Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/30/us-germany-nuclear-idUSTRE74Q2P120110530
175 comments
Germany has increased the use of renewable energy in a decade from 6 to 16% for the generation of electrical energy.
The laws and regulation have been put in place: the EEG. This law has been copied world-wide by dozens of countries.
The goal is to be at 100% with renewable energy in 2050. The closing down of the nuclear power plants is only one milestone on that way. The fossil-based plants will be reduced over time, too. As a bridge technology gas power plants are seen which make it possible to use heat and electricity. Those have an extremely high degree of efficiency. The gas supply is there. New pipelines are being built currently.
Closing down the nuclear power plants is one goal. They are extremely expensive and they need huge amounts of money which we need to invest in renewable energy technology. Also the nuclear industry favors the big corporations who prevent market mechanisms and try to undermine any new energy source. They are also not flexible enough to be used in a future energy mix.
Given that the goal is to go fully to renewable energy in the next 40 years, the nuclear power plants have to go first. The acceptance for them in the German society is also at an all time low.
The goal is to be at 100% with renewable energy in 2050. The closing down of the nuclear power plants is only one milestone on that way. The fossil-based plants will be reduced over time, too. As a bridge technology gas power plants are seen which make it possible to use heat and electricity. Those have an extremely high degree of efficiency. The gas supply is there. New pipelines are being built currently.
Closing down the nuclear power plants is one goal. They are extremely expensive and they need huge amounts of money which we need to invest in renewable energy technology. Also the nuclear industry favors the big corporations who prevent market mechanisms and try to undermine any new energy source. They are also not flexible enough to be used in a future energy mix.
Given that the goal is to go fully to renewable energy in the next 40 years, the nuclear power plants have to go first. The acceptance for them in the German society is also at an all time low.
Keeping old nuclear power plants running is not expensive, building them is expensive. Dismantling nuclear power plants is also expensive but there is no way around those costs, anyway.
See Fukushima for the cost of running nuclear power plants.
The cost of the running power plant is deferred also to a future which then needs to deal with the waste from burned fuel.
Germany has no solution how to deal with the fuel.
The cost for that adds up every day.
The cost of the running power plant is deferred also to a future which then needs to deal with the waste from burned fuel.
Germany has no solution how to deal with the fuel.
The cost for that adds up every day.
How many people died at Fukushima ?
1
How many people die every year because of coal plants working perfectly normally ? 30 000 in the US alone.
See http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html
Nuclear waste is a bigger problem indeed, but using Fukushima as an argument against nuclear is both dishonest and stupid.
How many people die every year because of coal plants working perfectly normally ? 30 000 in the US alone.
See http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html
Nuclear waste is a bigger problem indeed, but using Fukushima as an argument against nuclear is both dishonest and stupid.
First, the Fukushima case is not yet closed. Tepco told us today (faz.net), that the three damaged reactors are stiil out of control, at least until end of this year. We will see, what will happen.
Second: don't you ignore the risk of how many people _could_ die, in the case of a big disaster? That would have global conequences for quite some days (ironic).
Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal), the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power.
Second: don't you ignore the risk of how many people _could_ die, in the case of a big disaster? That would have global conequences for quite some days (ironic).
Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal), the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power.
>« Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal »
Except the point of what I was saying and of the link I gave is precisely that under "normal conditions", people die due to coal, whereas it is not the case with nuclear plant.
The reason is that all a nuclear plant releases in the air is water.
> « the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power. »
You must take into account the odds of a probable disaster, such as an earthquake in Japan, but not the consequences of any disaster. It's just unreasonable to assume an improbable disaster will happen. You end up renouncing any technology by thinking that way.
Obviously, Nuclear power plant must be built with security as the main concern. Obviously, a nuclear reactor can be very dangerous. But refusing to use nuclear plants, which are much more efficient than classic ones and a good long-term investment, is idiotic.
We're far more likely to die in a car accident than because of radio-activity, or any other disaster that's on television. Yet, noone is suggesting that a country should be "car free".
Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants.
Except the point of what I was saying and of the link I gave is precisely that under "normal conditions", people die due to coal, whereas it is not the case with nuclear plant.
The reason is that all a nuclear plant releases in the air is water.
> « the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power. »
You must take into account the odds of a probable disaster, such as an earthquake in Japan, but not the consequences of any disaster. It's just unreasonable to assume an improbable disaster will happen. You end up renouncing any technology by thinking that way.
Obviously, Nuclear power plant must be built with security as the main concern. Obviously, a nuclear reactor can be very dangerous. But refusing to use nuclear plants, which are much more efficient than classic ones and a good long-term investment, is idiotic.
We're far more likely to die in a car accident than because of radio-activity, or any other disaster that's on television. Yet, noone is suggesting that a country should be "car free".
Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants.
Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants.
I'd wager the change of mind will happen rather quickly after the first terrorist crashes a plane into an US nuclear facility.
I'd wager the change of mind will happen rather quickly after the first terrorist crashes a plane into an US nuclear facility.
Impressive video. However, I wonder if that test would look as good with a real passenger jet.
According to wikipedia the empty weight of a Phantom F4 is 30,328 lb.
The empty weight of a Boeing 737 is up to 80,000 lb (almost 3x as much). The empty weight of an A380 is 610,000 lb (20 times as much).
According to wikipedia the empty weight of a Phantom F4 is 30,328 lb.
The empty weight of a Boeing 737 is up to 80,000 lb (almost 3x as much). The empty weight of an A380 is 610,000 lb (20 times as much).
Would that the walls of the containment area on the reactors in Fukushima were that thick.
I'm pretty sure a big earthquake followed by a tsunami is more damaging than a plane crash.
The recent review of reactor safety here in Germany found that not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it.
http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/kein-deutsches-a...
http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/kein-deutsches-a...
I don't read German.
>« not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. »
Now, what does that even mean ? If surviving means "keep on working", obviously not.
If it means destruction of the protection layers of concrete around the reactor, it's more dangerous, but just because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away.
>« not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. »
Now, what does that even mean ? If surviving means "keep on working", obviously not.
If it means destruction of the protection layers of concrete around the reactor, it's more dangerous, but just because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away.
just because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away.
How is the radiation supposed to be contained when your reactor just turned into a burning pile of rubble?
How is the radiation supposed to be contained when your reactor just turned into a burning pile of rubble?
I can hardly imagine a bigger catastrophe than Fukushima... Now, the following facts are from my memory, so they might not be absolutely accurate, but I believe the points stand.
- It was hit by an earthquake with a magnitude 1 point higher than it was built for, and it was perfectly OK.
- Only the following tsunami damaged it, and only because it interrupted the power supply of the cooling pumps.
Let us not forget that the power plant was 20 or so years old. New plants would no doubt be much safer.
- It was hit by an earthquake with a magnitude 1 point higher than it was built for, and it was perfectly OK.
- Only the following tsunami damaged it, and only because it interrupted the power supply of the cooling pumps.
Let us not forget that the power plant was 20 or so years old. New plants would no doubt be much safer.
They were lucky at Fukushima.
There were no substantial aftershocks that damaged the plant, nor were there any secondary tsunamis.
I can hardly imagine a bigger catastrophe than Fukushima
That's a failure of imagination. Imagine if a comparatively minor secondary tsunami had hit after the containment vessel had been breached. That could spread highly radioactive materials just abotu anywhere - and, worse - could have made it too dangerous to get close enough to the plant for the for the fire engines (!) to spray water to cool the reactors.
There were no substantial aftershocks that damaged the plant, nor were there any secondary tsunamis.
I can hardly imagine a bigger catastrophe than Fukushima
That's a failure of imagination. Imagine if a comparatively minor secondary tsunami had hit after the containment vessel had been breached. That could spread highly radioactive materials just abotu anywhere - and, worse - could have made it too dangerous to get close enough to the plant for the for the fire engines (!) to spray water to cool the reactors.
'only'?
6 reactors were affected. Four of them are wrecked. There are full pools of spent and active fuel exposed to sunshine.
Tepco had twenty years to build higher walls against a Tsunami. There were already enough complaints about the weak security before it got hit.
That there are earth quake in the sea causing Tsunamis is nothing new for Japan.
They failed.
You might be surprised to hear that there are also Tsunamis in North Europe.
6 reactors were affected. Four of them are wrecked. There are full pools of spent and active fuel exposed to sunshine.
Tepco had twenty years to build higher walls against a Tsunami. There were already enough complaints about the weak security before it got hit.
That there are earth quake in the sea causing Tsunamis is nothing new for Japan.
They failed.
You might be surprised to hear that there are also Tsunamis in North Europe.
In that case, Fukushima is even less relevant to the discussion.
I don’t think the cost for dealing with waste adds up. It stays (pretty much) constant: High fixed costs and very low variable costs.
Dismantling a nuclear power plant doesn’t get more expensive just because they are running longer. When it comes to waste, finding a site and building the infrastructure is expensive, the cost of dealing with additional waste from letting the plants run longer has to be negligible.
Whether or not we have a solution to deal with the fuel is pretty much irrelevant. We have to find a solution anyway, there is no way around it. We might as well keep the plants running longer.
