• Germany Exploring A Transition From Nuclear Power
    32 replies, posted
[QUOTE] Germany currently gets 23 percent of its energy from nuclear power - about as much as the U.S. It's ambitious plan to shut down its reactors will require at least euro150 billion ($210 billion) investment in alternative energy sources, which experts say will likely lead to higher electricity prices. [QUOTE]Germany now gets 17 percent of its electricity from renewable energies, 13 percent from natural gas and more than 40 percent from coal. The Environment Ministry says in 10 years renewable energy will contribute 40 percent of the country's overall electricity production.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Last year Germany estimated about euro20 billion ($28 billion) a year will be needed with euro75 billion ($107 billion) alone needed through 2030 to install offshore wind farms. Most of the country's leaders now seem determined to swiftly abolish nuclear power, possibly by 2020, and several conservative politicians, including the chancellor, have made a complete U-turn on the issue. Producers of renewable energy have feed in tariff subsidies financed by a 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour tax paid by all electricity customers. For a typical German family of four who pay about euro1,000 ($1,420) a year to use about 4,500 kilowatt-hours, the tax amounts to euro157 ($223). The tax produced euro8.2 billion ($11.7 billion) in Germany in 2010 and it is expected to top euro13.5 billion ($19.2 billion) this year. France and other nations are firmly committed to nuclear power, shutting down all reactors across Europe won't happen, but Merkel is now pushing for common safety standards. Merkel said the 27-nation bloc, which has standardized "the size of apples or the shape of bananas," needs joint standards for nuclear power plants. "Everybody in Europe would be equally affected by an accident at a nuclear power plant in Europe," Merkel said [/QUOTE] Germany is choosing to increase its energy costs and want the rest of Europe to increase their energy costs as well. [/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/germany-exploring-transition-from.html[/url] Angela Merkel is supposed to have a doctorate or some shit in Quantum Electrodynamics, she is not supposed to be this retarded.
Terrible idea right now, they should wait until better technology is developed in that field.
Kind of a knee-jerk reaction. But if they successfully replace it with renewables (which they won't) then all power to them.
Oh yeah let's stop using our most effective way of producing electricity instead of developing it futher. :rolleyes:
"Merkel, have you heard of the Earthquake in Japan?" "Yes. That means we should shut down our own reactors at massive costs, instead of using this as a cautionary tale and upgrade all of our own reactors to be the safe, efficient vision of nuclear power that we know we can achieve?" "... Something like that."
People seem to think that the nuclear energy is dangerous and unstable, last time i checked japans reactor has withed an earthquake and hasn't melted down Chernobyl style yet
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;28774956]Terrible idea right now, they should wait until better technology is developed in that field.[/QUOTE] Just wondering, how does better technology get developed if no one decides to be an early adopter of the fledgling versions? It would be like saying to various governments in the 1950s, "Wow, this ENIAC thing is pretty crappy, you really should wait for the better version."
Hurry up and build us a fusion reactor Eudoxia, we haven't much time.
I hope this is more a publicity thing rather than an actual effort. People are scared shitless for no reason and even though those in power know better, they still have to act like they respect the people's mislead wishes. Hopefully people will either forget about it or learn some more before they take such drastic measures.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;28776342]I hope this is more a publicity thing rather than an actual effort. People are scared shitless for no reason and even though those in power know better, they still have to act like they respect the people's mislead wishes. Hopefully people will either forget about it or learn some more before they take such drastic measures.[/QUOTE] Don't you know, those are [B]nukes[/B] in those reactors. :downs:
[quote]Germany is choosing to increase its energy costs and want the rest of Europe to increase their energy costs as well.[/quote] Uhm, why?
what is with the world lately, it seems like half the leaders of countries have caught stupid OH NO AN EARTHQUAKE IN JAPAN CAUSED A NUCLEAR CRISIS WE BETTER SHUT DOWN ALL OUR REACTORS BECAUSE SOMETHING HAPPENED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GLOBE just fucking improve safety, don't shut them all down and abandoned nuclear energy
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;28776413]Uhm, why?[/QUOTE] Because they would prefer to increase the cost of it and improve the way it is produced rather than have it cheap with shitty production methods?
The politicians don't know shit, all they think of is 'Hmm, disaster in japan will generate fear against nuclear power, now if I can ride this fear I might gain more power within the system', this is why even the conservatives are trying to get in on it. All for support to keep themselves in power and less about giving shit about what actually happens to the country.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;28776637]The politicians don't know shit, all they think of is 'Hmm, disaster in japan will generate fear against nuclear power, now if I can ride this fear I might gain more power within the system', this is why even the conservatives are trying to get in on it. All for support to keep themselves in power and less about giving shit about what actually happens to the country.[/QUOTE] Angela Merkel is a very intelligent women, if anything she personally disagrees, but wants the approval of the people.
