What pie-in-the-sky ideas are you talking about? I haven’t heard any. Could you list them?
That very well maybe. I was focusing on the irrational belief that even after multiple disasters beyond any doubt, you still read people preaching that nuclear is safe, safer than coal, nuclear is the way to go, it can’t happen anywhere else, or even if it does it is STILL safer than coal (which apparently has killed at least 3 or 4 million people in the last 100 years alone)
That they won’t budge an inch, even to simply acknowledge what has already happened, it’s like talking to a crazy person.
I wasn’t really trying to drag the whole German power debate into the thread.
Germany already has an abundance of power.
http://rwecom.online-report.eu/factbook/en/marketdata/electricity/grid/germanyimportandexportofelectricity.html
The only reason they import power is because of profit. When power is cheaper they buy it, rather than produce it. When they can profit, they sell it.
The solar revolution was not by subsidies, it was simply that they passed laws (and enforced them) so that anyone producing power from solar gets paid the going rate for the power.
You do the same thing in the US and people would invest in solar all over the place. Because you can make money when power demand is great. Like on hot sunny days when power plants are maxing out to run the AC for millions of homes and businesses.
The naysayers and negative thinkers want to convince you solar is too expensive. Yet they shy away from the true price of nuclear power.
From your link:
Yes, this year they cut back on the subsidies.
The solar revolution in Germany was precisely by subsidies. As would be a nuclear uptake if it had occurred.
Please don’t just make stuff up. (And I am more to the renewables are a more practical solution to increase faster than is nuclear side of this discussion.)
No, not avoiding coal. There’s no possible way they could do it, avoiding both coal and nuclear. They’re still planning on having most of their energy coming from coal. They’re not going to build new coal plants to replace their (few) nuclear plants, but they’re still keeping all the old coal plants they already have. And even if they do manage to completely replace their nuclear plants with wind plants, all that proves is that they didn’t have very many nuclear plants to begin with. Notice that France isn’t making any similar plans? That’s because it wouldn’t be possible.
And I can’t fathom why everyone keeps talking about Japan having had a nuclear disaster. They didn’t. What they had was an earthquake and tsunami disaster. In that earthquake and tsunami disaster, some nuclear power plants were destroyed. That doesn’t say anything about nuclear power plants; it just says that when you have the worst earthquake in recorded history, a lot of things are going to be destroyed. One might as well say that Japan had a skyscraper disaster, or a subway system disaster, or a hydroelectric power disaster.
DSEID, your enumeration of nuke objections misses one very important one, the profit motive. As long as nuke plants are in the private sector, there will be cost cutting measures that lower safety.
Construction of plants in the past have been rife with covering up poor construction . The plant operators have been shown to skip some maintenance and training and staffing of workers.
The nuke industry will bribe regulators and pressure politicians to ease up. That is how it is done in America.
The public should be informed of all ongoing problems at nuke plants.
The government should build and operate the plants. It might be a little more expensive, but it would be safer. With the potential disasters nuke plants can cause ,safety is a huge consideration.
Apparently they won’t cut the solar subsidy by as much as originally planned next year.
What will be the consequences of Germany phasing out nuclear?
As far as being safer than coal … well it* is.* It is really hard to argue otherwise. Nuclear is not without any risk but to the degree that maintaining the current share of nuclear or even growing it some, in addition to growing a variety of other sources, especially renewables but also the newest most efficient natural gas plants, allows us to reduce coal use, it is worth allowing it to compete with those other sources of power fairly.
gonz, I did not miss that. My promotion of using market forces included “mandating adequate safety and health measures with adequate enforcement for compliance” - that is as true for nuclear as for coal. Indeed the enforcement has been sometime lacking but nationalizing one portion of the power generation supply, or all of it, is not, in my mind at least, a viable solution.
That is not done. They have shown clearly that they will lie and cheat to make more profits. Capitalism as we practice it, has no moral component. It is a psycho business that exists to maximize profits.
Also DSeid, the waste problem is impossible to solve. That is what is radiating Japan, the nuclear waste. There is no containment structure that can outlast radiation. It just pushes it way down the road into a future generations problem.
Debating the merits and debits of the capitalist system, and whether morality is required to result in pro-social outcomes, is perhaps beyond the scope of this thread. It is what we got and replacing it is not likely in the cards.
Waste is not impossible to solve. Lots of possible answers many of which have been discussed in this thread. Yes, storing waste crowded in pools on site is not a long term viable solution.
You’re the one to talk about true believers?
Name me the people here who have a negative point of view about clean energy. Name me the people who wouldn’t allow generation from the sun and wind.
Here’s how the conversation seems to be going:
“If we tried really hard, we could get our power generation from renewables up to 30%!”
“Ok, great, I’m all for that, but where is the other 70% going to come from?”
“WHAT? WHY ARE YOU AGAINST WIND AND SOLAR!??!”
The main difference here is that nuclear advocates are acknowledging reality and trying to find the best overall solution. The anti-nuke true believers are just pretending that the other 70% doesn’t exist - or that it doesn’t matter that coal kills hundreds of thousands of people a year and accelerates global warming or pollutes our air or any of that stuff - and just knee-jerk reject nuclear power because it seems like a more exotic danger than the mundane but much bigger coal.
