Could someone explain this to me, please?
Thanks.
Nuclear energy demands investments that could have been committed to renewable energy sources. Waste created in fission energy production (if that is included in your definition of clean nuclear energy) needs to be storaged for a very long time, in essence longer than what one might expect the current civilization to exist. So there is the problem of future generations finding the nuclear deposits and not knowing how to deal with them.
-nuclear waste that needs storage for some 1000 years
-Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and others smaller incidents
and in some cases a kneejerk reaction relating to the nuclear armanents industry
Also, mining for uranium is harmful as it creates emissions and destroys biospheres.
Gawd.
-"longer than current civilization will exist" Thankyouverymuch. Either we will have a human civilization after the nuclear age, or we won't, in either case, the nuclear waste storages deep undeground will not bother anyone
-renewable energy is a big fat joke compared to nuclear when it comes to efficiency. We have 7 billion people and growing to support with energy, and if you want to do that via windmills and solar panels, well, it won't work, and let's not get started on the production and maintenance energy and resource needs of these
-nuclear energy is clean. AFAIK, extremely clean compared to the energy it produces. Any serious green organization should champion that, and continued research on cold fusion.
So, they oppose it because they are ignorant, and afraid of radiation.
Quote from: barkdreg on June 10, 2012, 06:09:27 AM
-nuclear waste that needs storage for some 1000 years
-Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and others smaller incidents
and in some cases a kneejerk reaction relating to the nuclear armanents industry
Chernobyl is old technology and last time I checked inland Germany is not particularly at risk from tsunamis.
Quote from: Brezel on June 10, 2012, 06:10:14 AM
Also, mining for uranium is harmful as it creates emissions and destroys biospheres.
Whereas water and coal power plants do not have that, right Or windmill farms intefering with the flight paths of birds. You can't drop a stone without disturbing nature, because, you know, we are not less part of it than a tree in the rain forest.
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2012, 06:11:40 AM
Quote from: barkdreg on June 10, 2012, 06:09:27 AM
-nuclear waste that needs storage for some 1000 years
-Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and others smaller incidents
and in some cases a kneejerk reaction relating to the nuclear armanents industry
Chernobyl is old technology and last time I checked inland Germany is not particularly at risk from tsunamis.
Tell me about it. If our people had any sense, we would be busy building an other nuclear plant, or two, to sell electricity to the Germans when they will have blackouts in ten years.
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2012, 06:12:39 AM
Whereas water and coal power plants do not have that, right Or windmill farms intefering with the flight paths of birds. You can't drop a stone without disturbing nature, because, you know, we are not less part of it than a tree in the rain forest.
I think solar has the greatest untapped potential of the common energy sources. But 7+ billion people perhaps can't be part of the nature as we knew it. So, it is fundamental that material consumption targets need to be brought to more sustainable levels and human population must be brought down. I'd prefer non-violent means.
Non-violent means? Such as starvation and epidemics?
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2012, 06:33:40 AM
Non-violent means? Such as starvation and epidemics?
Contraception.
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2012, 05:46:09 AM
Could someone explain this to me, please?
Thanks.
Because they are not looking for a solution that works, they are looking for internal moral satisfaction. That means opposing everything that is not perfect. It is utopianism run amok.
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2012, 06:11:40 AM
Chernobyl is old technology and last time I checked inland Germany is not particularly at risk from tsunamis.
Both true. Yet even the most modern plant can have a malfunction and if it does it can result in a disaster.
Quote from: Brezel on June 10, 2012, 06:03:27 AMSo there is the problem of future generations finding the nuclear deposits and not knowing how to deal with them.
This seems like an odd / egotistical / pessimistic point of view to take.
What people too often forget about Fukushima is that there were four reactors there and those four were subject to the fourth strongest earthquake since the invention of the richter scale and two crashed and two shut down safely. The ones that crashed were the older obsolete kind and they crashed because the local electricity grid and road system failed. They ran out of diesel for the generator after the electric grid went down. The two modern reactors (1970s designs) worked and shut down perfectly safely.
The really sad and patetic bit here is that reactors three and four were intended to replace reactors one and two. But Toukyo Electric kept them online because they couldn't meet demand and they had no prospect to building further nuclear power plants.
I'll go as far as to say that one of the barriers that could have prevented the fukushima meltdown was modern powerplants and these powerplants have not replaced the antiquated ones because of environmentalists.
Right now the age distribution of the current nuclear reactors worldwide
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.euronuclear.org%2Finfo%2Fencyclopedia%2Fimages%2Fnpp-ww-age-300312.jpg&hash=38b8349dd042e18dbccf48a959b202f07c0259dc)
The bulk of those reactors under 20 years are not being built in sensible western countries but in (yup you guessed it...)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.euronuclear.org%2Finfo%2Fencyclopedia%2Fimages%2Fnumb-reactor-construction-300312.jpg&hash=ffedbe17f561bf65ae0b16969b53910f1d0b7b71)
A further issue is that almost ALL processed nuclear waste today is being stored, basically, in a closet onsite at sites specializing in the processing of spent fuel (places like Sellafield) rather than being stored safely in specially designed storage locations.
This is bad and stupid.
Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2012, 07:03:42 AM
Quote from: Brezel on June 10, 2012, 06:03:27 AMSo there is the problem of future generations finding the nuclear deposits and not knowing how to deal with them.
This seems like an odd / egotistical / pessimistic point of view to take.
I find it odd as well but apparently the extremely long period nuclear waste remains harmful makes it real. Here is a short article http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/2009/11/atomic_priesthoods_thorn_landscapes_and_munchian_pictograms.html
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2012, 06:11:40 AM
Quote from: barkdreg on June 10, 2012, 06:09:27 AM
-nuclear waste that needs storage for some 1000 years
-Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and others smaller incidents
and in some cases a kneejerk reaction relating to the nuclear armanents industry
Chernobyl is old technology and last time I checked inland Germany is not particularly at risk from tsunamis.
In America, there was substantial popular culture blowback during the mid-to-late 70's and 80's: Barks touches on some of it, but in a span of 4 years, you had major motion pictures (China Syndrome, 1979 and Silkwood, 1983) where Hollywood really put the zap on the nuclear industry as unsafe an treacherous Three Mile Island time.
And yes, there was a definite kneejerk reaction from the peaceniks (who equated containment towers = mushroom clouds) over the nuclear armaments industry, especially when Reagan and Thatcher upped the ante with forward deployment of Pershings to Europe and the Soviets cockblocked the INF discussions.