Dismantling a nuclear power plant doesn’t get more expensive just because they are running longer. When it comes to waste, finding a site and building the infrastructure is expensive, the cost of dealing with additional waste from letting the plants run longer has to be negligible.
Whether or not we have a solution to deal with the fuel is pretty much irrelevant. We have to find a solution anyway, there is no way around it. We might as well keep the plants running longer.
we don't have even a viable intermediate solution. Which would have to be built.
The spent fuels are full and provide a new danger. See Fukushima on the effects of full spent fuel pools in times of an nuclear accident. Reactor five had also recently a loss of cooling for it.
Currently much of the used fuel is stored on site. This has never been planned, costs additional money, and provides new dangers.
Plus, for a storage solution it definitely makes a huge difference if we have to store the nuclear waste of ten reactors running ten years or of twenty reactors running 50 years. The cost is not the same.
The spent fuels are full and provide a new danger. See Fukushima on the effects of full spent fuel pools in times of an nuclear accident. Reactor five had also recently a loss of cooling for it.
Currently much of the used fuel is stored on site. This has never been planned, costs additional money, and provides new dangers.
Plus, for a storage solution it definitely makes a huge difference if we have to store the nuclear waste of ten reactors running ten years or of twenty reactors running 50 years. The cost is not the same.
This need is there whether we stop in 2022 or 2032. It doesn’t make a difference.
Also: High fixed costs, low variable costs. It’s as simple as that.
Also: High fixed costs, low variable costs. It’s as simple as that.
Low variable cost? What?
The current experimental Asse II site already cost us BILLIONS of Euros. Plus it is fucked up and needs to been evacuated for a few additional billions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schacht_Asse_II
The current experimental Asse II site already cost us BILLIONS of Euros. Plus it is fucked up and needs to been evacuated for a few additional billions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schacht_Asse_II
Those are fixed costs. The interesting question is what the marginal cost of adding another kg of nuclear waste is.
It's not just the nuclear fuel that needs storing you know: http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/w/waste-radioac...
Each plant produces a huge amount of waste each year it runs, all of various impact levels, but all of which has a cost to store or process. So yes, there may only be a small amount of extra direct fuel waste, but there is a lot more than that to consider.
Each plant produces a huge amount of waste each year it runs, all of various impact levels, but all of which has a cost to store or process. So yes, there may only be a small amount of extra direct fuel waste, but there is a lot more than that to consider.
Sure, but that gets us no closer to knowing the marginal cost of one additional kilo of nuclear waste (of any description). My suspicion is that the marginal cost is quite low.
All I'm saying is this: You likely can't take the average cost of safely storing one kilo of waste given current levels of waste and calculate the additional cost that results from letting the reactors run a few more years. This is econ 101. I like to use newspapers to explain the concept: The cost of making 10,000 newspapers in nearly the same as the cost of making 20,000 newspapers. This is because nearly all the money that has to be spent is fixed (wages for journalists and staff, buildings and machines, …). The variable costs are very low in comparison (letting the presses run a little longer, additional paper, ink, …).
All I'm saying is this: You likely can't take the average cost of safely storing one kilo of waste given current levels of waste and calculate the additional cost that results from letting the reactors run a few more years. This is econ 101. I like to use newspapers to explain the concept: The cost of making 10,000 newspapers in nearly the same as the cost of making 20,000 newspapers. This is because nearly all the money that has to be spent is fixed (wages for journalists and staff, buildings and machines, …). The variable costs are very low in comparison (letting the presses run a little longer, additional paper, ink, …).
There is also a variable cost in allowing the old designs to continue to run that you are not accounting for.
If the output of waste from a nuclear reactor is still that 'hot', they're doing it wrong. That waste then needs reprocessed for draining more energy out of it, furthering the transmutation to good 'ol lead. It'd be akin to burning gasoline with a 100% conversion output of CO. Guess what: that's incomplete combustion and you just lost a lot of energy. But that's what these reactors do all the time.
If you can't get lead out of it, at least get something that only has a half-life of a few billion years. Then its about as dangerous as lead.
If you can't get lead out of it, at least get something that only has a half-life of a few billion years. Then its about as dangerous as lead.
Also, the swedes reversed their decision few years ago. Nowdays while they are not increasing nor decreasing nuclear power, they are OK with replacing the old reactors.
Because of the ongoing massive costs savings it is expected that within 2015 or so it will be cheaper for house owner's to produce their own energy with photovoltaic than buying it. (Without governmental support)
This will be a massive game changer: Decentralized, DIY, prosumer energy connected in a smart grid. The private rooth area and climate in for example Austria is enough to produce 1/3 of the electric energy used in Austria.
The Germans are actually ahead in this area because of current governmental price guarantees for selling self produced electricity back to the grid. This is stimulating accelerated cost savings development in the German solar industry.
The Germans are actually ahead in this area because of current governmental price guarantees for selling self produced electricity back to the grid. This is stimulating accelerated cost savings development in the German solar industry.
A plus-energy house from a German university won the last competition in the US.
http://www.solardecathlon.gov/past/2009/final_results.html
http://www.solardecathlon.gov/past/2009/final_results.html
Citation needed. Is this with photo-voltaic cells built with dangerous and scarce materials?
According to [1] photovoltaic energy might be competitive in Germany by 2012/2013 in regions with a lot of sunshine and by 2016 "in regions with less intensive sunshine." (I'm not sure whether "less intensive" means average.) These numbers assume consumer prices and no subsidies. For industry users competitiveness is expected by 2019.
Hawaii: already competitive (2009), California: 2011 (assuming 3kW plants)
Reuters [2] writes that "very sunny countries could reach that breakeven in five years[2012] or so, and even cloudy Britain by 2020."
The breakeven is called Grid Parity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
[1] http://www.wm.baden-wuerttemberg.de/fm7/1106/Endbericht%20Br... (German, 2009, this is the report cited by taz.de)
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/19/environment-solar-... (2007)
Hawaii: already competitive (2009), California: 2011 (assuming 3kW plants)
Reuters [2] writes that "very sunny countries could reach that breakeven in five years[2012] or so, and even cloudy Britain by 2020."
The breakeven is called Grid Parity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
[1] http://www.wm.baden-wuerttemberg.de/fm7/1106/Endbericht%20Br... (German, 2009, this is the report cited by taz.de)
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/19/environment-solar-... (2007)
This doesn't answer his question, but anyway: it depends on how you account for things. When you take into account the production cost and materials needed for PV, electricity from them is not a sustainable energy source in any non-marketing meaning of the word.
Taz seems to be a rather leftist newspaper, wouldn't take it at face value.
Oh, the fear of 'leftist' newspapers.
For the US, pretty much every newspaper in Germany is leftist.
For the US, pretty much every newspaper in Germany is leftist.
There are citing a study by the bank "Landesbank BW".
You can find the same study in other media mentioned.
A bank is usually very reputable in calculating economics.
A bank is usually very reputable in calculating economics.
You betcha ;-) Even for european standards this is leftist. They do have good articles though as it is usual for ideologists only on topics where the ideology doesn't already provides the answers.
Also, the mentioned bank is a state bank. Usually not the moste creditable ones. Especially not on issues that include subsidies.
Also, the mentioned bank is a state bank. Usually not the moste creditable ones. Especially not on issues that include subsidies.
I think he's mistaken is saying that it'll only come from PV; it's for all forms of 'sustainable' energy (I myself wouldn't count PV under that, but the popular opinion does so I'm including it here).
So it's including geothermal, air heat pumps, zero energy use for residential heating (high insulation and heat recuperation in ventilation systems), etc.
So it's including geothermal, air heat pumps, zero energy use for residential heating (high insulation and heat recuperation in ventilation systems), etc.
Some countries (e.g. Ireland, UK) are a bit more north than Austria. Would they get enough sunlight to go solar?
"The only way to successfully switch to renewable energy is by making renewable energy cheaper than coal or nuclear."
I wouldn't be sure about that. Imho another way is to let the government offer incentives or just plain ban certain types of energy production. I live in Switzerland and our gov just did the same thing - Deciding not to let anyone build another nuclear plant in CH again. So we have Sweden, Germany, Switzerland and a lot of other countries reacting to Fukujima. But I think it will take quite some time until people realize nuclear power is potentially highly dangerous and that it might be a good idea to spend the extra money to produce renewable energy.
I wouldn't be sure about that. Imho another way is to let the government offer incentives or just plain ban certain types of energy production. I live in Switzerland and our gov just did the same thing - Deciding not to let anyone build another nuclear plant in CH again. So we have Sweden, Germany, Switzerland and a lot of other countries reacting to Fukujima. But I think it will take quite some time until people realize nuclear power is potentially highly dangerous and that it might be a good idea to spend the extra money to produce renewable energy.
I cannot agree. You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.
This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.
This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.
It has seemed to be a pretty "natural direction" for humanity so far, at least, and technical progress continues to give humanity so much while costing us so little.