I disagree. The Kerr McGee malfeasance shown in Silkwood, is a taste of what corporations will do to cover up. If you look up nuclear plant accidents , you will have a long .long list . Include nuke problems at plants and the list is endless.
Our Libertarians in charge during Bush slaughtered regulation and allowed the agencies to be owned. There is no regulation anymore. It is all show.
Nuke plants have been around for well over half a century. There has been no answer for waste.
Seems rather odd, then, considering all of those undoubtedly accurate assertions, that deaths due to accidents from nuclear are so much lower than deaths due to things like coal…doesn’t it? Of course, it’s all probably some sort of cover up, and really a lot of people die each year as a result of nuclear energy, but they just sweep that under the rug. Right?
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Nuke plants have been around for well over half a century. There has been no answer for waste.
[/QUOTE]
Gee…I wonder why that might be. It’s a puzzlement, no doubt. Again though, it’s a funny thing. Storing it temporarily on site in a bunch of swimming pools hasn’t exactly resulted in massive amounts of death. You’d think that, if they could simply cobble something like that together (since they have too), that they could, I don’t know, actually BUILD something that would be a tad more secure…right? Wonder why they haven’t been able to build such a facility in the US. It’s almost like, oh I don’t know, like something is preventing them from doing so. Not the engineering. Not structural science. Not planning or logistics. I don’t know…it’s like there is something out there that is getting in the way somehow and preventing any such facility from being built. What could it be?
It’s a shame that no one can figure any of this out and that it’s an impossible engineering problem that simply can’t be solved by humans, and so we have to keep the stuff in cobbled together temporary facilities that have caused such high cost in terms of human life over the past 6 decades. Wouldn’t it be great if we could recycle the fuel like we recycle other things, or build a facility somewhere to store it safely? Like, say, in a mountain somewhere in, oh, a big desert in the middle of a former nuclear weapons testing site with few people around it? I know…might as well wish we had a black President, right? Not ever going to happen…
-XT
No, the problem is that while the pro-renewable crowd is saying “rah-rah renewables and new technology and efficiency and the government actually doing something to support those things instead of expanding corporate welfare for the already uber-rich!” the pro-nuke crowd is stuck on their favorite 1940’s-era Popular Science magazine cover dream technology that never has, doesn’t, and never will supply the magic 80% the pro-nukers keep stubbornly hanging all their hopes and dreams on. While they kick and scream, less gets done. At least we get to watch modern countries like Germany and Japan take the lead, and that will benefit everyone in the long-run.
Rah-rah! Hope that works out for you. 
(BTW, you do know that France gets a ‘magic’ 70+% of their electricity from nuclear…right? Come back when Japan or Germany gets 70+% of their electricity from wind and solar, ehe?)
-XT
You know France sells its base load nuke cheap to other countries, and imports it’s peak load power expensively from fossil fuel power generating countries and has no plans to to build significantly higher numbers of nuke plants and still imports all their transportation fuel and has no plans to replace that, right?
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
You know France sells its base load nuke cheap to other countries,
[/QUOTE]
No, but if you hum a few notes I can probably pick it up.
Considering they already get 70+% from nuclear I’m not seeing why they would build a lot of new ones, just maintain or replace the older ones.
You mean like every other industrial country including Germany and Japan? Like that? Yeah…I knew that. And you figure this is relevant, er, how?
I notice you didn’t actually address anything I said and instead posted, um, something. Again…when Germany and Japan get 70% of their electricity (even if they still import oil for their cars) from wind and solar, feel free to come back. Heck…when they get 35% (half IOW) of their electricity from wind and solar then feel free. When do you suppose that will be? Next year? Just zombie the thread with your crowings of victory, ok?
I presume you saw Cecil’s latest on this (since you weighed in on the other thread on Nuclear energy that liked to the update). What did you think about the difference between the extremes of wind (i.e. building out wind generators in every viable spot on earth) and nuclear (building 8000 new nuclear plants)? Did you notice a slight difference in the maximum energy available? I know your response was to just build bigger turbines. You figure that’s the answer? 
-XT
8000 nuke plants. Hey, dream big!
Too bad it wastes so much time and money better spent elsewhere.
Did you READ the article? Did you actually look at what he was saying? I’m guessing the answer is ‘no’…either that, or you read it but didn’t grasp what he was saying there.
-XT
I did read Cecil’s latest, and while I do not disagree with his conclusion that all of the above will be needed, it was a very weak post. Many scientific ones lately have been that weak or weaker - whoever is doing his research for him has been putting up some very superficial efforts. One article, one author’s speculative opinion, is the basis for giving a straight dope answer? Really? Even the very weak bit on obesity was better than that.
He could just as easily gone with the IPCC’s speculation and claimed that
and had more validity regarding the potential (albeit not what is reasonable to expect).
A bit of a pathetic Cece bit honestly.
The Fukishima plant , which is similar to about 75 of ours, stores waste in pools. Ours actually store 3 to 5 times as much. But I know until people are littered around the base of the plant dead , it is safe to nuke lovers. Chernobyl radiated an area equal to half of New Jersey in area. Fukishima will be as bad.
Yucca , if it were opened, after incredible cost over runs, would fill immediately. It is inadequate. Radiation will last thousands of years. what kind of container will last that long? Sometime, way in the future, we will have a very unpleasant surprise for the people. They wont like it.