with the same problem are much less important than never-born embryos.
Weak argument, but okay.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 30, 2011, 01:25:44 PMPrice, energy independence or low CO2 emissions are not even the best reasons to go nuclear: on a death per Kwh basis, it outclasses anything else by orders of magnitude, solar and wind included. It is just as simple as that.
Maybe, but this is not about a rational arguments anymore, but rather about risk perception among the general population. There is the statistically very small risk of extreme amounts of deaths from a nuclear accident and radiation is creepy because you can't see or feel it, so the technology is considered unsafe.
No one cares for wind generator technicians falling off the windmills as most people aren't windmill technicians, so they can assume their personal risk is zero. Not so with the nuclear plant 30 km away.
People getting health problems from particles from burning coal is actually a better comparison. It has many of the same qualities as nuclear radiation, but it kills people so slowly that no one cares for that either.
Germans are stupid as a people. Everything always comes back to this.
Quote from: The Brain on May 30, 2011, 01:40:41 PM
Germans are stupid as a people. Everything always comes back to this.
At least we were able to sell three of the nuclear powerplants to the Swedish government before deciding to shut them down. :P
Quote from: Zoupa on May 30, 2011, 12:11:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 30, 2011, 04:04:09 AM
Haven't the Germans always had a bit more of an issue with nuclear than most Euros? My impression is that they've had one of the earliest and strongest anti-nuclear movements for decades.
It goes well with the "we're pussies now, look, we're not scary no more" persona.
Personally I think its more a collective subconcious realization that the Hiroshima bomb really was destined for Berlin, and only the quick and timely surrender of Germany saved them from that fate. Apparently that has created an irrational fear of everything nuclear.
It might sound far-fetched, but it is alot more logical than the official reasons given.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 30, 2011, 01:25:44 PM
Price, energy independence or low CO2 emissions are not even the best reasons to go nuclear: on a death per Kwh basis, it outclasses anything else by orders of magnitude, solar and wind included. It is just as simple as that.
:huh:
I know wind turbines kill the hell out of birds, but when has a human ever been killed by solar or wind?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2011, 03:44:24 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 30, 2011, 01:25:44 PM
Price, energy independence or low CO2 emissions are not even the best reasons to go nuclear: on a death per Kwh basis, it outclasses anything else by orders of magnitude, solar and wind included. It is just as simple as that.
:huh:
I know wind turbines kill the hell out of birds, but when has a human ever been killed by solar or wind?
George Hamilton is proof it doesn't.
Quote from: Bluebook on May 30, 2011, 03:27:03 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 30, 2011, 12:11:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 30, 2011, 04:04:09 AM
Haven't the Germans always had a bit more of an issue with nuclear than most Euros? My impression is that they've had one of the earliest and strongest anti-nuclear movements for decades.
It goes well with the "we're pussies now, look, we're not scary no more" persona.
Personally I think its more a collective subconcious realization that the Hiroshima bomb really was destined for Berlin, and only the quick and timely surrender of Germany saved them from that fate. Apparently that has created an irrational fear of everything nuclear.
It might sound far-fetched, but it is alot more logical than the official reasons given.
But that's not true. Even in Germany had managed to hold out some kind of guerilla resistance until August (unlikely), it would have been a waste of an atom bomb, seeing as Germany wouldn't control any urban centres anymore.
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2011, 03:52:32 PM
But that's not true. Even in Germany had managed to hold out some kind of guerilla resistance until August (unlikely), it would have been a waste of an atom bomb, seeing as Germany wouldn't control any urban centres anymore.
I was more thinking about a scenario where Germany was still a viable enemy. Like if D-day failed, or the Ardennes offensive managed to recapture Antwerp or whatever. Oh, and the russians must have been halted somewhere in the east too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2011, 03:44:24 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 30, 2011, 01:25:44 PM
Price, energy independence or low CO2 emissions are not even the best reasons to go nuclear: on a death per Kwh basis, it outclasses anything else by orders of magnitude, solar and wind included. It is just as simple as that.
