Unscientific anti nuclear? That's a good joke. Nuclear energy just doesn't pay off. It's an economical disaster. Works only if the tax payer bails out the corps in the long run - see England. Let's not talk about terrorism, statistics and mafia-like organized crime structures emerging (see repro). No, just consider the long term price. It's not an option anymore.
repro -> tepco (auto correct) sorry. I meant that huge accidents will happen, no way to avoid that.
As to the price: Nuclear Energy is outdated, because it's too expensive everywhere. Fact 1: There are fewer nuclear power plants being built than necessary to keep the current number. And Britain has to guarantee a price per KW for energy to make their energy corp even build a nuclear plant. Wind and sun are simply cheaper already.
Fact 2: Only because the society pays for tens of thousand years of nuclear waste management corps could offer cheap nuclear power. But today even that doesn't sum up anymore.
Fact 3: The cost and dangers of taking down old plants are not yet clear. We are experiencing that in Germany, where the first plants are being built back - and one problem adds to the next.
Fact 4: At the same time, we have an amazing amount of green energy contributing to our energy total. Some windy and sunny days it's up to 70%, while classical and nuclear plants are standing still. That's more the rule than the exception, btw.
Fact 5: Nuclear is not a bridge technology, it's a dead end street that just helps transporting money by trucks from the tax payer to the corporations. And it insures that for tens of millenia. Great business model. Privatizes the money maid, socializes the risk and losses.
Fact 6: Have a look at recent reports of Belgian nuclear reactors - it's a wonder they still work. the concrete and the stell don't behave as predicted. And after 30-40 years the whole structure is worn out. The containment, not the outer structure. Belgian AKWs (german abbreviation for nuclear plant) will be a huge danger for us over here.
Fact 7: With no final place to store the atomic waste, there will have to be temporary storage for it. Imagine hundreds of potential targets for terrorists. Great. I don't want that, but that's already inevitable. We've been using this dirty technology too long, now the society has to pay, not the corps who made millions of Euro PER DAY out of a single plant.
The success of nuclear energy in the past was built on corruption, keeping back scientifc research and deliberately borrowing money from the future and imposing threats on our children and grand children for tens of thousands of years. (sorry for errors, just a quick write-up, I'm actually currently working in my garden....)
Rhys Taylor "I believe the Green party does this largely because they're scared of the n-word, or worse, the r-word." No, it's all about money. I've seen their fight for 20 years, maybe 30 years. And even though we/they had the better arguments, it was the money thing in the end that made Germany opt out of nuclear energy. Yeah, somewhat sad, but true. Let's just hope many others follow, so that less children get leucemia for example. Or less workers die (see czernobyl)
As I said: A quick write, not meaning to be agressive or teaching or similar - just in a short work break, and English is not my mother tongue. :-) Sorry for errors or bad language or bad allusions.
Markus Feilner _"As I said: A quick write, not meaning to be agressive or teaching or similar - just in a short work break, and English is not my mother tongue. :-)"_ Yep, totally get that, and will respond more fully later. In the meantime, do have a look at some of the links I posted in my first comment. :)
Oh, and one more thing: Fission is producing waste and burning a ressource that is not available endlessly. That makes nuclear energy at current state a classical, not green, not self-regenerative energy. With fission it's different. Being an Open-Source-Advocate and similar, I strongly advocat stuff that has a better balance in the long run - so any energy source that consumes ressources will not be optimal. That's imho the real downside of wind and sun: They are the bridge technologies of today, because so many rare metals (rare earths?) are needed to produce them. Ok, different scale then big plants, but not optimal. Maybe fission could really help here, but I only see first approaches, no solutions. (oh and nuclear energy will always be great in deep space probes, I believe) :-) (back to his garden now)
I think they don't see fusion as worth while as it is a long term replacement. I looked it up about 3 or 4 moths ago on their site but I can't find it now so maybe they've changed their stance (I only took a quick look just now). What I quite liked about the Greens is the way that if you join you seem to get a real say on policy. So hopefully with the influx of members recently the loopier fringe ideas will get dropped.
