Germany Set to Abandon Nuclear Power for Good
- Thread starter Mr. Nice Guy
- Start date
Correct - it took a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and the resulting tsunami to damage those nuclear plants (and all the others along the same coast had no problems). This is never happening in Germany because Germany is as geologically stable as you can get, the Eifel hotspot aside (which, if it awakens, will make nuclear reactors the least problem on people's mind there) and none of them are directly on the coast
Nuclear is a bad idea in a monetary system.Maybe in a resourced based economy were the ideas of being cheap wouldnt apply!In this current system,mostly everything is made cheap to save money and mmake money at the same time.what a waste.Now the U.S. is having red flags popping up at alot of nuke sites saying there not maintained well and in bad shape.Whats up with hydrogen power ?In an abundant society,im guessing solar would be safer to go,try geothermal maybe?turn gyms into power generating units....
Criteria to assess potential energy sources:
1. EROEI
2. Abundance
3. Scalability
4. Energy density (you can't have electric planes with current battery technology so there will be a need for liquid fuels for the foreseeable future, etc.)
5. Unintended consequences (Long-term environmental impact)
These are the main ones, but the list can go on. Anyway:
1. Fossil fuels fail #2 (they're finite) and #5 (AGW)
2. Solar and wind fail #3 and #4 because while abundant, they are quite diffuse so enormous installations are necessary to harvest them. Plus they produce electricity, which doesn't help with the heavy machinery, although people are trying to create catalysts that will use solar panels to make hydrocarbons from CO2 and H2O.
3. Biofuels fail #1 (very low, often negative EROEI), #2 and #3 (there's only so much land on this planet) and #5 (as with all agriculture, unless you close the nutrient cycle, which is never the case, the soil becomes gradually destroyed)
4. Nuclear fails #4 in general with respect to transportation, it also fails #2 if we talk about conventional reactors. It doesn't fail #2 if we're talking breeder and thorium reactors, but both those and the conventional ones fail #3 as it takes a lot of time and huge investment to build those things. Still, this should have been the bridge technology for the next few centuries that would have given us time until we figure out something better, if such a thing is even possible. Too late at this point
5. Everything else renewable that gets mentioned of the sort of geothermal, tidal, etc. fails both #2 and #3 so it's not an option
6. Vaporware like fusion is not a solution either even if it has a great potential in principle
That's the general picture as it is, no BS, draw your own conclusions...
1. EROEI
2. Abundance
3. Scalability
4. Energy density (you can't have electric planes with current battery technology so there will be a need for liquid fuels for the foreseeable future, etc.)
5. Unintended consequences (Long-term environmental impact)
These are the main ones, but the list can go on. Anyway:
1. Fossil fuels fail #2 (they're finite) and #5 (AGW)
2. Solar and wind fail #3 and #4 because while abundant, they are quite diffuse so enormous installations are necessary to harvest them. Plus they produce electricity, which doesn't help with the heavy machinery, although people are trying to create catalysts that will use solar panels to make hydrocarbons from CO2 and H2O.
3. Biofuels fail #1 (very low, often negative EROEI), #2 and #3 (there's only so much land on this planet) and #5 (as with all agriculture, unless you close the nutrient cycle, which is never the case, the soil becomes gradually destroyed)
4. Nuclear fails #4 in general with respect to transportation, it also fails #2 if we talk about conventional reactors. It doesn't fail #2 if we're talking breeder and thorium reactors, but both those and the conventional ones fail #3 as it takes a lot of time and huge investment to build those things. Still, this should have been the bridge technology for the next few centuries that would have given us time until we figure out something better, if such a thing is even possible. Too late at this point
5. Everything else renewable that gets mentioned of the sort of geothermal, tidal, etc. fails both #2 and #3 so it's not an option
6. Vaporware like fusion is not a solution either even if it has a great potential in principle
That's the general picture as it is, no BS, draw your own conclusions...
Plus, the most important issue people are missing with hydrogen is that it is not an energy source, you have to make it somehow, losing between half and two thirds of the energy invested into making it in the process. Add the storage problems and you're better off synthesizing hydrocarbons from CO2 and H20...