And no, Chernobyl sure as shit didn't help.
But the late '70s and early '80s did not do nuclear power in the US any favors.
That China Syndrome hit the movie screens a mere 12 days before Three Mile Island is one of those odd quirky conincidences.
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2012, 06:13:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2012, 06:11:40 AM
Quote from: barkdreg on June 10, 2012, 06:09:27 AM
-nuclear waste that needs storage for some 1000 years
-Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and others smaller incidents
and in some cases a kneejerk reaction relating to the nuclear armanents industry
Chernobyl is old technology and last time I checked inland Germany is not particularly at risk from tsunamis.
Tell me about it. If our people had any sense, we would be busy building an other nuclear plant, or two, to sell electricity to the Germans when they will have blackouts in ten years.
Actually, we (Poland) are building one.
Quote from: Viking on June 10, 2012, 07:08:00 AM
What people too often forget about Fukushima is that there were four reactors there and those four were subject to the fourth strongest earthquake since the invention of the richter scale and two crashed and two shut down safely. The ones that crashed were the older obsolete kind and they crashed because the local electricity grid and road system failed. They ran out of diesel for the generator after the electric grid went down. The two modern reactors (1970s designs) worked and shut down perfectly safely.
Fukashima's back up generators failed because they were in the sub-basement of the plant and were subsequently flooded by the tsunami. That's why all the engineers ran out to their cars, and daisy-chained all their car batteries together just to get enough juice to the control room panels in time to see the bad news about the steam build-up.
But yeah, we're not at that point in human civilization where we can out-engineer Mother Nature. A 1-in-500-years eathquake/tsunami combo? That's just a bad day at the craps table for humanity.
You guys want to see some real hard-core footage of the crisis, watch the Frontline piece from last month; first time showing the Japanese crews' camcorder footage during the first few days of the crisis:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/japans-nuclear-meltdown/
You know when I read stuff like that, I'm kinda feeling proud to be a Pole for the first time, perhaps, ever. Compared to the pussified Western Europe, and the dysfunctional idiocy of countries like Hungary or Ukraine, we are surprisingly (for a nation stereotypically considered to be full of hotheaded and irrational romantics) level-headed, in a 19th century Britain style. We are growing our economy, building nuclear plant(s) and infrastructure, engaging in some moderate regional diplomacy that is neither too ambitious nor too timid, raising retirement age and keeping the public debt from ballooning, all the while keeping democracy and human rights in a fairly good shape, or even seeing a moderate progress.
Quote from: Brezel on June 10, 2012, 06:34:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2012, 06:33:40 AM
Non-violent means? Such as starvation and epidemics?
Contraception.
the only way to effectively bring down population numbers is lifting people out of poverty. And doing that requires massive amounts of energy.
Green politicians will need to accept that it's either lifting the world out of poverty -which will have devastating effect on the environment- or saving the environment -which will let 3/4th of the global population rot in poverty. Neither choice is acceptable for such politicians. Too bad that they oppose technology on an ideological basis.
Because they are idiots.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 10, 2012, 07:36:07 AM
Green politicians will need to accept that it's either lifting the world out of poverty -which will have devastating effect on the environment- or saving the environment -which will let 3/4th of the global population rot in poverty. Neither choice is acceptable for such politicians. Too bad that they oppose technology on an ideological basis.
Well, at least the American Left has been slowly coming to the realization that nuclear power is a better alternative to fossil fuels. It's taken awhile, but they're turning.
The biggest obstacle to the expansion of nuclear power in the US is, ironically enough, the energy industry itself.
I think that Greens aren't solely interested in carbon. So the problems of storage and potential disaster of nuclear power is a problem for them too. In addition the general Green position isn't that growth should be totally supported. The goal of Green politics is to see a sort-of global lifestyle switch that consumes less and grows less. So the worry that we won't be able to sustain this level of consumption without carbon or nuclear isn't necessarily a major concern for them.
I don't know that Western Europe's going mad about nuclear, just Germany. The French are still building them and, in fact, they're building about 10 new nuclear plants in the UK. In both countries there's broad cross-party support for it and the only anti-nuclear movement, that I can think of, is in Green Party itself. The left is fine with it.
I think for specific reasons Germany's got a very strong anti-nuclear movement and a stronger than average Green movement which affects them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2012, 07:50:36 AM
The French are still building them and, in fact, they're building about 10 new nuclear plants in the UK. In both countries there's broad cross-party support for it and the only anti-nuclear movement, that I can think of, is in Green Party itself. The left is fine with it.
The French, hands down, have the best nuclear program in the world, and the best way to approach the industry, from training personnel from a paramilitary academy, to universal and cutting-edge reactor design. Even the Japanese have had issues before Fukashima, between engineering fuck-ups, and even corruption and investigations at the highest levels, that the French have never had.
Yet one more reason why the French rock. :frog: :frog: :frog:
QuoteI think for specific reasons Germany's got a very strong anti-nuclear movement and a stronger than average Green movement which affects them.
I expect nothing less from the Germans. Those people never do anything in moderation.
Opposing nuclear power has become an important tribal identifying mark among greens.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2012, 07:50:36 AM
I think that Greens aren't solely interested in carbon. So the problems of storage and potential disaster of nuclear power is a problem for them too. In addition the general Green position isn't that growth should be totally supported. The goal of Green politics is to see a sort-of global lifestyle switch that consumes less and grows less. So the worry that we won't be able to sustain this level of consumption without carbon or nuclear isn't necessarily a major concern for them.
And this is where they showcase their selfish ignorance, as a movement / political ideology. I understand that with papa and mama funding their college education and Starbucks hangouts, a slight lifestyle cut-back seems acceptable. I mean, you don't have to drink caffe latte every day, right?
But for the vast majority of the world's population, the poorest-of-the-poor-with-a-roof-over-his-head western europe lifestyle is a dream and ambition.
Telling them "okay dudes, listen up, we are where we want to be. We must choose between further technological and industrial advances, or letting the lot of you starve and eventually die in horrible wars of survival. We go with the latter" is, well, not nice
Actually their point is that the West is the trust fund kid of the world. We need to take a severe lifestyle cut, or make our lifestyle significantly more sustainable/less based on consumption, for the rest of the world to develop - though they should learn from Western mistakes and develop sustainably. They don't believe in the West continuing our lifestyle.