To me it seems no more bizarre a view that technical progress is a good direction for humanity to take as believing that education should become better over time, our life expectancy should continue to go up over time, or that, one day, it'd be kinda nice to travel to the stars. All those things need technical progress.
It has seemed to be a pretty "natural direction" for humanity so far, at least, and technical progress continues to give humanity so much while costing us so little.
To me it seems no more bizarre a view that technical progress is a good direction for humanity to take as believing that education should become better over time, our life expectancy should continue to go up over time, or that, one day, it'd be kinda nice to travel to the stars. All those things need technical progress.
Did you see Kubrick's "2001"? Probably no other film gives a better example of the fact that education will be more important than technical progress (especially how it is today: at all costs) at any time.
No human being wants to live on a star after he/she has lived there for some generations. Wanna bet?
it's got bugger all to do with any gods or deities.
I can't help noticing that the natural tendency of the human species is to expand and adapt - that is what we are. I also notice that the various movements that advocate more basic living patterns have never really caught on.
So you are going to have two options:
1) Refuse to do anything about power, let it get more and more expensive until enough people die that you have a solvable problem
2) work on making it cheaper
I am sure the greens would say also:
3) everyone chooses to live a more basic quieter life against our natural instincts. Oh and all those nice rich and powerful people will also be joining in and not just taking advantage
and I will say
good luck with that (oh and if you try to achieve 3 without peoples buy in but rather through legislation you effectively are back to option 1)
it's 1 or 2 - and 1 is going to be f@#king awful so let's get working on cheap power
I can't help noticing that the natural tendency of the human species is to expand and adapt - that is what we are. I also notice that the various movements that advocate more basic living patterns have never really caught on.
So you are going to have two options:
1) Refuse to do anything about power, let it get more and more expensive until enough people die that you have a solvable problem
2) work on making it cheaper
I am sure the greens would say also:
3) everyone chooses to live a more basic quieter life against our natural instincts. Oh and all those nice rich and powerful people will also be joining in and not just taking advantage
and I will say
good luck with that (oh and if you try to achieve 3 without peoples buy in but rather through legislation you effectively are back to option 1)
it's 1 or 2 - and 1 is going to be f@#king awful so let's get working on cheap power
"everyone chooses to live a more basic quieter life against our natural instincts."
Serious? That's a huge claim. yet, so many people do live this "quieter" life. I am striving to live that life. There is quite a growing community (at least in British Columbia) of people concerned with things like food security and climate change.
Ever since I was young, I was disgusted by the City. Yes, this is not a popular view, but I am in no way choosing to live "a more basic quieter life against our natural instincts." The city was never meant for me.
Though, I'm not really sure what movements you are referring to? Do they include those that suggest consuming less? Or are there some movements somewhere suggesting you start living by candle light?
Sorry, if this comment is off-topic from the article, but it seems wildly bold for you to claim that a way of life is against natural instincts. I strive to live a life combining the joy, satisfaction and security of producing my own food, and living with the land as well as benefiting and perhaps contributing to advancements (particularly with water and power management).
Serious? That's a huge claim. yet, so many people do live this "quieter" life. I am striving to live that life. There is quite a growing community (at least in British Columbia) of people concerned with things like food security and climate change.
Ever since I was young, I was disgusted by the City. Yes, this is not a popular view, but I am in no way choosing to live "a more basic quieter life against our natural instincts." The city was never meant for me.
Though, I'm not really sure what movements you are referring to? Do they include those that suggest consuming less? Or are there some movements somewhere suggesting you start living by candle light?
Sorry, if this comment is off-topic from the article, but it seems wildly bold for you to claim that a way of life is against natural instincts. I strive to live a life combining the joy, satisfaction and security of producing my own food, and living with the land as well as benefiting and perhaps contributing to advancements (particularly with water and power management).
it's not a bold claim at all.
Look around at the planet. Humans are everywhere it is possible to be. Something drove us to do that. And given it is quite unlikely that there was a meeting 100,000 years a go in Africa where we as a species decided - "let's give overrunning the whole planet a go" I think that "instinct" for want of a better word is what drives that. Living in a sustainable way does not come naturally to humans - I'm betting you are well educated and have reasoned long and hard about it.
Yes there are people like you who chose to be sustainable. But unless you get everyone to do it then we are screwed. Because it's an all or nothing plan. And you may love making your own food but by the same token I am really glad someone else is doing it for me. I find it boring and a waste of my time - I want to just be able to get food when i need it without thinking about it. My interests lie elsewhere.
Likewise the global trend is too the city. Every bit of research points to massive urbanisation http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/aug/18/percenta...
We has a species do have the ability to overcome our animal urges but if you don't solve the power problems you are doing to need everyone to do it and the failure mode of that is massive suffering. There are various sustainable living and back to nature and even so called luddite movements and have been for quite a while but I still don't see them being a significant force.
There is nothing wrong with what you are doing at all but do you think you can convince everyone you know outside of your community to join in?
Look around at the planet. Humans are everywhere it is possible to be. Something drove us to do that. And given it is quite unlikely that there was a meeting 100,000 years a go in Africa where we as a species decided - "let's give overrunning the whole planet a go" I think that "instinct" for want of a better word is what drives that. Living in a sustainable way does not come naturally to humans - I'm betting you are well educated and have reasoned long and hard about it.
Yes there are people like you who chose to be sustainable. But unless you get everyone to do it then we are screwed. Because it's an all or nothing plan. And you may love making your own food but by the same token I am really glad someone else is doing it for me. I find it boring and a waste of my time - I want to just be able to get food when i need it without thinking about it. My interests lie elsewhere.
Likewise the global trend is too the city. Every bit of research points to massive urbanisation http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/aug/18/percenta...
We has a species do have the ability to overcome our animal urges but if you don't solve the power problems you are doing to need everyone to do it and the failure mode of that is massive suffering. There are various sustainable living and back to nature and even so called luddite movements and have been for quite a while but I still don't see them being a significant force.
There is nothing wrong with what you are doing at all but do you think you can convince everyone you know outside of your community to join in?
I think you are right. But, I'm not sure.
Perhaps it's better to look at "destroying our planet" (or whatever) as a byproduct? Like you said, we didn't decide this in Africa, it's just a result of our drive to advance our way of life. But, now preserving our environment and adopting more sustainable practices is the next frontier in advancing our way of life.
Also, isn't the basic animal instinct to survive? Scientists claim with the 2C threshold (I think this covers it slightly, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8023072.stm) that we are at a time where without change, we may not survive (in large numbers at least, and in some years)? Maybe the instinct doesn't act on a tribal or global scale, but only personal. Like when a tiger is coming after you.
And, of course, I don't expect everyone to grow their own food. But, there are people who love farming, and if we help these young people get into it, they can provide on a smaller scale, within each community.
I suppose my point is, sure humans have the instinct to advance their way of life, but that does not necessarily go against producing ones own food, or living a quieter and simpler life.
Perhaps it's better to look at "destroying our planet" (or whatever) as a byproduct? Like you said, we didn't decide this in Africa, it's just a result of our drive to advance our way of life. But, now preserving our environment and adopting more sustainable practices is the next frontier in advancing our way of life.
Also, isn't the basic animal instinct to survive? Scientists claim with the 2C threshold (I think this covers it slightly, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8023072.stm) that we are at a time where without change, we may not survive (in large numbers at least, and in some years)? Maybe the instinct doesn't act on a tribal or global scale, but only personal. Like when a tiger is coming after you.
And, of course, I don't expect everyone to grow their own food. But, there are people who love farming, and if we help these young people get into it, they can provide on a smaller scale, within each community.
I suppose my point is, sure humans have the instinct to advance their way of life, but that does not necessarily go against producing ones own food, or living a quieter and simpler life.
So I do agree that the tipping point will be when the danger is in our collective faces. I also agree there is a good chance it might be pretty bad indeed with as you say large numbers dying.
I don't believe that sustainable ways of life will prevail before any fall. Look at the fishing in the North sea - despite the stocks being pretty much destroyed the fishermen who have taken the fish continue to argue their case to take the very last few because they don't want to change their way of life. This is sadly all too common.
There are people who can see all this working on tech - I think the best bet (ie the one were more of us survive) is if there are some decent breakthroughs. Knowing what I do about projects in progress and the work being done I think there is a good chance this will work out. The reason is that this isn't just a stopping us dying scenario this is making lots of money for lots of people scenario.
If we have to sort ourselves out after a fall - well you may be right. But only for a while. It is almost certain that sooner or later some person or other will look at the next valley or over a sea and think: "hmm what would happen if I went over there. I guess I'll need X Y Z" where X Y Z is some bit of basic tech that doesn't exist yet. and the human race will be off again.
We're tenacious buggers us humans. I don't think it's time to give up and sit quietly by the fire just yet....
(oh and also the very diversity - look at what you are into and what say, I am into - an entrepreneur, a technologist and an optimist - and our different views. That very difference means that we have a "portfolio" strategy as a species. Our eggs are in millions of baskets. There may be a catastrophe and you with your abilities to cope on your own resources will just carry on trucking. Something else my happen and some other group may thrive. It will be a damn hard job killing the lot of us - even for something as resourceful as the human race itself)
I don't believe that sustainable ways of life will prevail before any fall. Look at the fishing in the North sea - despite the stocks being pretty much destroyed the fishermen who have taken the fish continue to argue their case to take the very last few because they don't want to change their way of life. This is sadly all too common.