:huh:
I know wind turbines kill the hell out of birds, but when has a human ever been killed by solar or wind?
Heavy loads landing on someone, falls from significant heights, plenty of high voltage equipment around, motor accidents on crappy rural paths, natural disasters ...
I know of at least 2 mortal work-related accidents - fall and electrocution - and a couple near misses - you don't want to be anywhere near a solar power plant when a tornado hits and 9-ton structures are flying around.
Now take into account that the production of all the plants I've worked on combined during their 20 to 25 year life will be dwarfed by that of a single reactor and that's how solar or wind end up being more dangerous.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2011, 12:26:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 11:35:47 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2011, 06:06:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 04:11:05 AM
1) Shale gas was is everywhere, in shitloads. The luddites are trying to stop that as well with their attacks on Fracking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing).
And with good reason.
Elaborate?
Stop. Wasting. Perfectly. Good. Water.
1 - fracking fluids are not necessarily water, or even water based, depends on downhole pressure, though they usually are
2 - fracking happens in sedimentary formations below the water table.
3 - the water used for fracking is much less than was used during drilling and is usually the same water that was used during drilling
duude, are you a poe?
Water table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_table)
I have no idea what Viking is talking about, but I trust him we he talks about digging holes.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2011, 07:02:16 PM
I have no idea what Viking is talking about, but I trust him we he talks about digging holes.
<_< is that some euphemism for ghey? :hmm:
I wanted to avoid using the word "Drilling". Actually, I meant it as respect.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2011, 07:11:34 PM
I wanted to avoid using the word "Drilling". Actually, I meant it as respect.
I should have known... you don't do subtlety
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2011, 07:25:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2011, 07:11:34 PM
I wanted to avoid using the word "Drilling". Actually, I meant it as respect.
I should have known... you don't do subtlety
Nope. :lol: Actually, I respect your opinion on sciencey things. I sucked at science in school (the only one I could do remotely well was biology).
Quote from: Iormlund on May 30, 2011, 05:50:24 PM
Heavy loads landing on someone, falls from significant heights, plenty of high voltage equipment around, motor accidents on crappy rural paths, natural disasters ...
I know of at least 2 mortal work-related accidents - fall and electrocution - and a couple near misses - you don't want to be anywhere near a solar power plant when a tornado hits and 9-ton structures are flying around.
Now take into account that the production of all the plants I've worked on combined during their 20 to 25 year life will be dwarfed by that of a single reactor and that's how solar or wind end up being more dangerous.
Not really sure that you're arguing in good faith if you want to cite that a natural disaster makes a particular type of structure dangerous.
Besides as has already been said, people care more about the danger to general pop and not just the working crew. After all, when the danger occurs to the larger, general pop, the fatalities are on a much larger scale.
To be fair though, I understand you were just answering Yi's question about danger period. :hug:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2011, 07:02:16 PM
I have no idea what Viking is talking about, but I trust him we he talks about digging holes.
Just because he's in the business doesn't mean it's a morally, ethically and environmentally correct business.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2011, 10:09:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2011, 07:02:16 PM
I have no idea what Viking is talking about, but I trust him we he talks about digging holes.
Just because he's in the business doesn't mean it's a morally, ethically and environmentally correct business.
That depends, what definition do you have for morality, ethics and environmental correctness?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2011, 10:09:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2011, 07:02:16 PM
I have no idea what Viking is talking about, but I trust him we he talks about digging holes.
Just because he's in the business doesn't mean it's a morally, ethically and environmentally correct business.
We can't all have the moral superiority of working at Best Buy.
Quote from: Viking on May 31, 2011, 03:34:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2011, 10:09:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2011, 07:02:16 PM
I have no idea what Viking is talking about, but I trust him we he talks about digging holes.
Just because he's in the business doesn't mean it's a morally, ethically and environmentally correct business.
That depends, what definition do you have for morality, ethics and environmental correctness?
I'm thinking causing potentially-explosive levels of methane in people's water is...wrong.