I mean I posted a while ago about that former McKinsley consultant who's now a Green activist and councillor. He did research that indicated that actually consumption had dropped in recent years, I think even if you account for the outsourcing of production and the carbon cost. The idea that you can have growth and some form of increased sustainability is pretty revolutionary in Green circles.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2012, 08:21:46 AM
Actually their point is that the West is the trust fund kid of the world. We need to take a severe lifestyle cut, or make our lifestyle significantly more sustainable/less based on consumption, for the rest of the world to develop - though they should learn from Western mistakes and develop sustainably. They don't believe in the West continuing our lifestyle.
And they don't believe in equilibrium, either. That's why global initiatives on environmentalism will never work; It's a Western construct. China, India and Russia, in addition to the entire continents of Africa and South America, have no aversion to raping the planet for all it's worth.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2012, 08:21:46 AM
Actually their point is that the West is the trust fund kid of the world. We need to take a severe lifestyle cut, or make our lifestyle significantly more sustainable/less based on consumption, for the rest of the world to develop - though they should learn from Western mistakes and develop sustainably. They don't believe in the West continuing our lifestyle.
I mean I posted a while ago about that former McKinsley consultant who's now a Green activist and councillor. He did research that indicated that actually consumption had dropped in recent years, I think even if you account for the outsourcing of production and the carbon cost. The idea that you can have growth and some form of increased sustainability is pretty revolutionary in Green circles.
Sure, the West is a trust fund kid. But greens are like these idiotic hipsters who sneer on their more productive (if somewhat workaholic) peers and elders, and instead prefer to live in shitty (but expensive) flats, buy overpriced fair trade goods and work on "projects".
Turning the West to shit is not going to help the developing world - it's just going to turn the West to shit.
The point isn't to help the developing world. The Greens believe in a steady state economy of zero growth because they think constant growth is impossible without destroying the planet. The West is more able to do that, we're comfortable so we should go for no growth, try to localise and decentralise the economy a lot and so on.
Also you increasing sound like your bitterly ageing while slipping into comfortable provincial sneering yourself. Lay off the G&T every now and then and embrace some youth(s) :P
Why bury the spent fuel anyway. It makes for fine gen 4 fuel. Current day spent fuel will last 1000 years or so I´ve heard.
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2012, 07:32:58 AM
You know when I read stuff like that, I'm kinda feeling proud to be a Pole for the first time, perhaps, ever. Compared to the pussified Western Europe, and the dysfunctional idiocy of countries like Hungary or Ukraine, we are surprisingly (for a nation stereotypically considered to be full of hotheaded and irrational romantics) level-headed, in a 19th century Britain style. We are growing our economy, building nuclear plant(s) and infrastructure, engaging in some moderate regional diplomacy that is neither too ambitious nor too timid, raising retirement age and keeping the public debt from ballooning, all the while keeping democracy and human rights in a fairly good shape, or even seeing a moderate progress.
That is kind of the way I think about Poland. :swiss:
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2012, 07:32:58 AM
You know when I read stuff like that, I'm kinda feeling proud to be a Pole for the first time, perhaps, ever. Compared to the pussified Western Europe, and the dysfunctional idiocy of countries like Hungary or Ukraine, we are surprisingly (for a nation stereotypically considered to be full of hotheaded and irrational romantics) level-headed, in a 19th century Britain style. We are growing our economy, building nuclear plant(s) and infrastructure, engaging in some moderate regional diplomacy that is neither too ambitious nor too timid, raising retirement age and keeping the public debt from ballooning, all the while keeping democracy and human rights in a fairly good shape, or even seeing a moderate progress.
It won't last.
Spain enjoyed a generation like that during and immediately after the Transition to democracy. Many mistakes were made, of course, but in general people in power were reasonable and open to compromise. It's extraordinary how much the country changed in a little over a decade.
I don't know why that ended. Maybe it was the lack of adult experience under a dictatorship of the new generations. Maybe the newfound wealth of society. Perhaps the increasing presence of the media.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2012, 11:31:40 AM
It won't last.
Spain enjoyed a generation like that during and immediately after the Transition to democracy. Many mistakes were made, of course, but in general people in power were reasonable and open to compromise. It's extraordinary how much the country changed in a little over a decade.
I don't know why that ended. Maybe it was the lack of adult experience under a dictatorship of the new generations. Maybe the newfound wealth of society. Perhaps the increasing presence of the media.
I think the wealth has to have a lot to do with it. Poland just has to peer over the border into Germany to see what it is missing, and it doesn't have so many resources to squander on stupid stuff. There really isn't any reason people in Poland and Spain should be a lot poorer than in France or Germany, so if that happens it is obvious to everyone something is really wrong.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 10, 2012, 11:07:16 AM
That is kind of the way I think about Poland. :swiss:
Agreed. I like the Poles (and Czechs) a lot and I'm very glad they're doing well. I think they're like the sensible, responsible, generally conscientious and moderate Netherlands/Germany style countries of Central/Eastern Europe.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2012, 11:50:27 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 10, 2012, 11:07:16 AM
That is kind of the way I think about Poland. :swiss:
Agreed. I like the Poles (and Czechs) a lot and I'm very glad they're doing well. I think they're like the sensible, responsible, generally conscientious and moderate Netherlands/Germany style countries of Central/Eastern Europe.
Yeah, but we wind up with: Marty.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2012, 02:48:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2012, 11:50:27 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 10, 2012, 11:07:16 AM
That is kind of the way I think about Poland. :swiss:
Agreed. I like the Poles (and Czechs) a lot and I'm very glad they're doing well. I think they're like the sensible, responsible, generally conscientious and moderate Netherlands/Germany style countries of Central/Eastern Europe.
Yeah, but we wind up with: Marty.
That's the Polish export 'product'.
I wonder what the polish for B-Ark is ?
edit:
I'll take a guess, it could be something like this:
Quote'B' Ark
... "To znaczy, ja nie mogłem pomóc uwagę," powiedział Ford, także biorąc łyk "ciał. W ładowni".
"Organy"? powiedział kapitan ze zdziwieniem.
Ford zatrzymał i pomyślał. Nigdy nie bierz niczego za pewnik, pomyślał. Czy to możliwe, że kapitan nie wie, że ma piętnaście milionów martwych ciał na jego statku?