There are people who can see all this working on tech - I think the best bet (ie the one were more of us survive) is if there are some decent breakthroughs. Knowing what I do about projects in progress and the work being done I think there is a good chance this will work out. The reason is that this isn't just a stopping us dying scenario this is making lots of money for lots of people scenario.
If we have to sort ourselves out after a fall - well you may be right. But only for a while. It is almost certain that sooner or later some person or other will look at the next valley or over a sea and think: "hmm what would happen if I went over there. I guess I'll need X Y Z" where X Y Z is some bit of basic tech that doesn't exist yet. and the human race will be off again.
We're tenacious buggers us humans. I don't think it's time to give up and sit quietly by the fire just yet....
(oh and also the very diversity - look at what you are into and what say, I am into - an entrepreneur, a technologist and an optimist - and our different views. That very difference means that we have a "portfolio" strategy as a species. Our eggs are in millions of baskets. There may be a catastrophe and you with your abilities to cope on your own resources will just carry on trucking. Something else my happen and some other group may thrive. It will be a damn hard job killing the lot of us - even for something as resourceful as the human race itself)
We CANNOT overcome our animal urges. NEVER. Don't try it. Which does not imply that we cannot be intelligent and civilized. But the animal in us wants to live and no technology can change that fact.
I don't like cities either. Who tells us that we need to live there? We tell it to ourselves, and probably we fail. We are not coming from a world of traffic noise, air pollution, overproduction, overarousal by all kinds of sensual stimulus. And I am sure that this life can destroy the human species on the long run. HOW do we know if we are made for this life, for this artificial Lebenswelt that we create for ourselves? Evolution is running slowly. This is the problem of tech: that we can totally adapt the environment to us. But what are we? We are living creatures that needed to adapt to the environment in the past. Never the other way round! How will we look like after many generations of as we live today. We are NOT going to look as we look today, and one thing is sure: Living in a world where every ressource is just some steps away, we will not live healthier. The huge thirst for energy is corresponding to this lifestyle, that Stanley Kubrick wants to critizise in "A Clockwork Orange".
So your view of disgusting cities - for me it's totally justified! And so your comment is less off-topic than one could think, because needing less energy to live will mean that we surround ourselves more with an environment that is healthy for us and the future generations. This goes hand in hand.
This kind of technical view is religious but is usually not called religion. Of course it is OK and important - especially for the poorer countries - to make power cheaper. But NEVER at all costs. The problem with renewable energies is that they need itself rare materials that will not be available for all times. We need a circular flow of recycable materials. The way companies are looking for cheap energy is predisposed to come to a dead-end, because they exploit materials that can be exhausted and so will cause new - global - conflicts.
So explain why it is a "religion".
I am looking at human nature and saying that you are not going to change it and therefore you are going to need to work around it.
"We need a circular flow of recycable materials" is a technical solution too. And perhaps is the right answer.
Then only thing I am saying is that this lovely green view of us all living in harmony with the planet is complete rubbish. Because it does not take into account human nature. Yes I agree that some people can live like that - some very well indeed. But you can not make all do so.
You also have a very fixed idea of what cheap energy involves: "because they exploit materials that can be exhausted". I had in mind things like photovoltaics, wind - I live surrounded in all directions by wind farms and there is an immense amount of investment going on, modern nuclear tech - have you seen Bill Gates talk on this?
This is not a dogmatic view. If you came to me and could show that you could genuinely do it in a different way without relying on mass education and changing the way people normally behave then cool - I'll be on board.
Your idea that my views are a religion is a dogma in itself
What is worse is that this is why we are likely to be more screwed than we should be this problem: for a lot of solutions they some how need to stop all of the other solutions because they don't match ideals. I am not advocating a single solution - I want as many people as possible trying. I am not even saying don't try to get everyone living in a sustainable way - I recycle, when I finally get round to buying a house I have every intention of having a crack at doing my own power generation. All I am saying is that any plan that involves changing the behaviour of every single human being on this planet is not going to work under any circumstances - and when the failure mode of that being your only plan is so serious then people need to be pointing this out.
I am looking at human nature and saying that you are not going to change it and therefore you are going to need to work around it.
"We need a circular flow of recycable materials" is a technical solution too. And perhaps is the right answer.
Then only thing I am saying is that this lovely green view of us all living in harmony with the planet is complete rubbish. Because it does not take into account human nature. Yes I agree that some people can live like that - some very well indeed. But you can not make all do so.
You also have a very fixed idea of what cheap energy involves: "because they exploit materials that can be exhausted". I had in mind things like photovoltaics, wind - I live surrounded in all directions by wind farms and there is an immense amount of investment going on, modern nuclear tech - have you seen Bill Gates talk on this?
This is not a dogmatic view. If you came to me and could show that you could genuinely do it in a different way without relying on mass education and changing the way people normally behave then cool - I'll be on board.
Your idea that my views are a religion is a dogma in itself
What is worse is that this is why we are likely to be more screwed than we should be this problem: for a lot of solutions they some how need to stop all of the other solutions because they don't match ideals. I am not advocating a single solution - I want as many people as possible trying. I am not even saying don't try to get everyone living in a sustainable way - I recycle, when I finally get round to buying a house I have every intention of having a crack at doing my own power generation. All I am saying is that any plan that involves changing the behaviour of every single human being on this planet is not going to work under any circumstances - and when the failure mode of that being your only plan is so serious then people need to be pointing this out.
The time of cheap power is over.
The challenge will be to have enough power at all.
The challenge will be to have enough power at all.
I'm not totally sure about that. There is a lot of investment in this area (albeit tossed and blown on the winds of political trends). Things like photovoltaics are only a few years off being viable on a large scale (at current levels of investment which turns out to be the biggest problem).
But I agree it's going to be a struggle and one that may go badly wrong for a while.
But the key thing here is that we have to get the knee jerk politics out of it. It doesn't matter if there is global warming or not because if we stay dependant on fossil fuels there are just going to be endless conflicts over the them, if the greens can persuade everyone in the whole world to live a life of abstinence that's cool - but we need to bet that they can't - because their failure mode is that we all die horribly.
But I agree it's going to be a struggle and one that may go badly wrong for a while.
But the key thing here is that we have to get the knee jerk politics out of it. It doesn't matter if there is global warming or not because if we stay dependant on fossil fuels there are just going to be endless conflicts over the them, if the greens can persuade everyone in the whole world to live a life of abstinence that's cool - but we need to bet that they can't - because their failure mode is that we all die horribly.
>>The time of cheap power is over.
The time of cheap oil seems to be over.
For the rest: You know that you don't know what will happen. So why do you make blanket statements like that?
For example: Some analysts claim that solar energy will solve all energy problems in ten years. Maybe some of the small fusion projects will work? Thorium? And so on.
Edit: Yeah, since Germany has panicked like a herd of cattle, the time limit is so short that there is very little to do. But the way the electricity prices will go, solar will become attractive earlier.
The time of cheap oil seems to be over.
For the rest: You know that you don't know what will happen. So why do you make blanket statements like that?
For example: Some analysts claim that solar energy will solve all energy problems in ten years. Maybe some of the small fusion projects will work? Thorium? And so on.
Edit: Yeah, since Germany has panicked like a herd of cattle, the time limit is so short that there is very little to do. But the way the electricity prices will go, solar will become attractive earlier.
That solar energy is cheap in ten years, does not mean that it is suddenly deployed everywhere. It will take decades to roll that out.
Germany plans to roll out the whole set of renewables (wind, hydro, solar, biomass, geothermal, ...) over the next FOURTY years to get from 16% (actually currently it may already be at 20%) near to 100%.
Thorium is providing a contribution to generating electricity in an amount worth mentioning when? In fifty years? Thirty? How many Thorium reactors will be online within the next ten years? One? Two? Three? That's nothing that would be contributing to the energy needs we have in 2020.
Germany plans to roll out the whole set of renewables (wind, hydro, solar, biomass, geothermal, ...) over the next FOURTY years to get from 16% (actually currently it may already be at 20%) near to 100%.
Thorium is providing a contribution to generating electricity in an amount worth mentioning when? In fifty years? Thirty? How many Thorium reactors will be online within the next ten years? One? Two? Three? That's nothing that would be contributing to the energy needs we have in 2020.
I agree. Computers used to be extremely expensive and unwieldy compared to other calculation devices. But they developed past that and their potential is mind-blowing.
A similar argument could be made for renewable energy technology.
We are (probably) willing to set aside places for Luddites to live. For now, you can go to North Korea or some other nice place without much energy use...
(Be careful when choosing, poor countries have lots of environmental destruction which they can't afford to clean -- it might be bad for your health.)
:-)
Edit: It is not a false dichotomy; I compared to the only known low-energy societies. My point is that there is no low energy using society, where anyone would want to live (except the local junta). (And the expensive alternative to nuclear is coal, which is arguably worse with its climate effects.)