Ok, let's go through this: 1) France: Who pays for tens of thousands of years of manageing the waste? That's not in the price, neither is the price for a nuclear accident (see 2) 2) Accidents will happened. The problem is a) the age and b) the amount of nuclear plants and c) the other storages (not the plants themselves). At the time of Fukushima, the statistics said every 25 years a major accident will happen - well exactly what became reality. Three mile island, Czezrnobyl, Fukushima. And we're not done yet with those. Think of Majak, there's a lake that might contaminate the whole northern oceans. 3) Where have they been decomissioned? Rebuilt? Tidied up? Give me one example. And then send it to the german government, they'd be happy about that. No, we're told we're the first to gather that experience. 4) Nuclear waste is a manageable risk? Why? The wast just begins to pile up. Really high. No, this problem is unsolved and nobody wants the waste. 5) How much containment would the 21 meter cube need? That's not a fair measure, because we in Germany have already hundreds of Castors to dispose of, they are traveling cross-country on rails, through habited areas. Great idea. Like in the movie Broken Arrow
Nuclear technologies are from the past. And one more thing we left out totally: The future is not in centralized energy production. Nope. The success of the German / European EEG shows it. Trouble is only, that the big energy corps need a new business model. But count the numbers: Nuclear energy is on the retreat everywhere. (now reads your links)
BTW - have you read the Ronald Reagan story? There's a lawsuit going on against Tepco: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/20/us-navy-sailors-legal-challenge-fukushima-radiation-tepco And that's exactly one more problem: Nuclear energy forces the corporations running it into lying, because hysteria is strong. In brief: When you're setting up a technology most people are (in my eyes rightly) afraid of, you have to establish criminal or at least undemocratic ways of communication around it. That's not what we want.
Do you think breakthrough.org is neutral? Wikipedia says they advocate nuclear energy... never ran across that site, that's why I added the guardian link.
"Do you think breakthrough.org is neutral? Wikipedia says they advocate nuclear energy... never ran across that site, that's why I added the guardian link." Ouch ! That's very unfair. For one thing, experts in nuclear power aren't likely to be neutral any more than experts in solar power are. For another, I like the Guardian precisely because it isn't neutral. I agree with most of what the Guardian says because I'm also strongly left-wing, but I cannot possibly pretend that it's an unbiased publication, that would be a little bit mad.
Nice. From your decommisioning link (thanks for that - there are really some 10 reactors that have been decommissioned yet, i admit this is new to me) But this is my money quote: Currently the European Commission is looking into this issue. It is estimated, that during the next two decades, the dismantling of the 150 nuclear reactors in Europe will cost around €150 billion, with an average cost of 1 billion per reactor.[110]" Pretty cheap, isn't it? What a clean energy. Now let's add 100.000 years of manageing waste and protecting it against terrorism... in the worst case. Still cheap?
Flask vs. Castor: I know that the tests done with the European containments for nuclear waste are far from helpful. In the car industriy they would not be sufficient, like doing model 1:2 size crash tests and more. But I admit I couldn't find any data on the british flasks.
But don't you see the overall problems? Or don't you want? Think of Occam's Razor - it's so simple: 1) the risks are high, 2) the cost not overseeable 3) nuclear energy is a project with a long-term commitment that is beyond human planning capabilities 4) All in all, it's just quick and dirty and makes few corporations rich by allowing them to not take part in tidying up the mess they left or not guaranteeing to help when risks become catastrophies.
That's the business model. There's better ones out there. Germany showed how, and the whole world is going away from creating nuclear waste - and therefore we are here discussing a technology that died in the late nineties.
One billion cleanup after a 25 year life is a trivial amount of money. It is about $4,500 per hour of running, and a gigawatt plant earns 100 million dollars in that same hour. Trivial
Rhys Taylor "Motivated by fear" - exactly. That's part of the problem. Too many wordy explanations make a bad general perception. And too many bad experiences in the past including accidents and dirty leftovers give it a bad, new start if wanted. Why not just move on? There's heaps of better and less negatively perceived tech out there. Germany proves it.
What we need in the first place is a decentralized, decorporated energy production. Nuclear energy is the dinosaur in that game. It's not about fear. It's an outdated, insecure, dangerous, negatively perceived and economically too expensive tech. That's why Germany opted out. And it works. Who needs it ? Only the energy corps. My household is CO2 neutral, run by green energy only, and that's as cheap as other energy. Even the gas I burn for heating comEs from wind energy. No putin involved. Where again was the need to reanimate the dinosaur?
Due to a small but consistent influx of spam, comments will now be checked before publishing. Only egregious spam/illegal/racist crap will be disapproved, everything else will be published.
It's there stance on fussion that I don't get but I'm leaning heavily towards them despite that.
ReplyDeleteUnscientific anti nuclear? That's a good joke. Nuclear energy just doesn't pay off. It's an economical disaster. Works only if the tax payer bails out the corps in the long run - see England. Let's not talk about terrorism, statistics and mafia-like organized crime structures emerging (see repro). No, just consider the long term price. It's not an option anymore.