Kapitan został radośnie kiwając na niego. Pojawił się także do gry z kaczki gumy.
Ford rozejrzał się. Dwa Liczba patrzył na niego w lustrze, ale tylko na chwilę: jego oczy były stale w ruchu. Pierwszy oficer stał tam trzymając tacę drinki i uśmiechnięty dobrotliwie.
"Organy"? powiedział kapitan ponownie.
Ford oblizał wargi.
"Tak", powiedział: "Wszystkie te martwe dezynfekcji telefoniczne i kierownictwo konta, wiesz, w luku bagażowym".
Kapitan spojrzał na niego. Nagle rzucił w tył głowę i roześmiał się.
"Och, nie żyjesz", powiedział: "Dobry Boże, nie, nie są one zamrożone. Będą się odrodzić".
Ford zrobił coś, czego bardzo rzadko. Zamrugał.
Artur zdawał się wychodzić z transu.
"To znaczy, że masz trzymać pełną zamrożonych fryzjerów?" powiedział.
"O tak", powiedział kapitan "Miliony nich. Fryzjerzy, zmęczone producenci telewizyjni, sprzedawcy ubezpieczeń, pracownicy zarządu, ochroniarze, public relations menedżerów, konsultantów zarządzania, nazwij je. Będziemy kolonizować inne planety."
Ford poruszony bardzo nieznacznie.
"Ekscytujące, prawda?" powiedział kapitan.
"Co z tej partii?" powiedział Arthur.
"Ach, teraz mnie źle nie zrozumieć", powiedział kapitan "jesteśmy po prostu jeden ze statków we flocie Ark. Jesteśmy" B "Arka widzisz. Niestety, mogę tylko prosić, aby uruchomić nieco bardziej gorąca woda dla mnie? "
Arthur zobowiązany, a kaskady wody pieniącej różowym wirowały wokół wanny. Kapitan westchnął przyjemności.
"Dziękuję bardzo drogi przyjacielu. Czy pomaga siebie do innych napojów, oczywiście".
Ford rzucił w dół swojego drinka, wziął butelkę z pierwszego oficera tacy i napełnić swój kieliszek do góry.
"Co", powiedział, "jest" B "Arka"?
"To", powiedział kapitan i swished do spienionego wody wokół radośnie z kaczki.
"Tak," powiedział Ford ", ale ..."
"No co się stało widać było", powiedział kapitan ", nasza planeta, świat, z którego doszliśmy, był niejako skazany."
"Skazani?"
"O tak. Więc co wszyscy myśleli, był, niech spakować całą populację w niektórych gigantycznych statków i iść i osiedlać się na innej planecie".
Po to mówi wiele o jego historii, osiadł z powrotem zadowolony grunt.
"To znaczy mniej ponurym jeden?" monit Artura.
"Co powiedziałeś kochany?"
"Mniej skazani na niepowodzenie planeta. Miałeś na osiedlenie się."
"Czy będziemy osiedlać się na tak. Dlatego zdecydowano się zbudować trzy statki, widzisz, trzy Ark w kosmosie, i ... nie jestem nudny You Am I?"
"Nie, nie," powiedział Ford mocno ", jest to fascynujące."
"Wiesz, że to wspaniały," odbicie kapitana, "mieć kogoś do rozmowy na zmianę."
Oczy dwie liczby s rzucił gorączkowo po pokoju ponownie, a następnie osiadł z powrotem na lustrze, jak para leci krótko oderwany od swojej ulubionej zdobyczy miesięcy starego mięsa.
"Kłopoty z długiej podróży jak ta", kontynuował Kapitana ", jest to, że skończy się tylko mówić do siebie partii, który dostaje strasznie nudne, ponieważ pół czas wiesz, co masz zamiar powiedzieć dalej."
"Tylko pół godzina?" Artur zapytał ze zdziwieniem.
Kapitan pomyślał przez chwilę.
"Tak, około pół powiedziałbym każdym razie -. Gdzie jest mydło?" On połowu wokół i znalazłem.
"Tak, tak, tak," wrócił "Chodziło o to, że do pierwszego statku, 'A' statek, by przejść wszystkie genialne przywódców, naukowców, wielkich artystów, znasz wszystkie uczonym, a do trzecią lub statek "C", pójdzie wszystkich ludzi, którzy tak naprawdę to, który stworzył rzeczy i robiłam rzeczy, a następnie do katalogu `'B statku - to my - pójdą wszyscy inni, pośrednicy widać".
Uśmiechnął się radośnie na nich.
"A my zostały wysłane poza pierwszym," doszedł do wniosku, i nucił trochę melodię kąpieli.
Mały kawałek kąpielowy, który został złożony do niego przez jednego z jego najlepszych na świecie i płodnym pisarzem jingle (który aktualnie śpi w luku trzydzieści sześć niektóre dziewięćset metrów za nimi) objęte co w innym przypadku byłyby niewygodne chwila ciszy . Ford i Artur tasuje swoje nogi i wściekle unikać nawzajem oczy.
"Er ..." powiedział Arthur po chwili ", co dokładnie się stało, że było nie tak z waszej planecie wtedy?"
"Och, to był skazany, jak powiedziałem," powiedział kapitan "Widocznie to był bardzo bliski zderzenia na słońce, czy coś. A może to było to, że księżyc był bardzo bliski zderzenia z nami. Coś w tym rodzaju. Absolutnie straszny Perspektywa cokolwiek to było. "
"Ach", powiedział pierwszy oficer nagle "Myślałem, że to, że planeta będzie opanowany przez gigantyczny rój pszczół dwunastu stóp piranie. Nie było to, że?"
Number Two rozpiętość wokół, oczy w ogniu z zimnym światłem twardy, że tylko przychodzi z ilością praktyce gotów był umieścić w.
"To nie to, co powiedziano mi!" syknął: "Mój dowódca powiedział mi, że cała planeta była w bezpośrednim niebezpieczeństwem zjedzenia przez olbrzymiego kozła zmutowanego gwiazdy!"
"Och naprawdę ..." powiedział Ford Prefect.
"Tak! Monstrualna istota z dołu piekła scything zębów dziesięć tysięcy mil długą, oddech, który gotowała oceany, pazurów, że może oderwać kontynenty od swoich korzeni, tysiąc oczy, które płonęły jak słońce, slavering szczęki milion mil średnicy, potwór taki jak ty nigdy nie ... nigdy ... nigdy ... "
"A oni zadbali wysłali Ci dużo off 1-te prawda?" zapytał Artura.
