Nuclear power
- Thread starter Courier
- Start date
That's kind of stupid, Germany's not on any fault lines and doesn't get hit by tidal waves. What the hell's going to happen to cause a meltdown? I can see the concern when you're somewhere that gets hit by these things a lot like Japan, but Germany? Reactors don't just meltdown randomly for no reason.
Why don't the schools teach about nuclear power these days? A lot of the public's misconceptions about it could be cleared up if they started doing that.
Why don't the schools teach about nuclear power these days? A lot of the public's misconceptions about it could be cleared up if they started doing that.
because we realized that we can move on without it and not suffer any serious issues.
So what is stupid about it ? Are you guys kinda "biased" for nuclear power or what ? It does kinda surprise me that people posting on a FANSITE of Fallout feel so close to nuclear technology.
Seriously do you guys get paid by some of those companies ?
Germany did not used that much nuclear energy as source for its energy anyway. Something like a few % on the total income in energy. So for us this step was not as huge as it might seem to be. What slowed the process down have been politicians which felt closer to the atom lobby then their population - as mentioned some even held back studies which showed that Germany could get rid of its nuclear plants WITHOUT any issues at all.
That such a move is at the moment not really possible for everyone is of course obvious. If you get 20% or even more of your energy by nuclear power. Then it is much more difficult.
But again. For Germany. It wasn't a really difficult step. So please. Don't call us "stupid" or what ever without knowing how it happened.
So what is stupid about it ? Are you guys kinda "biased" for nuclear power or what ? It does kinda surprise me that people posting on a FANSITE of Fallout feel so close to nuclear technology.
Seriously do you guys get paid by some of those companies ?
Germany did not used that much nuclear energy as source for its energy anyway. Something like a few % on the total income in energy. So for us this step was not as huge as it might seem to be. What slowed the process down have been politicians which felt closer to the atom lobby then their population - as mentioned some even held back studies which showed that Germany could get rid of its nuclear plants WITHOUT any issues at all.
That such a move is at the moment not really possible for everyone is of course obvious. If you get 20% or even more of your energy by nuclear power. Then it is much more difficult.
But again. For Germany. It wasn't a really difficult step. So please. Don't call us "stupid" or what ever without knowing how it happened.
Germany was getting 20% of it's power from nuclear.
Sweden has also decided to shut down it's nuclear plants and buy power from other countries.
So if all the other EU countries decide to follow germany and sweden down the rabbit hole, where the fuck will they be getting their energy?
Sweden has also decided to shut down it's nuclear plants and buy power from other countries.
So if all the other EU countries decide to follow germany and sweden down the rabbit hole, where the fuck will they be getting their energy?
22,6% with 17 Nuclear plants currently runing (2010)
Dunno why I tought it was less. Still. It seems not to be a huge issue for us to get out. - Particularly as the plan is to do it over time.
I am sure Europe will find good solutions if it decides to get rid of nuclear power. There will always be chalanges. New technologies. Inovations. Europe decided to give more ecofriendly energy sources a chance and lower emissions. How that will work out in the future ? Who knows. But just because it might be difficult does not mean we should not try it.
KarmaPolice
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Europe is between a wall and the devil on this one. Our gas and oil reserves are running out, leaving 'ol king coal left. And we all know that's bad for global warming. We don't like the idea of being so dependent on OPEC and/or Russia for our energy supplies. Hydro means flooding, which greenies seem to hate (what is their preferred option? Sit in the dark?) though it is proven to have some ecological concerns. Solar and wind are still expensive in KW/h terms and is not constant.
So the choice is a) new fossil plants with the CO2 issue b) new nuke plant plants with the waste issue and threat of leaks or c) green generation and accept half of us will freeze to death every winter.
So the choice is a) new fossil plants with the CO2 issue b) new nuke plant plants with the waste issue and threat of leaks or c) green generation and accept half of us will freeze to death every winter.
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
Green types are crazy mother fuckers. I don't trust them. They're like the sort of people who buy organic food. They probably are the people who buy organic food.