ReplyDeleterepro -> tepco (auto correct) sorry. I meant that huge accidents will happen, no way to avoid that.
ReplyDeleteAs to the price: Nuclear Energy is outdated, because it's too expensive everywhere. Fact 1: There are fewer nuclear power plants being built than necessary to keep the current number. And Britain has to guarantee a price per KW for energy to make their energy corp even build a nuclear plant. Wind and sun are simply cheaper already.
Fact 2: Only because the society pays for tens of thousand years of nuclear waste management corps could offer cheap nuclear power. But today even that doesn't sum up anymore.
Fact 3: The cost and dangers of taking down old plants are not yet clear. We are experiencing that in Germany, where the first plants are being built back - and one problem adds to the next.
Fact 4: At the same time, we have an amazing amount of green energy contributing to our energy total. Some windy and sunny days it's up to 70%, while classical and nuclear plants are standing still. That's more the rule than the exception, btw.
Fact 5: Nuclear is not a bridge technology, it's a dead end street that just helps transporting money by trucks from the tax payer to the corporations. And it insures that for tens of millenia. Great business model. Privatizes the money maid, socializes the risk and losses.
Fact 6: Have a look at recent reports of Belgian nuclear reactors - it's a wonder they still work. the concrete and the stell don't behave as predicted. And after 30-40 years the whole structure is worn out. The containment, not the outer structure. Belgian AKWs (german abbreviation for nuclear plant) will be a huge danger for us over here.
Fact 7: With no final place to store the atomic waste, there will have to be temporary storage for it. Imagine hundreds of potential targets for terrorists. Great. I don't want that, but that's already inevitable. We've been using this dirty technology too long, now the society has to pay, not the corps who made millions of Euro PER DAY out of a single plant.
The success of nuclear energy in the past was built on corruption, keeping back scientifc research and deliberately borrowing money from the future and imposing threats on our children and grand children for tens of thousands of years.
(sorry for errors, just a quick write-up, I'm actually currently working in my garden....)
Rhys Taylor "I believe the Green party does this largely because they're scared of the n-word, or worse, the r-word."
ReplyDeleteNo, it's all about money. I've seen their fight for 20 years, maybe 30 years. And even though we/they had the better arguments, it was the money thing in the end that made Germany opt out of nuclear energy. Yeah, somewhat sad, but true. Let's just hope many others follow, so that less children get leucemia for example. Or less workers die (see czernobyl)
As I said: A quick write, not meaning to be agressive or teaching or similar - just in a short work break, and English is not my mother tongue. :-) Sorry for errors or bad language or bad allusions.
ReplyDeleteMarkus Feilner _"As I said: A quick write, not meaning to be agressive or teaching or similar - just in a short work break, and English is not my mother tongue. :-)"_
ReplyDeleteYep, totally get that, and will respond more fully later. In the meantime, do have a look at some of the links I posted in my first comment. :)
Oh, and one more thing:
ReplyDeleteFission is producing waste and burning a ressource that is not available endlessly. That makes nuclear energy at current state a classical, not green, not self-regenerative energy. With fission it's different.
Being an Open-Source-Advocate and similar, I strongly advocat stuff that has a better balance in the long run - so any energy source that consumes ressources will not be optimal. That's imho the real downside of wind and sun: They are the bridge technologies of today, because so many rare metals (rare earths?) are needed to produce them. Ok, different scale then big plants, but not optimal.
Maybe fission could really help here, but I only see first approaches, no solutions.
(oh and nuclear energy will always be great in deep space probes, I believe)
:-)
(back to his garden now)
I think they don't see fusion as worth while as it is a long term replacement. I looked it up about 3 or 4 moths ago on their site but I can't find it now so maybe they've changed their stance (I only took a quick look just now). What I quite liked about the Greens is the way that if you join you seem to get a real say on policy. So hopefully with the influx of members recently the loopier fringe ideas will get dropped.
ReplyDeleteOk, let's go through this:
ReplyDelete1) France: Who pays for tens of thousands of years of manageing the waste? That's not in the price, neither is the price for a nuclear accident (see 2)
2) Accidents will happened. The problem is a) the age and b) the amount of nuclear plants and c) the other storages (not the plants themselves). At the time of Fukushima, the statistics said every 25 years a major accident will happen - well exactly what became reality. Three mile island, Czezrnobyl, Fukushima. And we're not done yet with those. Think of Majak, there's a lake that might contaminate the whole northern oceans.