"O tak", powiedział kapitan "dobrze każdy mówi, bardzo ładnie pomyślałem, że to było bardzo ważne dla morale czuć, że będą przybyciu na planetę, gdzie mogli być pewni dobrego fryzjera i gdzie telefony były oczyścić ".
"O tak," zgadza się Ford, "Widzę, że byłoby bardzo ważne. I inne statki, er ... poszli na po uczynili?"
Przez chwilę kapitan nie odpowiedział. On skręcone rundę w swojej wannie i patrząc wstecz na olbrzymią statku ku jasnym środku galaktycznego. Zerknął na niewyobrażalną odległość.
"Ach. No to zabawne należy powiedzieć, że", powiedział i dał lekki grymas na Ford Prefect ", bo co ciekawe nie słyszeliśmy peep z nich odkąd opuścił pięć lat temu ... ale muszą one za nami gdzieś ".
Spojrzał w dal ponownie.
Ford spojrzał z nim i dał przemyślane marszcząc brwi.
"O ile oczywiście", powiedział cicho: "zostali zjedzeni przez kozła ..."
"Ach tak ..." powiedział kapitan z lekkim wahania pełzającego w jego głosie, "koza ..." Jego oczy przeszło stałych kształty instrumentów i komputerów, które wyłożonych przez most. Oni mrugnął dala niewinnie na niego. Wpatrywał się w gwiazdy, ale żaden z nich nie powiedział ani słowa. Spojrzał na oficerów pierwszym i drugim, ale wydawało się zagubieni w swoich własnych myśli przez chwilę. Spojrzał na Ford Prefect, który uniósł brwi na niego.
"To zabawne wiesz", powiedział kapitan w końcu ", ale teraz, kiedy faktycznie się opowiedzieć komuś innemu ..."
Douglas Adams, Restauracja na końcu wszechświata
via google translate.
society needs telephone cleaners
Quote from: Viking on June 10, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
society needs telephone cleaners
When was the last time someone grabbed your cellphone out of your hand and cleaned it for you ? <_<
edit:does that mean all the telephone sanitisers have been sent elsewhere ? :unsure:
I saw a thing on TV about how bad hydroelectric was for the environment. I think we're all supposed to just go back to living in caves.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2012, 02:48:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2012, 11:50:27 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 10, 2012, 11:07:16 AM
That is kind of the way I think about Poland. :swiss:
Agreed. I like the Poles (and Czechs) a lot and I'm very glad they're doing well. I think they're like the sensible, responsible, generally conscientious and moderate Netherlands/Germany style countries of Central/Eastern Europe.
Yeah, but we wind up with: Marty.
I love you too, Seedee. The best and brightest of the US police forces.
Quote from: mongers on June 10, 2012, 07:06:43 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 10, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
society needs telephone cleaners
When was the last time someone grabbed your cellphone out of your hand and cleaned it for you ? <_<
edit:
does that mean all the telephone sanitisers have been sent elsewhere ? :unsure:
They are all on the B-Ark
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2012, 07:50:36 AMin fact, they're building about 10 new nuclear plants in the UK.
Really? If you can trust Wiki, you are currently building 0 new plants and only have a plans for a couple new ones.
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2012, 06:13:24 AMTell me about it. If our people had any sense, we would be busy building an other nuclear plant, or two, to sell electricity to the Germans when they will have blackouts in ten years.
If we aren't able to reliably cover our energy needs in ten years without nuclear power, the obvious solution is to just let our own nuclear power plants run a few more years. Some of them previously had operating licenses for another 30 years or so, so it's not like they all need to be decommissioned by 2023.
I think Germany should rather phase out some of its lignite plants and replace those with the renewables it currently develops. Keep the nuclear and gas power for baseload, use renewables where possible.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2012, 09:12:56 AMAlso you increasing sound like your bitterly ageing while slipping into comfortable provincial sneering yourself. Lay off the G&T every now and then and embrace some youth(s) :P
It's funny but actually a lot of my views changed recently because of talking or listening to younger people than me, who are painfully/refreshingly (depending how you look at it) devoid of the idealism I used to have. I'm also getting tired with championing causes.
In short, nuclear energy is opposed by greens because it's not really as clean as advertised. CO2 emissions is not the only aspect considered of energy production.
Quote from: Zanza on June 11, 2012, 04:35:06 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2012, 07:50:36 AMin fact, they're building about 10 new nuclear plants in the UK.
Really? If you can trust Wiki, you are currently building 0 new plants and only have a plans for a couple new ones.
Reactors /= Plants
Plans (sometimes)= Action
The other thing is that nuclear power is not that cheap: http://www.synapse-energy.com/Downloads/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022.pdf. This is one of the reasons no plants have built in the US recently.
And it's not like renewable energies are pie in the sky projects: they apparently provide 1/5 of Germany's energy now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/solar-power-in-germany-hit-new-record-high-in-may-producing-10-pct-of-countrys-electricity/2012/06/08/gJQAz3b3NV_story.html
Quote from: Martinus on June 11, 2012, 01:08:42 AM
I love you too, Seedee. The best and brightest of the US police forces.
Goddamned right. Smart enough to GTFO.
Its a shame Fukushima came when it did really, before that there was a lot of talk of a new golden age of nuclear power starting up and the greens had long since recognised it as a good thing.
Now though...so much ignorance...
Quote from: Tyr on June 11, 2012, 07:52:35 AM
Its a shame Fukushima came when it did really, before that there was a lot of talk of a new golden age of nuclear power starting up and the greens had long since recognised it as a good thing.
Now though...so much ignorance...
Yup. Worst possible time for public opinion, which was actually turning the last several years; now it just gives the industry a convenient excuse to avoid the issue entirely.
Quote from: Zanza on June 11, 2012, 04:35:06 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2012, 07:50:36 AMin fact, they're building about 10 new nuclear plants in the UK.
Really? If you can trust Wiki, you are currently building 0 new plants and only have a plans for a couple new ones.
Yeah, you can't. Those are the plans anyway. I believe there's only been two successful bids so far, because it's a long process you need the construction and the site operator/licensees for however many years and the decommissioning plans all in place. But the UK is open to many redeveloped nuclear sites and different power companies are bidding to build new plants or redevelop old ones. But right now the UK's quite big and attractive in the nuclear market.