(Be careful when choosing, poor countries have lots of environmental destruction which they can't afford to clean -- it might be bad for your health.)
:-)
Edit: It is not a false dichotomy; I compared to the only known low-energy societies. My point is that there is no low energy using society, where anyone would want to live (except the local junta). (And the expensive alternative to nuclear is coal, which is arguably worse with its climate effects.)
This is a false dichotomy. You need not choose between cheap energy and no energy, you can also have expensive energy, and I do not see how expensive energy implies North Korea.
(UPDATE: Although you can also have expensive energy that is unpleasant!)
(UPDATE: Although you can also have expensive energy that is unpleasant!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_n...
Table for figure 54 World power use by region, 1990–2008, TWh
Europe: 2857
US: 4533
pdf warning - albeit free of charge.
By your logic - europe is for luddites because it approaches half the consumption of the US per captita.
If you really are going to argue that Europe is a low energy society, sure... :-)
No, it's a place that's energy demands are lower, are growing at a lower rate, while offering a comparable standard of living. Why do you keep trying to make a false dichotomy? It's not a binary choice that has to be made.
Yes, the US system seems to have bad incentives and waste energy. At least, compared to Europe.
>>Why do you keep trying to make a false dichotomy?
I am not, you didn't read read what I argue against. :-)
I started by answering a comment by "Andi" above. He/She argued against growth and technical development. Which is just stupid, since pollution and energy use gets less with better economy/technology. (E.g., not so many decades ago there were no cleaning facilities on coal plants and no waste management for cities.)
>>Why do you keep trying to make a false dichotomy?
I am not, you didn't read read what I argue against. :-)
I started by answering a comment by "Andi" above. He/She argued against growth and technical development. Which is just stupid, since pollution and energy use gets less with better economy/technology. (E.g., not so many decades ago there were no cleaning facilities on coal plants and no waste management for cities.)
I read it a few times before I replied. Andi was making a comment about the costs of energy for us and for future generations. Andi was saying that ignoring the cost for future generations is typical behaviour of people "who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take." You are mistaking that as an argument against all future technical development. It's easy to see that better technology can be more efficient.
I disagree that pollution and energy use gets less with better economies and technology as a rule, even if there has been some progress as you mention.
EU, US and Asia are all guilty of creating percentage wise more pollution and using percentage wise more energy over the last ten years, have a look at the PDF.
Let me tell you a story about Sweden.
A few hundred years ago, they realised they would soon get low on trees suitable for critical parts of war ships. So they planted a lot of them. An early triumph of ecological resource awareness.
Those trees are ready about now, but won't be used for their original intent... :-)
Re nuclear waste -- it can always be made into a slurry pumped down into old oil wells. There is absolutely no connection to ground water, so it won't come back. (It is probably a bad idea, since there might be uses for it in a few decades.)
Quote I argue against: "who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take."
>>You are mistaking that as an argument against all future technical development.
It is really hard to read any other way than as a Luddite. In addition, I note that you made a claim -- but didn't present any other way of reading that sentence...
>>I disagree that pollution and energy use gets less with better economies and technology as a rule, even if there has been some progress as you mention
Go check some statistics for pollution for e.g. Northern Europe over the last 50-60 years. (Much less Mercury contaminants, waste water treatment, no low Ph rain, etc, etc.)
Less energy is used to create new units of GNP increase. Energy is used better. Some of that GNP is used to find alternative energy implementations.
A few hundred years ago, they realised they would soon get low on trees suitable for critical parts of war ships. So they planted a lot of them. An early triumph of ecological resource awareness.
Those trees are ready about now, but won't be used for their original intent... :-)
Re nuclear waste -- it can always be made into a slurry pumped down into old oil wells. There is absolutely no connection to ground water, so it won't come back. (It is probably a bad idea, since there might be uses for it in a few decades.)
Quote I argue against: "who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take."
>>You are mistaking that as an argument against all future technical development.
It is really hard to read any other way than as a Luddite. In addition, I note that you made a claim -- but didn't present any other way of reading that sentence...
>>I disagree that pollution and energy use gets less with better economies and technology as a rule, even if there has been some progress as you mention
Go check some statistics for pollution for e.g. Northern Europe over the last 50-60 years. (Much less Mercury contaminants, waste water treatment, no low Ph rain, etc, etc.)
Less energy is used to create new units of GNP increase. Energy is used better. Some of that GNP is used to find alternative energy implementations.
I appreciate the story about Sweden.
Andi said that ignoring the cost for future generations was the issue. He wasn't arguing against all technical progress. It's not just that one sentence I referred to, it's his entire comment. Perhaps the quotes confused you, they were there to give context.
Pumping nuclear waste down old oil wells is not enough, what if someone nasty decides to make plutonium? Storage will need to be guarded, keeping a list of what has been stored provides an incentive for terrorists but offers the possibility of future reuse.
Noted, go check some statistics for pollution during China's booming economy over the last twenty years, much worse in many regards. I refer you back to pdf I already linked for energy consumption.
There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology.
Andi said that ignoring the cost for future generations was the issue. He wasn't arguing against all technical progress. It's not just that one sentence I referred to, it's his entire comment. Perhaps the quotes confused you, they were there to give context.
Pumping nuclear waste down old oil wells is not enough, what if someone nasty decides to make plutonium? Storage will need to be guarded, keeping a list of what has been stored provides an incentive for terrorists but offers the possibility of future reuse.
Noted, go check some statistics for pollution during China's booming economy over the last twenty years, much worse in many regards. I refer you back to pdf I already linked for energy consumption.
There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology.
>>Andi said that ignoring the cost for future generations was the issue. He wasn't arguing against all technical progress. It's not just that one sentence I referred to, it's his entire comment
AGAIN, "In addition, I note that you made a claim -- but didn't present any other way of reading that sentence".
You just made another claim. If you want to show a thesis, then quote the relevant part and show it. Here is what he wrote:
>>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.
From the rest of his comments, where he seems to think that natural resources will disappear if they are used, he has no clue about anything. (Hint: People are mining scrap heaps, etc.) He was against cities -- where each individual use less land and resources than people living in the countryside (or maybe he just want to kill everyone in cities -- where are they going to go, otherwise?)
>>Pumping nuclear waste down old oil wells is not enough, what if someone nasty decides to make plutonium?
First, you changed the subject. I assume you yield on Andi's "point" about cost to future generations.
Second, nothing are going to stop e.g. Iran, Pakistan and North Korea from building nuclear power plants and getting bombs. That cat is out of the bag. So that is irrelevant.
>>There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies
Afaik, western societies pollute less and less over the last 50-60 years. I gave examples. (The energy use is increasing, but less and less for each additional unit of GNP.)
>>go check some statistics for pollution during China's booming economy over the last twenty years
When the economy reaches a certain level, countries start to invest in clean technology, etc. China has already started. The dirtiest phase is industrialisation -- it is still better than what was before.
AGAIN, "In addition, I note that you made a claim -- but didn't present any other way of reading that sentence".
You just made another claim. If you want to show a thesis, then quote the relevant part and show it. Here is what he wrote:
>>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.
From the rest of his comments, where he seems to think that natural resources will disappear if they are used, he has no clue about anything. (Hint: People are mining scrap heaps, etc.) He was against cities -- where each individual use less land and resources than people living in the countryside (or maybe he just want to kill everyone in cities -- where are they going to go, otherwise?)
>>Pumping nuclear waste down old oil wells is not enough, what if someone nasty decides to make plutonium?
First, you changed the subject. I assume you yield on Andi's "point" about cost to future generations.
Second, nothing are going to stop e.g. Iran, Pakistan and North Korea from building nuclear power plants and getting bombs. That cat is out of the bag. So that is irrelevant.
>>There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies
Afaik, western societies pollute less and less over the last 50-60 years. I gave examples. (The energy use is increasing, but less and less for each additional unit of GNP.)
>>go check some statistics for pollution during China's booming economy over the last twenty years
When the economy reaches a certain level, countries start to invest in clean technology, etc. China has already started. The dirtiest phase is industrialisation -- it is still better than what was before.
Thank you for your reply. I think we need to cut down on what we are talking about here because the focus is being lost.
First and foremost I will not yield on Andi's "point" about cost to future generations.
Second, you brought up nuclear waste disposal in oil wells as a hand waving suggestion. I had no intention of changing the subject. I should not have responded to this disposal comment. There is quite a concerted effort to stop the countries you mentioned achieving nuclear arms, and it may stop them, so it's not irrelevant to the oil well point. It should not be made easier for people to develop nuclear weapons grade plutonium. This whole oil well thread of conversation is irrelevant however, in my opinion. I suggest we drop this element of the conversation, because it will not lead anywhere fruitful, I believe.
To bring some focus to this discussion: you have said that I have made two separate claims. I made one single claim. The claim I continue to make is that: Andi said that ignoring the cost for future generations was the issue. He wasn't arguing against all technical progress. The second time I mentioned this, was as clarification to the claim.
Here is what he wrote:
>>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.
