Germany's Clean Energy Plan - Lets just replace those "dirty" nuclear power plants with coal!!
39 replies, posted
IIRC a leading energy researcher at Stanford says that most world energy problems would be solved by wind power, geo thermal and wave force in high sun, high wind, and high wave areas, there's enough power to meet all global energy demands
[QUOTE=Harry3;41672539]Um
Why are we not counting Chernobyl?[/QUOTE]
Because very few people actually died due to Chernobyl, most health problems were thyroid cancer and those were typically well treated resulting in no deaths due to exposure to those in the surrounding area. The only deaths that can be directly attributed to Chernobyl are the deaths of a 3 guys who went into the tunnels underneath the reactor as it was melting down to release a steam valve, by the time they got out of the water they were already suffering severe radiation sickness and died later.
Everyone thinks Chernobyl decimated people but really it wasn't that bad and it was [i]still[/i] an almost worst case scenario.
[QUOTE=Darkimmortal;41671332]You best be trolling[/QUOTE]
I don't think most people realize how [I]horrible[/I] electric cars are for the environment. The batteries alone are fucking [I]nasty[/I] to build and even worse to recycle. A [url=http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits1.htm]Prius's construction[/url] creates more pollution than a diesel-chugging 300 horsepower, 4 ton Hummer H1 will in its entire lifetime.
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Forest_tundra.jpeg[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/1y83ej1.jpg[/t]
A forest devastated from pollution by a nickel mine in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norilsk]Norilsk, Russia[/url], and a pond near the refineries. Nickel is used in many types of batteries. Electric cars have hundreds or thousands of batteries.
If Germany switches over to coal, they're going to be spewing out nasty shit into the air at a phenomenal rate, especially if the popularity of electric cars surges.
[QUOTE=Saber15;41674156]I don't think most people realize how [I]horrible[/I] electric cars are for the environment. The batteries alone are fucking [I]nasty[/I] to build and even worse to recycle. A [url=http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits1.htm]Prius's construction[/url] creates more pollution than a diesel-chugging 300 horsepower, 4 ton Hummer H1 will in its entire lifetime.
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Forest_tundra.jpeg[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/1y83ej1.jpg[/t]
A forest devastated from pollution by a nickel mine in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norilsk]Norilsk, Russia[/url], and a pond near the refineries. Nickel is used in many types of batteries. Electric cars have hundreds or thousands of batteries.
If Germany switches over to coal, they're going to be spewing out nasty shit into the air at a phenomenal rate, especially if the popularity of electric cars surges.[/QUOTE]
This is a flaw with battery technology at the moment. Once we find a way to produce cleaner batteries, or a better method of removing waste it won't be as much a problem. Hell, if the space mining we all got hyped for takes off, mining the resources and devastating landscapes on Earth will also be less of a problem.
We could actually just dump cash into genetic engineering and start using those virus batteries instead, probably a lot better for the environment in terms of manufacturing.
[QUOTE=bravehat;41673972]Because very few people actually died due to Chernobyl, most health problems were thyroid cancer and those were typically well treated resulting in no deaths due to exposure to those in the surrounding area. The only deaths that can be directly attributed to Chernobyl are the deaths of a 3 guys who went into the tunnels underneath the reactor as it was melting down to release a steam valve, by the time they got out of the water they were already suffering severe radiation sickness and died later.
Everyone thinks Chernobyl decimated people but really it wasn't that bad and it was [i]still[/i] an almost worst case scenario.[/QUOTE]
It was the worst example anti-nuclear folk could propagate, so they took it and ran
[QUOTE=Kahgarak;41670591]Nuclear reactors can be dangerous if they fuck up, but by now there's shitloads of protocols and failsafes to make sure they DON'T fuck up, aren't there?
They're much safer than most people think.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much. Literally the only reason why Fukishima happened was because all the failsafes got taken offline due to NOT ONLY a massive 9.0 earth quake (and even then things were still running good) but the backup generators got flooded when the tsunami hit the shore, and it happened to be a couple feet higher than the sea wall they had already constructed.
That's basically worst case scenario, and it could have been completely avoided if the reactor was inland about a mile or so instead on the sea, even then we're talking a reactor that was built back in the day.
Its pretty much going to be near impossible for a nuclear power plant in germany to ever experience a serious enough issue to knock out the failsafes when it took a 9.0 earth quake and a tsunami to take out Fukishimia's failsafes, and even then it wasn't a particuarly devastating nuclear issue (but certainly a rather bad one).
[QUOTE=deltasquid;41672948]Because Chernobyl was a major fuck-up done by a lot of people in a backwards régime in an unsafe and ancient power plant
AKA not something that could happen in a first-world country if we know what we're doing[/QUOTE]
I love that misconception. Chernobyl was a state of the art practically brand new powerplant. I don't know why people assume it was 'ancient'.
The first reactor was completed in 1977 reactor 2 in 1978, reactor 3 in 1981, and reactor 4 in 1983.
The disaster happened in reactor 4. In 1986.
I wish people would stop spewing that bullshit about Chernobyl.
The Chernobyl NPP is a prime example of what happens when you have an experienced senior lead who fucks up completely and the people under him are afraid to say anything.
Just like the Tenerife airport disaster.
[editline]2nd August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=bravehat;41673972]Because very few people actually died due to Chernobyl, most health problems were thyroid cancer and those were typically well treated resulting in no deaths due to exposure to those in the surrounding area. The only deaths that can be directly attributed to Chernobyl are the deaths of a 3 guys who went into the tunnels underneath the reactor as it was melting down to release a steam valve, by the time they got out of the water they were already suffering severe radiation sickness and died later.
Everyone thinks Chernobyl decimated people but really it wasn't that bad and it was [I]still[/I] an almost worst case scenario.[/QUOTE]
Really?
About 50 people were killed in the few days directly after the disaster. About 4000 deaths can directly be attributed to the accident.
The radiation cloud seeped across Europe and god knows how many people got thyroid cancer as a result.
I mean, you have not less than 200,000 liquidators working on the power plant itself. HOW THE FUCK can you say it "wasn't that bad"?
Some reading material:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects[/url]
Fukushima is a weak excuse. Don't built a power station in a fault line and you're good. And I was unaware that nuclear stations had that high an emission rate. Shame about the depleted rods and othe waste though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.