Quote from: ulmont on May 31, 2011, 08:17:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 31, 2011, 03:34:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2011, 10:09:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2011, 07:02:16 PM
I have no idea what Viking is talking about, but I trust him we he talks about digging holes.
Just because he's in the business doesn't mean it's a morally, ethically and environmentally correct business.
That depends, what definition do you have for morality, ethics and environmental correctness?
I'm thinking causing potentially-explosive levels of methane in people's water is...wrong.
You make a compelling argument for banning beans. You mention one possible and poorly documented source of harm from the activity. Methane has a solubility in water of 0.02 g/kg at at room temperature, CO2 has 1.2 g/kg at the same temperature. Methane is not very water soluable so it is going to remain as a gas, and if fracking does open a path into permeable formation methan will migrate only if it can migrate up and will only collect if it travels up into a trap (upside down u of impermable layers that can collect the migrating methane). These specific conditions can easily be identified with surface seismic surveys.
That said, the likelyhood of methane release into the formation is low, if it is released the conditions for it accumulating are highly improbable (they are just as likely as regular natural gas being found drilling randomly). Is it possible? Yes, but it is possible in the same sense that after inviting Jaron over for Quesedillas and Enchiladas enough fart accumulated under the roof to be ignited by the light being turned on.
Fracking is not some magical super high tech activity. It is breaking rocks 1000 ft under the ground, nothing more, nothing less.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 31, 2011, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2011, 10:09:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2011, 07:02:16 PM
I have no idea what Viking is talking about, but I trust him we he talks about digging holes.
Just because he's in the business doesn't mean it's a morally, ethically and environmentally correct business.
We can't all have the moral superiority of working at Best Buy.
You saying RewardZone(tm) Points aren't morally superior? :mad:
Viking, FU, I wanted Tywin as avatar!
Quote from: Viking on June 01, 2011, 05:13:45 AM
You mention one possible and poorly documented source of harm from the activity.
There's also the cases where people just leak fluid everywhere. A quite well documented source of harm.
Quote from: ulmont on June 01, 2011, 11:01:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 01, 2011, 05:13:45 AM
You mention one possible and poorly documented source of harm from the activity.
There's also the cases where people just leak fluid everywhere. A quite well documented source of harm.
and how is that relevant?
Quote from: Tamas on June 01, 2011, 06:44:40 AM
Viking, FU, I wanted Tywin as avatar!
use this guy...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ITjhE6ctGvY%2FTZPljD8JYuI%2FAAAAAAAABZY%2F1xhGoAtDrls%2Fs400%2Fdavid%252Bbradley.jpg&hash=2c2915821e16610a40912139c6e26456198d103a)
still no craster casting news, so I can't suggest you use him... :lmfao:
Quote from: garbon on May 30, 2011, 08:26:27 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 30, 2011, 05:50:24 PM
Heavy loads landing on someone, falls from significant heights, plenty of high voltage equipment around, motor accidents on crappy rural paths, natural disasters ...
I know of at least 2 mortal work-related accidents - fall and electrocution - and a couple near misses - you don't want to be anywhere near a solar power plant when a tornado hits and 9-ton structures are flying around.
Now take into account that the production of all the plants I've worked on combined during their 20 to 25 year life will be dwarfed by that of a single reactor and that's how solar or wind end up being more dangerous.
Not really sure that you're arguing in good faith if you want to cite that a natural disaster makes a particular type of structure dangerous.
Besides as has already been said, people care more about the danger to general pop and not just the working crew. After all, when the danger occurs to the larger, general pop, the fatalities are on a much larger scale.
To be fair though, I understand you were just answering Yi's question about danger period. :hug:
I used the tornado example because it happened a couple of years ago at one of our plants near Seville (where tornadoes are anything but common). About 40 solar trackers were torn from their supporting structures and blown up to 200 m. The two security guards on duty were extremely lucky.
The intention was to point out that natural disasters do not just affect nuclear plants like Fukushima.