This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations. As I see it, that is the claim I am making, and that quote is the evidence to back up my claim. This is not a second or third claim, this is the claim I have been making all along.
If you could please, tell me what separate claims you think I am making.
I don't think you can make a rule out of the claim that western societies' pollution has decreased over the last 50-60 years. You've given an example, I've given counter examples, i.e. it is not a rule. We can get into an example war, where I can give more and more examples of pollution increase, and you can give more and more examples of pollution decrease, and there's no point in it. There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology.
Just because China has started to invest in clean technology (clean in some circumstances means nuclear, I assume you don't mean that), doesn't mean it's going to use it, and it doesn't mean it's pollution and energy usage will reduce. I've invested in pink socks, am I going to wear them?
I will read Andi's other comments now for better or worse. To reiterate: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Is that clear?
To bring some focus to this discussion: you have said that I have made two separate claims. I made one single claim. The claim I continue to make is that: Andi said that ignoring the cost for future generations was the issue. He wasn't arguing against all technical progress. The second time I mentioned this, was as clarification to the claim.
Here is what he wrote:
>>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.
This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations. As I see it, that is the claim I am making, and that quote is the evidence to back up my claim. This is not a second or third claim, this is the claim I have been making all along.
If you could please, tell me what separate claims you think I am making.
I don't think you can make a rule out of the claim that western societies' pollution has decreased over the last 50-60 years. You've given an example, I've given counter examples, i.e. it is not a rule. We can get into an example war, where I can give more and more examples of pollution increase, and you can give more and more examples of pollution decrease, and there's no point in it. There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology.
Just because China has started to invest in clean technology (clean in some circumstances means nuclear, I assume you don't mean that), doesn't mean it's going to use it, and it doesn't mean it's pollution and energy usage will reduce. I've invested in pink socks, am I going to wear them?
I will read Andi's other comments now for better or worse. To reiterate: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Is that clear?
[deleted]
The funny thing is that some of the German nuclear power plants are owned by the Swedish Company Vattenfall.
Two actually. They are currently off the grid due to technical problems.
They won't go online again. The Bundesregierung has just annouced that both Brunsbüttel and Krümmel will not go online again.
They won't go online again. The Bundesregierung has just annouced that both Brunsbüttel and Krümmel will not go online again.
What I suspect will happen is more power will be imported from nations that flagrantly pollute the environment.
The Chinese might be on to something with putting the engineers in charge. Sometimes the public really doesn't know what the fuck they're doing, and should be completely ignored.
The Chinese might be on to something with putting the engineers in charge. Sometimes the public really doesn't know what the fuck they're doing, and should be completely ignored.
China has stopped waterfront nuclear power station approvals:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-suspends-waterfront-n...
and suspended all other development: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/16/china.nuclea...
Don't believe everything the nuclear power fans tell you. Sometimes the engineers really do know what they are doing.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-suspends-waterfront-n...
and suspended all other development: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/16/china.nuclea...
Don't believe everything the nuclear power fans tell you. Sometimes the engineers really do know what they are doing.
They're halting approvals until the safety standards have been revised. That's hardly the same thing.
I don't think Germany is surrounded by countries that flagrantly pollute the environment.
What is more likely is that more power will be imported from France, which massively use nuclear energy (>75% of the national electricity production), and doesn't intend (so far) to move to something else.
What is more likely is that more power will be imported from France, which massively use nuclear energy (>75% of the national electricity production), and doesn't intend (so far) to move to something else.
Um, have you SEEN what goes on in Eastern Europe?
It's inefficient to carry electricity over long distances, so I don't see Germany buying energy from say Ukraine. That said it seems that Poland is big on coal and crude oil...
My point exactly. From what I understand, reliance on Poland's (exceedingly dirty) coal-burning capacity is a big part of Germany's plan to wean itself off nuclear power.
Have you spent any significant length of time in China?
> and should be completely ignored.
How about: "and should be educated" (from ground up).
How about: "and should be educated" (from ground up).
Ignored until they're educated.
Look at it from a different perspective: The engineers failed to convince society and have only themselves to blame.
Look on the bright side! :-)
German coal plants have better cleaning after DDR, so the extra German coal plants won't generate lots of environmental problems with acidic rain over Sweden...
German coal plants have better cleaning after DDR, so the extra German coal plants won't generate lots of environmental problems with acidic rain over Sweden...
Germany is a leader in solar power. They installed more panels last year than the rest of the world combined. They generate more electricity from solar than Fukushima did. If they can further establish themselves as leaders and experts in new-energy, it'll make them even more disproportionally well positioned to most of Europe.
However, it's a shame they see no future in nuclear. Seems like they are betting against something we've just scratched the surface of (my money is on Thorium)..for the wrong reasons. The damage from the oil and coal that they burn is far worse.
However, it's a shame they see no future in nuclear. Seems like they are betting against something we've just scratched the surface of (my money is on Thorium)..for the wrong reasons. The damage from the oil and coal that they burn is far worse.
The problem with wind and solar energy is that you can't plan for when you need power, and you can't feasibly store large amounts of electricity. This means that wind and solar can't be the primary powersource, at least until the storage problem is solved which doesn't seem to be on the horizon.
On windy sunny days you'll have too much electricity and on windless nights you won't have enough.
There's a EU project underway to scale up powerlines so that electricity can be moved across the EU as needed. The thinking is that it's always windy somewhere, and though you can't store electricity you can move it without too much loss. So if the wind is blowing in Portugal they can export theis excess power to a windless Denmark and vice versa.
On windy sunny days you'll have too much electricity and on windless nights you won't have enough.
There's a EU project underway to scale up powerlines so that electricity can be moved across the EU as needed. The thinking is that it's always windy somewhere, and though you can't store electricity you can move it without too much loss. So if the wind is blowing in Portugal they can export theis excess power to a windless Denmark and vice versa.
Actually, MIT solved the storage problem 2 years ago. It's just got to make it's way to market: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
Very interesting article. Unfortunately there's usually a long way from the lab to industrial production, but of course if you don't try you won't succeed.
There are huge electr. pumped storage hydro power stations in use in Austria und Switzerland for decades...
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpspeicherkraftwerk#.C3.96ste...
Also smart grids (trinding price due to current demand and consumption and intelligent consumer hardware automatically controlled by this price) are emerging.
Also the weather forecast and therefore solar and wind energy producing forecast for the next 24 hours is very accurate nowadays. Far-sighted and intelligent planning of the energy-mix in the smart grid is therefore possible.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpspeicherkraftwerk#.C3.96ste...
Also smart grids (trinding price due to current demand and consumption and intelligent consumer hardware automatically controlled by this price) are emerging.
Also the weather forecast and therefore solar and wind energy producing forecast for the next 24 hours is very accurate nowadays. Far-sighted and intelligent planning of the energy-mix in the smart grid is therefore possible.
Also smart grids (trinding price due to current demand and consumption and intelligent consumer hardware automatically controlled by this price) are emerging.
Sounds terrible. Can you imagine half the lights in your house automatically turning off due to price increases? If it's enforced on people then it's basically rolling brownouts. If it's optional people will leave the lights on, pay more and grumble, but you'll still to generate the electricity (unless you do rolling brownouts).
Sounds terrible. Can you imagine half the lights in your house automatically turning off due to price increases? If it's enforced on people then it's basically rolling brownouts. If it's optional people will leave the lights on, pay more and grumble, but you'll still to generate the electricity (unless you do rolling brownouts).
My washing machine or dish washer is programmable at the moment. They often wash in the night. I don't mind when they are washing given them a target finishing time. My 2 thermal heat pumps for hot water and heating could easily take the price into their on/off calculations without any nuisance. They just store the heat energy in the house / water bowl when electric is cheap. If I am going to buy an electric car or a plug hybrid, I don't mind when it is charging, I just want that the batteries are full at 7 am. There is a lot of room for intelligence in our energy consumption.
Owning my own battery buffer could also become profitable.
The volatile wholesale price is there at the moment, what is missing is a volatile consumer price and an XML / JSON whatever webservice with the current price information and some WIFI chips and logic in my hardware. Not a big deal actually.
The volatile wholesale price is there at the moment, what is missing is a volatile consumer price and an XML / JSON whatever webservice with the current price information and some WIFI chips and logic in my hardware. Not a big deal actually.
Germany is currently planning to build two HVDC (High-Voltage Direct Current) lines to Norway. They will provide us here in North Germany with Hydro backup.
There is a lot of research going on in new storage systems.
In solar thermal power plants, there is already storage.
It is not that Germany switches over night to renewable. The shutdown process of the nuclear power plants will take ten years. The plan for the 100% deployment of renewable energy has a target of 2050.
Without a goal, nothing will happen. Germany sets a goal and the framework to reach it.
There is a lot of research going on in new storage systems.
In solar thermal power plants, there is already storage.
It is not that Germany switches over night to renewable. The shutdown process of the nuclear power plants will take ten years. The plan for the 100% deployment of renewable energy has a target of 2050.
Without a goal, nothing will happen. Germany sets a goal and the framework to reach it.