But they're not building now, but they're going to build.
Quote from: Zanza on June 11, 2012, 04:44:15 AM
I think Germany should rather phase out some of its lignite plants and replace those with the renewables it currently develops. Keep the nuclear and gas power for baseload, use renewables where possible.
Gas is fairly expensive to use as baseload. It works great as backup, though.
Quote from: Brezel on June 10, 2012, 06:32:13 AM
I think solar has the greatest untapped potential of the common energy sources. But 7+ billion people perhaps can't be part of the nature as we knew it. So, it is fundamental that material consumption targets need to be brought to more sustainable levels and human population must be brought down. I'd prefer non-violent means.
Needs to be brought down? Well no effort needs to be taken, human birthrates are quickly shrinking to replacement levels. Why not just let nature take its course instead of calling for possibly violent means?
Quote from: Faeelin on June 11, 2012, 07:18:06 AM
And it's not like renewable energies are pie in the sky projects: they apparently provide 1/5 of Germany's energy now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/solar-power-in-germany-hit-new-record-high-in-may-producing-10-pct-of-countrys-electricity/2012/06/08/gJQAz3b3NV_story.html
Well...it is not pie in the sky in the sense that real and not fantasy electricity is generated. And in some cases, like if you happen to have a hydro-electric dam in the area, it can actually be the best kind of electricity around. But generally, though, it is really expensive and nearly cripplingly so unless you have a robust economy like Germany devoted to developing it. I mean how much investment was required to reach 1/5th?
Quote from: Faeelin on June 11, 2012, 07:18:06 AM
The other thing is that nuclear power is not that cheap: http://www.synapse-energy.com/Downloads/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022.pdf. This is one of the reasons no plants have built in the US recently.
It's far cheaper than any competition once you take into account things like respiratory ailments. It is, however, very risky, since it's extremely long-term, most of the huge cost is upfront and politics can delay or even cancel a project. Also, since few plants are being built there's high chance of cost overruns due to inexperienced contractors and workers.
Quote
And it's not like renewable energies are pie in the sky projects: they apparently provide 1/5 of Germany's energy now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/solar-power-in-germany-hit-new-record-high-in-may-producing-10-pct-of-countrys-electricity/2012/06/08/gJQAz3b3NV_story.html
It gets harder the more you produce. Wind turbines, for example, create all kind of problems in the grid. Think of it like a chorus. One so-so singer in a 200 strong chorus might be no big deal. He can ride on the rest. But as you replace good ones with bad ones the performance is bound to suffer. And there'll be a point where bad singers will overwhelm the good ones.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2012, 08:44:10 AMBut generally, though, it is really expensive and nearly cripplingly so unless you have a robust economy like Germany devoted to developing it. I mean how much investment was required to reach 1/5th?
Well it's hardly crippling. Germany's got one of the best economies in the world. If it was crippling in any way I'd expect to have read an article on how the cost of Germany's energy program or the costs associated with it were holding their economy back. I've not read anything, ever. Germany's made their choice - I think it's the right one, and I don't even give a shit about the environment.
It takes a lot of investment. It takes politicians stepping away from SEXY solar and moving into dull but more effective energies like wind and biomass. I think the Germans have been developing renewables in a big way for the past 10 years or so.
One of the important steps I believe was to establish long-term prices per unit of renewable energy for feed in producers. So if you're a farmer and you build a windmill to power your farm, obviously you've got no energy bills, and any surplus goes into the national grid and you get paid for it. I think the like of long-term price stability on that made people reluctant to do it. Germany's established very long-term set prices which has encouraged a lot of investment.
Biomass. Please don't mention that. Burning trees is not renewable energy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2012, 08:51:00 AM
Well it's hardly crippling. Germany's got one of the best economies in the world.
I see you ignored my qualifier.
I DO care about the environment and I am a huge proponent of finding clean renewables. But Germany is not a good example for people to follow because they have poured TONS of money into this project for decades. And thank goodness there is no way we would have advanced as far as we have in renewables without the Germans. But they have the money and will to do it. Most countries do not.
Also supposedly when countries start trying to get renewables going with incentives they have an annoying tendency to produce tons of innefficient boondoggles designed to take advantage of the incentives and not make energy...China and Spain are usually trotted out as examples of these. That seems to not have been a big problem in Germany but I am not clear on the details.
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2012, 08:59:13 AM
Biomass. Please don't mention that. Burning trees is not renewable energy.
:huh:
Sure it is. I recognize that Europe cut down all their forests centuries ago, but those of us in better forested parts of the world it's an option.
I knew several people in Yukon who heat their homes using wood. It probably makes more sense to use wood than the fuel oil we used which was shipped from 1000s of kms away.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2012, 09:05:10 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2012, 08:51:00 AM
Well it's hardly crippling. Germany's got one of the best economies in the world.
I see you ignored my qualifier.
I DO care about the environment and I am a huge proponent of finding clean renewables. But Germany is not a good example for people to follow because they have poured TONS of money into this project for decades. And thank goodness there is no way we would have advanced as far as we have in renewables without the Germans. But they have the money and will to do it. Most countries do not.
Also supposedly when countries start trying to get renewables going with incentives they have an annoying tendency to produce tons of innefficient boondoggles designed to take advantage of the incentives and not make energy...China and Spain are usually trotted out as examples of these. That seems to not have been a big problem in Germany but I am not clear on the details.
The thing is that there's not a single magical recipe on how to make a proper and balanced energy mix. Each country and region, depending on their conditions (resource availability, geography, population dispersion, etc), has to find the best fit amongst the different kinds of energy sources. Not every country has the same potential for, for instance, hydroelectrical power. AFAIK I think it was Sweden that got something like half their total energy from hydro, but of course this is not available to other countries who don't have the geography to support that kind of energy. For instance France's huge investment in nuclear comes from the 70s, when it was decided, for geostrategic reasons after the oil crisis, to be as self-reliant as possible from domestic energy sources.
Quote from: Barrister on June 11, 2012, 09:09:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2012, 08:59:13 AM
Biomass. Please don't mention that. Burning trees is not renewable energy.
:huh:
Sure it is. I recognize that Europe cut down all their forests centuries ago, but those of us in better forested parts of the world it's an option.
I knew several people in Yukon who heat their homes using wood. It probably makes more sense to use wood than the fuel oil we used which was shipped from 1000s of kms away.
yes. we also heat the house using wood during winter.