I didn't know you could have inorganic food.
But I'm with DB on this one. Let 'em freeze.
I didn't know you could have inorganic food.
But I'm with DB on this one. Let 'em freeze.
This. It's really very simple.
The Enclave 86
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
I'm very supportive of a nuclear power, I live about 30 minutes from a Hartlepool Nuclear Power Station; hell I would - in an ideal situation - like to get an apprenticeship their as opposed to Conocophillips where I am going.
Nuclear Power really is the only way forward for the time being, these renewable energy sources just aren't up to scratch for meeting large-scale power demands and anyone who would use this Fukashima incident as 'proof' of nuclear power's inherant danger are intentionally presenting a arguement of half-truths.
Nuclear power is the way of the future, R.I.P Germany's common sense.
Nuclear Power really is the only way forward for the time being, these renewable energy sources just aren't up to scratch for meeting large-scale power demands and anyone who would use this Fukashima incident as 'proof' of nuclear power's inherant danger are intentionally presenting a arguement of half-truths.
Nuclear power is the way of the future, R.I.P Germany's common sense.
We should try to decrease our hunger for energy instead of always trying to find those "perfect infinite energy" resource which seems very unlikely anyway. Regardless if we are talking here about Fusion or renewable sources and it seems at least in the near future we will not find this super energy.
I mean when talking about the environment it is not only just about searching for new energy resources or increasing the output but also trying to find ways how to waste less of what we have and actually spend it more economically.
And I think here is the most room for improvements. For example if old plants would be replaced by new ones of the same type (coal for coal as example) there would be already something achieved. From what I have read the difference can be between 70% less pollution basically for the same performance! Simply by using new technologies and equipment. It should be also a target to find ways of performing the same action but with less energy. What they have done here recently is trying to encourage people to change old buildings and upgrade those with new materials so they do not lose so much heat and require less energy in cold seasons.
Such measures are also usually much easier to achieve then either building new nuclear plants or trying to find huge new resources. And many times better for the environment AND cheaper solutions in the long term.
I mean you hear many times about how low we are on energy and how hard it is to find proper solutions because either nuclear, gas or oil all have one way or another some disadvantages.
Fact is though. If we REALLY want to change something then we all (as nations) have to find ways how to use the energy we have much more efficiently and trying to get a much higher spread in energy sources. Basing the income completely on nuclear is neither a good nor healthy evolution. Regardless how clean those are compared to other equipment they are not completely clean and come with a huge chunk of own problems with which we have to deal one way or another if not today then with the years to come. Renewable energy alone will not be able to fill the gab though so only a combination of those with more efficient use of energy can be a real solution for the future. We are simply to lazy and to used with everything. But reality might be if we do not learn to go without at least a few comforts it might end not very well in the near future.
I mean when talking about the environment it is not only just about searching for new energy resources or increasing the output but also trying to find ways how to waste less of what we have and actually spend it more economically.
And I think here is the most room for improvements. For example if old plants would be replaced by new ones of the same type (coal for coal as example) there would be already something achieved. From what I have read the difference can be between 70% less pollution basically for the same performance! Simply by using new technologies and equipment. It should be also a target to find ways of performing the same action but with less energy. What they have done here recently is trying to encourage people to change old buildings and upgrade those with new materials so they do not lose so much heat and require less energy in cold seasons.
Such measures are also usually much easier to achieve then either building new nuclear plants or trying to find huge new resources. And many times better for the environment AND cheaper solutions in the long term.
I mean you hear many times about how low we are on energy and how hard it is to find proper solutions because either nuclear, gas or oil all have one way or another some disadvantages.
Fact is though. If we REALLY want to change something then we all (as nations) have to find ways how to use the energy we have much more efficiently and trying to get a much higher spread in energy sources. Basing the income completely on nuclear is neither a good nor healthy evolution. Regardless how clean those are compared to other equipment they are not completely clean and come with a huge chunk of own problems with which we have to deal one way or another if not today then with the years to come. Renewable energy alone will not be able to fill the gab though so only a combination of those with more efficient use of energy can be a real solution for the future. We are simply to lazy and to used with everything. But reality might be if we do not learn to go without at least a few comforts it might end not very well in the near future.
mission accomplished!