Who in Germany has those plans!? No one. Norway proposed them to Germany, to the Netherlands and Great Britain. None of these HVDC are currently even close to be projected.
Of course, they'd be glad if Germans elect a Government that will force it's citizens to buy the luxury of clean norwegian energy.
Of course, they'd be glad if Germans elect a Government that will force it's citizens to buy the luxury of clean norwegian energy.
Oh, yeah?
Funky. The German regulation authorities then seem to have given permission to a project that nobody plans, nobody has heard of, does not exist? Please inform them of your findings.
Hamburg Abendblatt, November 2010:
>NETZAGENTUR GENEHMIGT STROMLEITUNG
>Deutschland und Norwegen vernetzen sich
>Das 600 Kilometer lange Unterseekabel soll Netztschwankungen der beiden Länder ausgeichen. Nur die EU-Kommisssion könnte widersprechen.
> Das 600 Kilometer lange Unterseekabel soll Netzschwankungen aus der norwegischen Wasser- und deutschen Windkraft ausgleichen.
>BONN/HANNOVER. Deutschland und Norwegen vernetzen sich: Die Bundesnetzagentur hat den Weg für eine direkte Stromverbindung zwischen Deutschland und Norwegen durch die Nordsee frei gemacht. Das Konsortium NorGer erhielt am Donnerstag eine Ausnahmegenehmigung der Bonner Behörde. Sie befreit das Projekt damit von bestimmten Vorschriften zur Regulierung des Energiemarkts. Agenturchef Matthias Kurth nannte die Entscheidung ein „positives Signal für die Integration erneuerbarer Energien“.
>Eine Funktion des 600 Kilometer langen Unterseekabels wird es sein, Netzschwankungen aus der norwegischen Wasser- und deutschen Windkraft auszugleichen. Niedersachsens Umweltminister Hans-Heinrich Sander (FDP) lobte den Beschluss: „Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass die Verbindungsleitung eine sinnvolle Ergänzung zum landseitigen Netzausbau darstellt.“ Das Kabel soll ab 2015 von Flekkefjord an der norwegischen Südküste über den Meeresgrund bis an die ostfriesische Küste führen. Für den deutschen Abschnitt wurde bereits im Mai ein Raumordnungsverfahren gestartet. Der innereuropäische Stromhandel wird nach Einschätzung Kurths von der deutsch-norwegischen Direktverbindung profitieren. Die Gleichstrom-Leitung leiste „einen wichtigen Beitrag für die Marktintegration“. Eine Voraussetzung für die Befreiung von den üblichen Bestimmungen zum Netzanschluss und -zugang sei gewesen, dass sich das Projekt insgesamt positiv auf den Stromwettbewerb auswirkt. Das Bundeskartellamt sprach sich ebenfalls für eine Genehmigung aus. Zwar könne die EU-Kommission als oberste europäische Wettbewerbsbehörde bis Ende Februar noch Einwände erheben, sagte Kurth. „Ich gehe aber davon aus, dass dieses grenzüberschreitende Projekt auch von ihr unterstützt wird.“ Norwegen ist kein EU- Mitglied, gehört jedoch zur Europäischen Freihandelszone EFTA. Das Konsortium NorGer umfasst die norwegischen Unternehmen Agder Energi AS, Lyse Produksjon AS und Statnett SF sowie die Schweizer Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft Laufenburg AG.
Funky. The German regulation authorities then seem to have given permission to a project that nobody plans, nobody has heard of, does not exist? Please inform them of your findings.
Hamburg Abendblatt, November 2010:
>NETZAGENTUR GENEHMIGT STROMLEITUNG
>Deutschland und Norwegen vernetzen sich
>Das 600 Kilometer lange Unterseekabel soll Netztschwankungen der beiden Länder ausgeichen. Nur die EU-Kommisssion könnte widersprechen.
> Das 600 Kilometer lange Unterseekabel soll Netzschwankungen aus der norwegischen Wasser- und deutschen Windkraft ausgleichen.
>BONN/HANNOVER. Deutschland und Norwegen vernetzen sich: Die Bundesnetzagentur hat den Weg für eine direkte Stromverbindung zwischen Deutschland und Norwegen durch die Nordsee frei gemacht. Das Konsortium NorGer erhielt am Donnerstag eine Ausnahmegenehmigung der Bonner Behörde. Sie befreit das Projekt damit von bestimmten Vorschriften zur Regulierung des Energiemarkts. Agenturchef Matthias Kurth nannte die Entscheidung ein „positives Signal für die Integration erneuerbarer Energien“.
>Eine Funktion des 600 Kilometer langen Unterseekabels wird es sein, Netzschwankungen aus der norwegischen Wasser- und deutschen Windkraft auszugleichen. Niedersachsens Umweltminister Hans-Heinrich Sander (FDP) lobte den Beschluss: „Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass die Verbindungsleitung eine sinnvolle Ergänzung zum landseitigen Netzausbau darstellt.“ Das Kabel soll ab 2015 von Flekkefjord an der norwegischen Südküste über den Meeresgrund bis an die ostfriesische Küste führen. Für den deutschen Abschnitt wurde bereits im Mai ein Raumordnungsverfahren gestartet. Der innereuropäische Stromhandel wird nach Einschätzung Kurths von der deutsch-norwegischen Direktverbindung profitieren. Die Gleichstrom-Leitung leiste „einen wichtigen Beitrag für die Marktintegration“. Eine Voraussetzung für die Befreiung von den üblichen Bestimmungen zum Netzanschluss und -zugang sei gewesen, dass sich das Projekt insgesamt positiv auf den Stromwettbewerb auswirkt. Das Bundeskartellamt sprach sich ebenfalls für eine Genehmigung aus. Zwar könne die EU-Kommission als oberste europäische Wettbewerbsbehörde bis Ende Februar noch Einwände erheben, sagte Kurth. „Ich gehe aber davon aus, dass dieses grenzüberschreitende Projekt auch von ihr unterstützt wird.“ Norwegen ist kein EU- Mitglied, gehört jedoch zur Europäischen Freihandelszone EFTA. Das Konsortium NorGer umfasst die norwegischen Unternehmen Agder Energi AS, Lyse Produksjon AS und Statnett SF sowie die Schweizer Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft Laufenburg AG.
wow. there seems to be a lot of development in this project since the last time I checked. you've got me!
Seems like they used some dirty tricks themselves even though it wasn't needed (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorGer#Gesetzliche_Rahmenbeding...). After all, what else are we to do if we cut off the nuclear plants? We have to import energy.
Seems like they used some dirty tricks themselves even though it wasn't needed (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorGer#Gesetzliche_Rahmenbeding...). After all, what else are we to do if we cut off the nuclear plants? We have to import energy.
We import energy all the time. Wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, some hydro are actually produced locally.
I don't think there is a physical law that says you can not store energy.
> They generate more electricity from solar than Fukushima did.
The problem is that a country requires many Fukushimas (in Germany's case, 17). If renewables cannot fill the gap left by shutting down nuclear, you'll have to import your electricity from other countries generating it by the very method you phased out, or by even worse methods like coal. Being the leader in renewables doesn't change this fact.
> Seems like they are betting against something...
Political decisions are rarely that longsighted. One can hope, though.
The problem is that a country requires many Fukushimas (in Germany's case, 17). If renewables cannot fill the gap left by shutting down nuclear, you'll have to import your electricity from other countries generating it by the very method you phased out, or by even worse methods like coal. Being the leader in renewables doesn't change this fact.
> Seems like they are betting against something...
Political decisions are rarely that longsighted. One can hope, though.
I'm not saying there isn't a problem with their plan. Just trying to point out that of all the countries who could pull it off, Germany would probably be my first pick.
And it isn't just because of solar...they have aggressive energy goals in place already (some before 2022) which makes me think that Germany has an energy plan the likes of which I never saw while in Canada..and certainly not now that I'm in Asia.
And it isn't just because of solar...they have aggressive energy goals in place already (some before 2022) which makes me think that Germany has an energy plan the likes of which I never saw while in Canada..and certainly not now that I'm in Asia.
Germany are definitely on the right track. I just believe this policy has nothing to do with it, unless you can argue that nuclear is worse than coal, or that importing electricity from nuclear-powered countries achieves something that domestic production does not.
Fukushima I was a site with SIX reactors. German nuclear sites are usually smaller.
Off these 17 German reactors currently 13 are off the grid.
Germany has had an overcapacity and was a net exporter of electricity.
It is also no longer that electricity is bound to countries here in Germany. We have a Europe wide market and electricity is imported based on needs and price. If electricity is cheaper somewhere, we may import that. When our wind parks flood the grid, we have to lower the price and export that.
Off these 17 German reactors currently 13 are off the grid.
Germany has had an overcapacity and was a net exporter of electricity.
It is also no longer that electricity is bound to countries here in Germany. We have a Europe wide market and electricity is imported based on needs and price. If electricity is cheaper somewhere, we may import that. When our wind parks flood the grid, we have to lower the price and export that.
> Off these 17 German reactors currently 13 are off the grid.
