• Switzerland votes on nuclear power phase out process
    46 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Megadave;51434980]We need something even better, but until we can literally harness the power of the sun we'll have to do with nuclear energy.[/QUOTE] Uhm yeah about that... [thumb]http://www.ecohomeinstaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/solar_pv_image.jpg[/thumb] Nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and batteries are all needed for the future.
[QUOTE=kaukassus;51435059]The ""Greens"" have been trying to push for a nuclear phase out for over a decade now. Only after the fukushima incident, they really gained traction, but everyone failed to realize why that reactor failed, and how it literally cant happen here.[/QUOTE] Ah okay so its a small loud minority (I mean no offense to the Swiss), that are just cherrypicking without actual backing. I was gonna say there is some truth in the [URL="http://lenews.ch/2015/09/10/earthquakes-a-serious-hazard-for-parts-of-switzerland/"]seismic instability of the region[/URL], but all [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Switzerland"]current plants are built in the most stable parts of Switzerland[/URL]. Plus there's already [URL="http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/6732/Seismic-Design-and-Qualification-for-Nuclear-Power-Plants"]measures in place[/URL] (Required by the IAEA for potentially geologically active regions) to protect reactors from minor seismic damage. Plus what about waste control? All these reactors have onsite waste repositories and would need to still be operating in some capacity to mitigate and contain the remaining low-level waste. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;51435064]It's not perfect, there's legitimate reasons to be concerned with nuclear fission. It's just that at present, for most places, it's still by far the best option. Not 100% sure if Switzerland is one of those places, if it is able to use other renewables to completely satisfy their needs, then this isn't terribly bad of a proposal. If it isn't, then banning future plants is completely asinine. Closing the old ones, sure, but have a plan that isn't just burning fossil fuels. It's a really sad thing that it seems that all internation green parties share, their absolute hatred of nuclear[/QUOTE] Yeah its not perfect but what are the other options? Plus these reactors are some of the safest Gen 2 reactors I've ever seen. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Nuclear_events"]Each[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BChleberg_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Nuclear_events"]one[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6sgen_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Nuclear_events"]of[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibstadt_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Nuclear_events"]them[/URL] has had a near spotless record since being built in the late 60s, 70s and '84. Its fair enough of an argument that a Gen III or Gen III+ reactor should be built, but atleast keep these plants online until suitable replacements are found. Instead of the retarded suggestion of buying power from the French or Germans.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51434956][URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38120559"]They voted no.[/URL] Sounds like a good thing, we need more nuclear power plants not less.[/QUOTE] I can only assume it'd be a "yes" if there were solid plans on what to do once the older reactors are phased out. If only more people voted "no" on referenda that have no actual proposed plan for the "yes" option...
[QUOTE=Morgen;51435088]Uhm yeah about that... [thumb]http://www.ecohomeinstaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/solar_pv_image.jpg[/thumb] Nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and batteries are all needed for the future.[/QUOTE] I was more talking about some big halo like thing that draws it's power from literal sun spots. [editline]27th November 2016[/editline] So like a weird mix between them all.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;51434785]Europe, including Switzerland are already on the same power grid, so it simply means buying more power from other nations if they can't meet demand, as they already do.[/QUOTE] I feel like it's a bad idea to rely on other nations to supply your own country with essentials. There's a lot of shit that could go wrong.
[QUOTE=Megadave;51435365]I was more talking about some big halo like thing that draws it's power from literal sun spots. [editline]27th November 2016[/editline] So like a weird mix between them all.[/QUOTE] We are still years off from dyson ring, unfortunately.
Sorry but this kind of stuff is not something uneducated people should be voting on. Especially the idiots in the green party that wanted to put a ban on building new ones. [QUOTE=Sasupoika;51435447]We are still years off from dyson ring, unfortunately.[/QUOTE] Centuries more like it, the sheer material needed for a dyson ring is just insane, a dyson swarm would be closer to reality before the ring is.
[QUOTE=kaukassus;51434874][t]http://i.imgur.com/qYdc69G.png[/t] Current predictions and results lean towards a No. [URL="http://www.20min.ch/schweiz/news/story/-Leute-wollen-nichts-vom-Atomausstieg-wissen--31222005"]Source[/URL][/QUOTE] 45% still being in favor of the phase out is terrifying. You'd think with a universal education people would understand the benefits and need to build new power plants to work.
[QUOTE=Sasupoika;51435447]We are still years off from dyson ring, unfortunately.[/QUOTE] That relies on a dyson ring being actually possible and not restricted by some physics bullshit
[QUOTE=Megadave;51435365]I was more talking about some big halo like thing that draws it's power from literal sun spots. [editline]27th November 2016[/editline] So like a weird mix between them all.[/QUOTE] [url]http://generalsrotr.wikia.com/wiki/Solar_Reactor[/url] ?
[QUOTE=Jelman;51435589]That relies on a dyson ring being actually possible and not restricted by some physics bullshit[/QUOTE] It would most likely be a bunch of platforms with some fucking huge solar panels and fucking amazing batteries
[QUOTE=Jelman;51435589]That relies on a dyson ring being actually possible and not restricted by some physics bullshit[/QUOTE] Dyson cloud then, perfectly possible and feasible. We actually have the technology to build one today, step by step satellite by satellite.
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;51435722]It would most likely be a bunch of platforms with some fucking huge solar panels and fucking amazing batteries[/QUOTE] And some anitgravity to boot because it'll be hard not to have these platforms pulled from their orbits and colliding with one another due to intense tidal forces constantly present closer to the Sun. Forget Dyson sphere, it's impractical. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;51435768]Dyson cloud then, perfectly possible and feasible. We actually have the technology to build one today, step by step satellite by satellite.[/QUOTE] No we don't. Throwing garbage on Solar orbit isn't "building dyson cloud".
[QUOTE=Aide;51434693]Before you vote you should already have an alternative in mind.[/QUOTE] Shame that didn't happen with brexit
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51435768]Dyson cloud then, perfectly possible and feasible. We actually have the technology to build one today, step by step satellite by satellite.[/QUOTE] Not counting the absolutely massive resource costs, time to produce rockets and satellites, putting those satellites in an orbit around the sun and figuring out how we're going to efficiently transmit energy across millions of miles, sure, we can build a "Dyson cloud". Building a (relatively) inexpensive, efficient and ultimately useful Dyson cloud, on the other hand, is out of our reach at the current time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.