3) Where have they been decomissioned? Rebuilt? Tidied up? Give me one example. And then send it to the german government, they'd be happy about that. No, we're told we're the first to gather that experience.
4) Nuclear waste is a manageable risk? Why? The wast just begins to pile up. Really high. No, this problem is unsolved and nobody wants the waste.
5) How much containment would the 21 meter cube need? That's not a fair measure, because we in Germany have already hundreds of Castors to dispose of, they are traveling cross-country on rails, through habited areas.
Great idea. Like in the movie Broken Arrow
Nuclear technologies are from the past. And one more thing we left out totally: The future is not in centralized energy production. Nope. The success of the German / European EEG shows it. Trouble is only, that the big energy corps need a new business model.
But count the numbers: Nuclear energy is on the retreat everywhere.
(now reads your links)
BTW - have you read the Ronald Reagan story? There's a lawsuit going on against Tepco:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/20/us-navy-sailors-legal-challenge-fukushima-radiation-tepco
And that's exactly one more problem: Nuclear energy forces the corporations running it into lying, because hysteria is strong. In brief: When you're setting up a technology most people are (in my eyes rightly) afraid of, you have to establish criminal or at least undemocratic ways of communication around it.
That's not what we want.
Do you think breakthrough.org is neutral? Wikipedia says they advocate nuclear energy... never ran across that site, that's why I added the guardian link.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.gov.uk/government/policies/increasing-the-use-of-low-carbon-technologies/supporting-pages/new-nuclear-power-stations
ReplyDelete"Do you think breakthrough.org is neutral? Wikipedia says they advocate nuclear energy... never ran across that site, that's why I added the guardian link."
Ouch ! That's very unfair. For one thing, experts in nuclear power aren't likely to be neutral any more than experts in solar power are. For another, I like the Guardian precisely because it isn't neutral. I agree with most of what the Guardian says because I'm also strongly left-wing, but I cannot possibly pretend that it's an unbiased publication, that would be a little bit mad.
Nice. From your decommisioning link (thanks for that - there are really some 10 reactors that have been decommissioned yet, i admit this is new to me) But this is my money quote:
ReplyDeleteCurrently the European Commission is looking into this issue. It is estimated, that during the next two decades, the dismantling of the 150 nuclear reactors in Europe will cost around €150 billion, with an average cost of 1 billion per reactor.[110]"
Pretty cheap, isn't it? What a clean energy. Now let's add 100.000 years of manageing waste and protecting it against terrorism... in the worst case. Still cheap?
Flask vs. Castor: I know that the tests done with the European containments for nuclear waste are far from helpful. In the car industriy they would not be sufficient, like doing model 1:2 size crash tests and more. But I admit I couldn't find any data on the british flasks.
ReplyDeleteBut don't you see the overall problems? Or don't you want? Think of Occam's Razor - it's so simple:
ReplyDelete1) the risks are high,
2) the cost not overseeable
3) nuclear energy is a project with a long-term commitment that is beyond human planning capabilities
4) All in all, it's just quick and dirty and makes few corporations rich by allowing them to not take part in tidying up the mess they left or not guaranteeing to help when risks become catastrophies.
That's the business model. There's better ones out there. Germany showed how, and the whole world is going away from creating nuclear waste - and therefore we are here discussing a technology that died in the late nineties.
Good night...
One billion cleanup after a 25 year life is a trivial amount of money. It is about $4,500 per hour of running, and a gigawatt plant earns 100 million dollars in that same hour. Trivial
ReplyDeleteNuclear energy actually causes less deaths per watt-hour than people falling off their roofs while trying to install solar panels :P
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor "Motivated by fear" - exactly. That's part of the problem. Too many wordy explanations make a bad general perception. And too many bad experiences in the past including accidents and dirty leftovers give it a bad, new start if wanted. Why not just move on? There's heaps of better and less negatively perceived tech out there. Germany proves it.
ReplyDeleteWhat we need in the first place is a decentralized, decorporated energy production. Nuclear energy is the dinosaur in that game. It's not about fear. It's an outdated, insecure, dangerous, negatively perceived and economically too expensive tech. That's why Germany opted out. And it works. Who needs it ? Only the energy corps. My household is CO2 neutral, run by green energy only, and that's as cheap as other energy. Even the gas I burn for heating comEs from wind energy. No putin involved. Where again was the need to reanimate the dinosaur?
ReplyDelete