TheGM
The voice of reason
Safer then wind power?
What the Windmill falls over and does it do a cartwheel through town and take out a School?
or when your country puts up a windmill farm all the neighbor countries call you gay and beat you up and steal your lunch money?
It is fucking WIND! I mean shit, just ad Fire, Water, Earth, and Heart and you have Captain Planet taking out your garbage and washing your car in no time.
What the Windmill falls over and does it do a cartwheel through town and take out a School?
or when your country puts up a windmill farm all the neighbor countries call you gay and beat you up and steal your lunch money?
It is fucking WIND! I mean shit, just ad Fire, Water, Earth, and Heart and you have Captain Planet taking out your garbage and washing your car in no time.
TheGM said:
It's called "Blade failure" and it's when a blade shatters and sends little bits of shrapnel flying through the air.
Courier said:
I see how this could be more dangerous than a NPP going china-syndrome. Do the little bits radiate after they hurt people?The problem with nuclear accidents are the longterm effects of radiation. I dont doubt that the initial bodycount of a serious nuclear incident is nothing compared to a Dam breaking or someone hit in the eye by a piece of flying blade. But one of the good things about a catastrophic event is that you can go clean up afterwards and help people. With radiation stuff gets fucked up for centuries, the bodycount is spread over an imense timescale and just keeps adding up. Your grandchildren will still have to check the weatherreport and wear boots after a warm summerrain.
I think the whole thing has its good side and initiated some long overdue rethinking, leading to new research, investments and ideas. Probably wont be enough unless it pays financially, so i will wait for a super-phoenix going critical in the middle of europe, that will change some more opinions i think.
the question is if we can make it without nuclear energy. And if the answer is "yes" then why should we still cling on it ? People should know that there is a great lobby behind it. And they sure don't want to give up on their little plants. Regardless if those are 30 or 3 years old.
Regardless if you are a supporter of the technology or not though you should be happy motherless if "old" reactors get shut down. A reality which we face in Germany right now is that even a plant regardless how well maintained has simply to be removed at some point. I mean do you drive a car as long till it is crashing ? Driving your kids to school every day ? Or do you decide at some point to either buy a car or find other ways of transportation ? Something that is quite normal with cars seems to be some issue with reactors. Why ? Because old reactors are pretty much money printing machines. Not to mention that no one wants to pay for removing them which usually is the responsibility of the company running the plant. And to simply update old reactors is not something that works all the time and it comes with many problems of its own. Standards change and things which have been common 30 years ago might be very hard to get now. Sometimes even impossible. A combination of old and new hardware often enough is the source of new unforeseen problems.
Regardless if you are a supporter of the technology or not though you should be happy motherless if "old" reactors get shut down. A reality which we face in Germany right now is that even a plant regardless how well maintained has simply to be removed at some point. I mean do you drive a car as long till it is crashing ? Driving your kids to school every day ? Or do you decide at some point to either buy a car or find other ways of transportation ? Something that is quite normal with cars seems to be some issue with reactors. Why ? Because old reactors are pretty much money printing machines. Not to mention that no one wants to pay for removing them which usually is the responsibility of the company running the plant. And to simply update old reactors is not something that works all the time and it comes with many problems of its own. Standards change and things which have been common 30 years ago might be very hard to get now. Sometimes even impossible. A combination of old and new hardware often enough is the source of new unforeseen problems.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Crni Vuk said:
your power company decides that is a good idea. they have a goal of replacing all their 30 coal-fired energy plants. they decide to do 5 a year for 6 years.
now to pay for all of that on that schedule, they will have to spend $50 million per plant. so now they need to spend $250 million a year on new plants to replace the old ones. to raise that much money, they will need to raise the price for your energy by 65%.
but its worth it for the environment right? you can afford a 65% increase in your power bill a month. and im sure that nice old grandma that lives on retirement can as well.