But if you took a more sizeable part of the population and put them to fuel their homes, and keep their stuff with electricity via burning wood, a lot of forests would go away quickly.
Yeah, it's not really relevant outside sparsely populated places like Canada. It's like saying we should all be using hydroelectric because works wonders in Norway.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2012, 09:05:10 AM
I DO care about the environment and I am a huge proponent of finding clean renewables. But Germany is not a good example for people to follow because they have poured TONS of money into this project for decades. And thank goodness there is no way we would have advanced as far as we have in renewables without the Germans. But they have the money and will to do it. Most countries do not.
I don't get why you're presuming that renewables are worse in terms of energy production; solar is rapidly approaching parity with fossil fuels, for instance. Meanwhile, China alone spent $52 billion on renewable energy last year; and India was one of the top five investors in it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/renewable-energy-sees-record-investment-in-2011-but-solar-price-drop-hurts-manufacturers/2012/06/11/gJQAVwzZUV_story.html.
I also don't get what "tons of money into this project for decades" means here. You don't think the US has spent tons of money on its grid?
It's not hard to 'rapidly approach parity' with something that's an order of magnitude cheaper.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 11, 2012, 09:32:34 AM
I don't get why you're presuming that renewables are worse in terms of energy production; solar is rapidly approaching parity with fossil fuels, for instance. Meanwhile, China alone spent $52 billion on renewable energy last year; and India was one of the top five investors in it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/renewable-energy-sees-record-investment-in-2011-but-solar-price-drop-hurts-manufacturers/2012/06/11/gJQAVwzZUV_story.html.
I also don't get what "tons of money into this project for decades" means here. You don't think the US has spent tons of money on its grid?
They have been subsidizing solar panels for decades and they started at a time when the disparaty between them and fossil fuels was far greater than it was now. In the past the government would practically buy the panels for the end user and it was still not really a great deal compared to fossil fuels. And, as I said, thank goodness for the German taxpayers investing all that cash at it because solar generation has come a long way and there are many applications where it makes tons of sense to use them and especially now that they are dramatically cheaper. And I am not sure what the point was bringing up the grid. The grid is used by every sort of electricity that is not generated on site.
I am not sure what you mean by 'worse in terms of energy production'. They produce electricity nobody is denying that. And yes lots of energy hungry economies are looking at all sorts of methods at generating power. So nobody can say renewables will not or have not been given a fair shake.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2012, 08:40:16 AM
Needs to be brought down? Well no effort needs to be taken, human birthrates are quickly shrinking to replacement levels. Why not just let nature take its course instead of calling for possibly violent means?
Because idiots like to troll? :secret:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2012, 08:30:08 AMYeah, you can't. Those are the plans anyway. I believe there's only been two successful bids so far, because it's a long process you need the construction and the site operator/licensees for however many years and the decommissioning plans all in place. But the UK is open to many redeveloped nuclear sites and different power companies are bidding to build new plants or redevelop old ones. But right now the UK's quite big and attractive in the nuclear market.
But they're not building now, but they're going to build.
I just remembered that I read that EON and RWE from Germany cancelled their plans in Britain. Mainly because a nuclear plant is a very long-term investment and while it pays off over the lifetime of the reactor, the huge upfront cost may be too much for private investors. Might be different for a state-owned enterprise like EdF. Is anybody but EdF seriously thinking about building a new nuclear reactor in the UK?
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2012, 08:36:23 AMGas is fairly expensive to use as baseload. It works great as backup, though.
You are right. I think it is mostly used for peaks because you can apparently start a gas powerplant within minutes.
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2012, 08:59:13 AM
Biomass. Please don't mention that. Burning trees is not renewable energy.
I think biomass here is mostly the leftovers of trees that are cut down anyway and of course other agricultural waste.
Anyway, trees are very much a renewable resource when you have good forest management. Germany has had growing forests for about 200 years apparently. Most forests are owned by former nobility or communal authorities, both of which take a very long-term view to their management.
EDIT: And there is currently quite a bit of research into biomass, e.g. liquified biomass or growing algae.
Germany will invest lots of money into windpower in the North Sea and the power lines to transport it to Southern Germany where the industry needs it. We will also need more stuff like pumped storage hydroelectrics to cope with fluctuations in renewable output.
Few rational US companies are interested in building a nuclear power plants in the present day as opposed to gas. This has nothing to do with environmentalists and everything to do with economics. The US government's official policy IIRC is still to provide subsidies to nuclear power plant construction in the form of loan guarantees.
If the question is properly phrased as should nuclear as opposed to other forms of power receive preferential subsidization, then one does not need to be a "green politician" to take a negative view to the question.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2012, 09:05:10 AM
I see you ignored my qualifier.
Not really I just don't see it's relevance. It isn't crippling - I can't think of any economy crippled by renewable energy. But it does take a lot of investment and support. It's a question of priorities and spending - like all infrastructure spending. In my view it's worth it but we shouldn't overdo the cost. There isn't a country in Western Europe or North America that couldn't afford it.
QuoteBiomass. Please don't mention that. Burning trees is not renewable energy.
Biomass isn't just trees though that's part of it. In the UK it's mostly animal waste. It's whatever you have produced from living organisms.
Also if you manage forests well that's fine. It's what the Forestry Commission are for in Scotland.
QuoteIs anybody but EdF seriously thinking about building a new nuclear reactor in the UK?
Yeah. I know one firm's bidding as an operator that would be the biggest her company's ever won (the entire company not just the nuclear division, and they're a huge multi-national) and I think there's a few Canadian operators wanting to go into it. I think EdF are best placed for the building though.
QuoteGermany will invest lots of money into windpower in the North Sea and the power lines to transport it to Southern Germany where the industry needs it. We will also need more stuff like pumped storage hydroelectrics to cope with fluctuations in renewable output.
A big deal in the UK is offshore wind farms and wave power, but yeah, it's very expensive to build the cables.
QuoteYeah, it's not really relevant outside sparsely populated places like Canada. It's like saying we should all be using hydroelectric because works wonders in Norway.
Obviously different countries should have different approaches based on their own situations and likely resources.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2012, 12:40:33 PMIt isn't crippling - I can't think of any economy crippled by renewable energy. But it does take a lot of investment and support. It's a question of priorities and spending - like all infrastructure spending. In my view it's worth it but we shouldn't overdo the cost. There isn't a country in Western Europe or North America that couldn't afford it.