I bet the nuclear plants get replaced with coal plants which release more radiation than nuclear plants.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;28774956]Terrible idea right now, they should wait until better technology is developed in that field.[/QUOTE] About 20 years ago, the decision were made to move away from nuclear power in Germany. It's not a new story, it's an old. It just popped up again immediately with Fukushima. The irony is we have really modern reactors and do not live in an earth-quake region but after Fukushima the "main reason" for shutting down all nuclear power plants again was not (like 20 years ago) the radioactive waste but the "security concerns". This shows again how short-sighted politics is. P.S.: When they planned to get rid of nuclear power 20 years ago, the government (obviously) changed a few times so they shifted that plan more and more to the far future. [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=dude2193;28775703]People seem to think that the nuclear energy is dangerous and unstable, last time i checked japans reactor has withed an earthquake and hasn't melted down Chernobyl style yet[/QUOTE] It can't melt-down the Chernobyl style because of the totally different architecture. It can't become supercritical at all and melt down in minutes. It can only melt down when the cooling stops. Also: Nuclear power is not a toy. The waste is the main problem why we should get away from it. But not the security concerns!
How about investing more money into nuclear fusion research?
[QUOTE=Fatman55;28776376]Don't you know, those are [B]nukes[/B] in those reactors. :downs:[/QUOTE] I just hope this was a troll-/fun-reply because this is actually not true at all. [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Billiam;28776909]Angela Merkel is a very intelligent women, if anything she personally disagrees, but wants the approval of the people.[/QUOTE] She even knows a lot about the topic since she is a physicist. Anyway, she is driven by other people, lobbies and the need to fit peoples demands. This is not easy. [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;28777277]I bet the nuclear plants get replaced with coal plants which release more radiation than nuclear plants.[/QUOTE] The release of radioactivity (from a nuclear power-plant) is not the problem. The waste is. Anyway, you remain right: Coal power-plants emits a lot or more radio nuclides which were in the coal and therefore later in the air.
Oh come on, just because Japan's plants suffered a catastrophic failure because of an equally catastrophic disaster doesn't mean you should just up and pull the plug on nuke power.
Can anyone explain to me why people are so afraid of everything??
[QUOTE=aVoN;28779880]About 20 years ago, the decision were made to move away from nuclear power in Germany. It's not a new story, it's an old. It just popped up again immediately with Fukushima. The irony is we have really modern reactors and do not live in an earth-quake region but after Fukushima the "main reason" for shutting down all nuclear power plants again was not (like 20 years ago) the radioactive waste but the "security concerns". This shows again how short-sighted politics is. P.S.: When they planned to get rid of nuclear power 20 years ago, the government (obviously) changed a few times so they shifted that plan more and more to the far future. [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] It can't melt-down the Chernobyl style because of the totally different architecture. It can't become supercritical at all and melt down in minutes. It can only melt down when the cooling stops. Also: Nuclear power is not a toy. The waste is the main problem why we should get away from it. But not the security concerns![/QUOTE] I thought that breeder reactors could potentially reduce the half-life of waste dramatically. Ergo, waste isn't a problem. I also thought that the novelty of nuclear waste is that it is easily contained, as opposed to CO2, which is often hard to scrub.
[QUOTE=snuwoods;28780288]I thought that breeder reactors could potentially reduce the half-life of waste dramatically. Ergo, waste isn't a problem. I also thought that the novelty of nuclear waste is that it is easily contained, as opposed to CO2, which is often hard to scrub.[/QUOTE] Try telling that to the average Joe and GreenPeace.
I thought that Unit 3 is the only reactor that's been totally lost at Fukushima. Couldn't the other reactors be salvaged and rebuilt? Also, that Greenpeace fear-mongering advertisement with the plane flying into the NPP = total B.S. I don't even know why they do that with the fact 'a nuclear power plant could survive a F-14 fighter jet' staring them in the face.
A tsunami damaged reactors that were 100 meters from the ocean? [img]http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/195/9/2/SHUT_DOWN_EVERYTHING_by_BrunowskiSigs.jpg[/img]
Oh for fucks sake.
i love how wonderfully informed our politicians are [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] it's great to know that they're running our nations
When will people realize how safe nuclear power really is.
Dumb asses buying into the nuclear fear hype. So what if a few out of date nuclear reactors broke down in Japan? Quit being a bunch of scared pussy cats. Nuclear power is safe as long as you put a few tons of concrete and lead in between you and the radiation.
Fund the french Fusion reactor.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.