Having said all that I find it odd that you still support the perpetuation of existing nuclear reactors.
Either way, IMO the best solution is decreasing consumption rather than increasing production so Germany not continuing to rely on nuclear power is better than them increasing production of it - hence the thread.
OMG you are dense.
Most harmless serial killer
Happiest depressed person
Curviest anorexic girl
Tannest albino
...
cleanest form of energy production
I engaged your statement and through my oxymoron highlighted the absurdity of ranking current forms of energy production in terms of cleanliness.
Why don't you volunteer to deal with the 700,000 metric tons of depleted uranium since it's so clean.
Interesting article.
Here is an interesting chart I saw on radiation exposure
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
(too large to post)
::
However the whole premise of that article is flawed.
Which would you prefer;
a) a poisonous pill
b) a semi-poisonous pill
Now if we compare the semi-poisonous pill to the poisonous pill you can see that the semi-poisonous pill is getting a bad rap..... :dead:
Really. I work every day, for 8 hours around nuclear reactors and equipment. I get body counted every day (a scan of ur body for radiation) before coming and going from work. I know how to scram a reactor and I know the procedures to follow when becoming contamintated. Not only that, Ive done this shit for over 6 years. Im sure "Mr Nice Guy" from the siccness is more qualified to speak on the safety of these places then someone who actually works hands on with them right? Right. IMO, your the dense one patna.
[/quote]
OHHH I SEE.. so by throwing out an oxymoronic statement as your only response to what i had to say Its therefore MY FAULT for not finding the connections to what the fuck you were refering too. LOL Sorry, I don't read between lines nor do I try to decode cryptic, oxymoronic statements. I find that it is most often someone masking their ignorance with vagueness, and it never works.
so.. ranking forms of energy in terms of cleanliness is absurd? how so? The clean aspect was used as a unit of measurement in comparison to other forms of energy. Kind of like the funny idea of "clean burning coal." LoL.. But I digress, Im coming from a realistic perspective while your tossing out ideas and hippy rabble from a dream world where there is a better form of energy that can sustain a full fledge industrialized country or nation. It doesn't exist you fool. Its the ignorance of many people like yourself who are SOOOO afraid of what they have no idea about that left the U.S. so behind in Nuclear Technology. France is currently recycling their fuel sources. Germany, Japan and China all bought OUR designs since we have dumbasses in this country who have made it near impossible to build and these countries made them BETTER!. While here we are today, asking what is the cleanest form of energy when we had it the entire time.
Why don't you volunteer to deal with the 700,000 metric tons of depleted uranium since it's so clean. [/quote]
OoOoOo URANIUM. u mean the shit the dirt under neath your feet is in abundance of? lol. Why voulenteer for something I pretty much do on a daily basis.
[/quote]
OHHH I SEE.. so by throwing out an oxymoronic statement as your only response to what i had to say Its therefore MY FAULT for not finding the connections to what the fuck you were refering too. LOL Sorry, I don't read between lines nor do I try to decode cryptic, oxymoronic statements. I find that it is most often someone masking their ignorance with vagueness, and it never works.
so.. ranking forms of energy in terms of cleanliness is absurd? how so? The clean aspect was used as a unit of measurement in comparison to other forms of energy. Kind of like the funny idea of "clean burning coal." LoL.. But I digress, Im coming from a realistic perspective while your tossing out ideas and hippy rabble from a dream world where there is a better form of energy that can sustain a full fledge industrialized country or nation. It doesn't exist you fool. Its the ignorance of many people like yourself who are SOOOO afraid of what they have no idea about that left the U.S. so behind in Nuclear Technology. France is currently recycling their fuel sources. Germany, Japan and China all bought OUR designs since we have dumbasses in this country who have made it near impossible to build and these countries made them BETTER!. While here we are today, asking what is the cleanest form of energy when we had it the entire time.
Why don't you volunteer to deal with the 700,000 metric tons of depleted uranium since it's so clean. [/quote]
OoOoOo URANIUM. u mean the shit the dirt under neath your feet is in abundance of? lol. Why voulenteer for something I pretty much do on a daily basis.
