Germany sets solar power record: 50% of electricity demand

[Sobotnik]

At least I was born in time for the Thorium age.

[CaptainJL]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36124079]At least I was born in time for the Thorium age.[/QUOTE]
Want to know the sad thing? We've had the technology for a thorium reactor for over half a century, but they haven't been built on a large scale because you can't enrich it into nuclear weaponry.

[Dysgalt]

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36126271]Want to know the sad thing? We've had the technology for a thorium reactor for over half a century, but they haven't been built on a large scale because you can't enrich it into nuclear weaponry.[/QUOTE]

Think of it this way, we learned how to do stuff somewhat well with uranium. Now that we're into thorium we can head straight to the nice good stuff instead of nourishing ourselves off meager appetizers.

[mark6789]

[QUOTE=Dysgalt;36116388]Why would we found a nation with a negative population growth?[/QUOTE]

We can call it The Virgin Islands. oh wait

[Awesomecaek]

Bad idea.

[editline]30th May 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=Killuah;36117485]And then you have death from heat strokes and cold winters in the more extreme weather we get here in Europe already, caused by the very real climate changes happening to streams in the Atlantic Ocean, deaths from Ozone stress(mostly elderly) due to heavy use of cars during warm days, deaths from the already increasing number of storms and floods throughout the last 50 years, deaths from Hurricanes(look up the US statistics of Hurricane numbers in the US and be surprised), deaths from storms, deaths from hunger caused by desertification and so on and so on.

I can easily tell your statistics is total bogus since Chernobyl alone caused thousands of deaths directly and harmed millions of lifes indirectly(cancer rates in London newborns 8 to 18 months after the accident) how that results into 0.04 per TWh is absolutely beyond me since that would mean we produced trillions of TWh since then, Nuclear Energy alone.

Then we have the indirect indirect indirect deaths, for example the hundreds of thousands of people in contact with fumes or directly dying in the gigantic coal-mine fires in China.

I could go on and on but I don't want to, the point I'm trying to make: These death rates depend on what you look at and that's why it's so damn complicated that death rates are in no way an indicator whether we should do something we know that is good, but expensive, or not.

[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/chernobyl-still-causing-cancer-in-british-children-475263.html[/url][/QUOTE]

How about all the indirect deaths solar power plants cause because the chemicals their manufacture requires is quite nasty shit, and china gets polluted hard due to it? Nobody lists that.

Problem is that solar powerplants produce laughably little power, while people forget that their production is nasty expensive shit.

[editline]30th May 2012[/editline]

Not to mention it's awkward to even name Chernobyl these days because nothing like that can happen to [I]new[/I] powerplants.

Yeah, we have still some nasty ones running, yeah, they could fart radioactive shit. But refraining from building/researching new ones is the most retarded move imaginable.

[Madman_Andre]

[QUOTE=Chernarus;36122191]Okay but what happens when a super volcano erupts and you loose the sun? Germans left without power, nuclear stations remain.[/QUOTE]

Something tells me that power generation would be one of the last things anyone would be worrying about in such a situation. They'd be more concerned over how [I]boned [/I]we'd all be.