Why though? When we're figuring out we're completely awash in natgas and it's cheap as hell and almost as clean.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2012, 12:40:33 PM
Not really I just don't see it's relevance. It isn't crippling - I can't think of any economy crippled by renewable energy. But it does take a lot of investment and support. It's a question of priorities and spending - like all infrastructure spending. In my view it's worth it but we shouldn't overdo the cost. There isn't a country in Western Europe or North America that couldn't afford it.
I meant crippling in the sense that it is a huge investment that will not pay off in the forseeable future, it is always going to be a burden. You are going to be paying more for energy and subsidizing long term. I mean sure lots of countries in Western Europe or North America could use money in that way but it is not a good economic strategy. It is, hopefully, a very long term one. It requires a strong ideological commitment and faith that it will eventually pay off. I mean I would feel similarly towards infrastructure where there is a cheaper equivalent alternative. You are taking a handicap by choosing to spend more to get the same result.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 11, 2012, 01:05:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2012, 12:40:33 PMIt isn't crippling - I can't think of any economy crippled by renewable energy. But it does take a lot of investment and support. It's a question of priorities and spending - like all infrastructure spending. In my view it's worth it but we shouldn't overdo the cost. There isn't a country in Western Europe or North America that couldn't afford it.
Why though? When we're figuring out we're completely awash in natgas and it's cheap as hell and almost as clean.
Almost as clean as what?
Quote from: Faeelin on June 11, 2012, 07:18:06 AM
And it's not like renewable energies are pie in the sky projects: they apparently provide 1/5 of Germany's energy now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/solar-power-in-germany-hit-new-record-high-in-may-producing-10-pct-of-countrys-electricity/2012/06/08/gJQAz3b3NV_story.html
Zanza, Syt, or someone else may know more, but I don't know if the Germany experience is a positive for renewables. From what I've read that took a massive investment, and Germans are looking at higher electric bills than the rest of europe.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 11, 2012, 12:18:49 PM
If the question is properly phrased as should nuclear as opposed to other forms of power receive preferential subsidization, then one does not need to be a "green politician" to take a negative view to the question.
Every form of power generation receives significant subsidies. 'Preferential' doesn't make any sense in this context.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2012, 01:34:46 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 11, 2012, 01:27:38 PM
Almost as clean as what?
As renewables maybe?
Yes. Cleaner than biomass actually. But nothing anywhere can come close in bang for your buck if you've got it, and both Europe and NA do.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2012, 01:10:42 PM
I meant crippling in the sense that it is a huge investment that will not pay off in the forseeable future, it is always going to be a burden. You are going to be paying more for energy and subsidizing long term. I mean sure lots of countries in Western Europe or North America could use money in that way but it is not a good economic strategy. It is, hopefully, a very long term one. It requires a strong ideological commitment and faith that it will eventually pay off. I mean I would feel similarly towards infrastructure where there is a cheaper equivalent alternative. You are taking a handicap by choosing to spend more to get the same result.
Yeah. It's a long-term investment, that's the point of it. But again that's a choice Europe and North America can and in my view should make. It's also more effective to spread it out over a number of years than responding to a sudden looming shortage or gas/oil/whatever (I've read that if all the countries allegedly getting interested in nuclear did build then uranium costs would rise hugely) becoming too expensive.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2012, 01:34:46 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 11, 2012, 01:27:38 PM
Almost as clean as what?
As renewables maybe?
It is cleaner than coal and oil, yeah, but I doubt that it's overall cleaner than renewables. It sill has significant GHG emissions, even if lower than those other two.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 11, 2012, 01:32:34 PMZanza, Syt, or someone else may know more, but I don't know if the Germany experience is a positive for renewables. From what I've read that took a massive investment, and Germans are looking at higher electric bills than the rest of europe.
Depends on how you define positive really. I've never in my life had a blackout in Germany, so our energy supply so far is very stable.
I can't tell whether prices are higher than elsewhere in Europe as I've never paid for power elsewhere. I think I pay like 28-30 Euro a month for about 100 kwh. Not enough to really care.
In general I am very sceptical regarding the huge subsidies for solar power here, because I doubt the efficiency and think that the money could have been invested for other renewables better.
While I am sceptical of nuclear power, I guess it would have made more sense to phase out the lignite power plants we have for ecological reasons.
For political reasons, the nuclear power phase out is something I support though. Not because I believe in it, but because nuclear power gave the Greens way too much support and I dislike a lot of their other policies. So I rather sacrifice nuclear power which I am only lukewarm about anyway if that means the Greens lose one of their main topics that draws voters.
Quote from: The Larch on June 11, 2012, 01:57:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2012, 01:34:46 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 11, 2012, 01:27:38 PM
Almost as clean as what?
As renewables maybe?
It is cleaner than coal and oil, yeah, but I doubt that it's overall cleaner than renewables. It sill has significant GHG emissions, even if lower than those other two.
CO2 emissions wise
Coal 100%
Oil 65%
Gas 40%
I know somebody is talking BS when they use adjectives suggesting that natural gas is more than average polluting. Of all things that have Green House Gas emissions natural gas has the least.
Quote from: Viking on June 11, 2012, 02:06:14 PM
CO2 emissions wise
Coal 100%
Oil 65%
Gas 40%
I know somebody is talking BS when they use adjectives suggesting that natural gas is more than average polluting. Of all things that have Green House Gas emissions natural gas has the least.
That doesn't mean it's "clean" though. What it is, is a cheap as hell bridge fuel we can use until renewables become better economic performers.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 11, 2012, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 11, 2012, 02:06:14 PM
CO2 emissions wise
Coal 100%
Oil 65%
Gas 40%
I know somebody is talking BS when they use adjectives suggesting that natural gas is more than average polluting. Of all things that have Green House Gas emissions natural gas has the least.
That doesn't mean it's "clean" though. What it is, is a cheap as hell bridge fuel we can use until renewables become better economic performers.
Use of the word "clean" as if it is an absolute terms also suggests to me that the person using it doesn't know what he/she/it is talking about. It is a relative term and using it in absolute terms suggests that there is a promised land or utopia of clean energy that can be reached which is without side-effects.
Quote from: The Brain on June 10, 2012, 08:03:24 AM
Opposing nuclear power has become an important tribal identifying mark among greens.
What do you think about nuclear power? :)