A significant number were pulled off the grid in the wake of Fukushima. So while it's true they had an overcapacity, it's not the case anymore. [1] How quickly can renewables close that gap? And does renewables provide for cheap electricity? If you're importing based on price, it's not coming from wind or solar. So where exactly is the environmental benefit, other than to make it someone else's problem (i.e. getting France to hide away more spent fuel rods)?
Being an exporter with renewables is definitely a matter of 'when'. It's foolish to pretend the years between now and then don't exist, they have consequences too.
[1] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Germany-net-energy-importer-ap...
A significant number were pulled off the grid in the wake of Fukushima. So while it's true they had an overcapacity, it's not the case anymore. [1] How quickly can renewables close that gap? And does renewables provide for cheap electricity? If you're importing based on price, it's not coming from wind or solar. So where exactly is the environmental benefit, other than to make it someone else's problem (i.e. getting France to hide away more spent fuel rods)?
Being an exporter with renewables is definitely a matter of 'when'. It's foolish to pretend the years between now and then don't exist, they have consequences too.
[1] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Germany-net-energy-importer-ap...
You are aware that several of the nuclear power plants will be brought online again?
You are also aware that the phase out time is TEN years?
In the last ten years we have added ten percent renewable energy as a new source and jump started a new industry with several hundred thousand jobs.
I'm pretty sure that in ten years we can build new capacity to replace the remaining nuclear reactors.
Actually there are several reports from German Universities and research institutions which all agree that this is possible.
What you cite from Yahoo is old news. The Nuclear Industry was happily publishing this. But the case is that
a) some of the nuclear power plants will be brought back, so there is no power shortage. The phase out will be done in about ten years.
b) Germany always imports nuclear power, since there is a free energy market. Germany also exports all kinds of electricity (nuclear, coal, wind, ...).
c) the providers of Nuclear power fear their loss of market power. They are large monopolists which try to prevent competition. There are many smaller providers waiting with their investments, keen to replace them where and when possible.
You are also aware that the phase out time is TEN years?
In the last ten years we have added ten percent renewable energy as a new source and jump started a new industry with several hundred thousand jobs.
I'm pretty sure that in ten years we can build new capacity to replace the remaining nuclear reactors.
Actually there are several reports from German Universities and research institutions which all agree that this is possible.
What you cite from Yahoo is old news. The Nuclear Industry was happily publishing this. But the case is that
a) some of the nuclear power plants will be brought back, so there is no power shortage. The phase out will be done in about ten years.
b) Germany always imports nuclear power, since there is a free energy market. Germany also exports all kinds of electricity (nuclear, coal, wind, ...).
c) the providers of Nuclear power fear their loss of market power. They are large monopolists which try to prevent competition. There are many smaller providers waiting with their investments, keen to replace them where and when possible.
Germany is also one of the main suppliers for regenerating power technologies. So they do have an industry branch that benefits from that move.
Highly subsidized industry. Everytime the government tries to reduce the subsidies, our glorious greentech-companies are near bankcrupcy. [ http://boerse.ard.de/content.jsp?key=dokument_533948 = "German solar panel companies loose millions" ]
Compare that to the fate of Tepco. How much was the government give them to survive?
Closing nuclear powerplants early makes for a self-fulfilling prophecy as well, unfortunately.
The only solid argument against nuclear goes along the lines, ``nuclear power is too expensive because of the costs of disposal of wastes''.
Thing is, in normal operation the cost is amortized year by year. Normal life of a nuclear plant is a few decades; say 30 years. Could be longer, but the technological progress is so fast it just makes sensible to replace hardware before it's completely worn down.
But it becomes a hefty one-time fee if the plants are closed mid-life. The overall costs barely go down. The difference in amount of waste is small -- because large portion of nuclear wastes stems from decommissioning of the plant itself. The spent fuel itself is not that much. [1]
And the headlines in press go, ``See? It's too expensive''.
----
[1] been touring recently a nuclear powerplant in Greifswald, Germany, that undergoes decommissioning right now. Most of the waste is NOT the fuel, but infrastructure of the plant (granted, it was built with old technology).
The only solid argument against nuclear goes along the lines, ``nuclear power is too expensive because of the costs of disposal of wastes''.
Thing is, in normal operation the cost is amortized year by year. Normal life of a nuclear plant is a few decades; say 30 years. Could be longer, but the technological progress is so fast it just makes sensible to replace hardware before it's completely worn down.
But it becomes a hefty one-time fee if the plants are closed mid-life. The overall costs barely go down. The difference in amount of waste is small -- because large portion of nuclear wastes stems from decommissioning of the plant itself. The spent fuel itself is not that much. [1]
And the headlines in press go, ``See? It's too expensive''.
----
[1] been touring recently a nuclear powerplant in Greifswald, Germany, that undergoes decommissioning right now. Most of the waste is NOT the fuel, but infrastructure of the plant (granted, it was built with old technology).
Sorry to repost this (I used it in a reply above) but spent fuel is not the only waste produced by a plant: http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/w/waste-radioac...
There are many solid arguments against nuclear power.
The waste from the infrastructure might be large in volume, but most of it is not that dangerous - compared to the fuel and the chemicals that are used in (re)processing the fuel.
The waste from the infrastructure might be large in volume, but most of it is not that dangerous - compared to the fuel and the chemicals that are used in (re)processing the fuel.
> The only solid argument against nuclear goes along the lines,
The main argument against nuclear goes that it creates a dangerous set of problems that must be handled over many human lifetimes. People simply cannot do that.
In fact, it's a little ridiculous to safely assume your successors perhaps 100 years hence will have the means to shut down a plant and safely store all the waste. What if things have gone all Mad Max? What if the financial condition of the nation happens to be worse than Greece, but theres this massively capital intensive need to decommission several plants that are now quite dangerous? Heck, what if there's a financial crisis only ten years after the thing is built and all the people who keep it running safely aren't getting paid?
Nuclear is definitely taking a dump on the grandkids, so to speak.
The main argument against nuclear goes that it creates a dangerous set of problems that must be handled over many human lifetimes. People simply cannot do that.
In fact, it's a little ridiculous to safely assume your successors perhaps 100 years hence will have the means to shut down a plant and safely store all the waste. What if things have gone all Mad Max? What if the financial condition of the nation happens to be worse than Greece, but theres this massively capital intensive need to decommission several plants that are now quite dangerous? Heck, what if there's a financial crisis only ten years after the thing is built and all the people who keep it running safely aren't getting paid?
Nuclear is definitely taking a dump on the grandkids, so to speak.
If things have gone Mad Max I could care less about the decommissioning of power plants.
In all other cases, it is reasonable for other countries and NGOs to pool in to avoid a nuclear disaster - much like they've done with dangerous facilities in other poor countries, e.g. toxic waste dump cleaning, etc.
In all other cases, it is reasonable for other countries and NGOs to pool in to avoid a nuclear disaster - much like they've done with dangerous facilities in other poor countries, e.g. toxic waste dump cleaning, etc.
Somalia is closer to Waterworld than Mad Max I will grant you however it is not as if the international community has leapt to their aid in the manner you describe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4312553.stm
"Tsunami waves could have spread illegally dumped nuclear waste and other toxic waste on Somalia's coast, a United Nations spokesman has said."
Throughout the whole article no mention of any specific alternatives to be used? 23% is a big amount to make up to.
A relevant TED talk by Bill Gates (Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero): http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
In short, the most viable option currently, in his opinion, is the thorium reactors. Current uranium reactors can be converted to work with thorium.
"The main point of using thorium, in addition to the proliferation issues with uranium, is that there is 10 fold amount of it available compared to Uranium. If you take into account also the fact that we only use uranium-235 in our nuclear reactors, and this consitutes only 0.7% of the total amount of uranium, the increase is 100 fold.
Thorium reactors also operate by burning uranium. This is created from thorium by bombarding it with neutrons. This forms uranium 232, which is highly radioactive and is hence hard to deal. This is why U232 can't be used for nuclear weapons, it's hard to handle."
A relevant TED talk by Bill Gates (Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero): http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
In short, the most viable option currently, in his opinion, is the thorium reactors. Current uranium reactors can be converted to work with thorium.
"The main point of using thorium, in addition to the proliferation issues with uranium, is that there is 10 fold amount of it available compared to Uranium. If you take into account also the fact that we only use uranium-235 in our nuclear reactors, and this consitutes only 0.7% of the total amount of uranium, the increase is 100 fold.
Thorium reactors also operate by burning uranium. This is created from thorium by bombarding it with neutrons. This forms uranium 232, which is highly radioactive and is hence hard to deal. This is why U232 can't be used for nuclear weapons, it's hard to handle."
Germany does not want a different form of nuclear power. Nuclear power is no option.
The goal is to develop renewable energy to 100% over the next 40 years.
The goal is to develop renewable energy to 100% over the next 40 years.
Don't take this the wrong way, but when the scientists or the government set an ambitious goal like this, that are 4 decades away. It usually means that currently we have no clue how to go about solving it and hopefully our successors will figure it out.
As Bill Gates explains the current renewable technology is not viable. This is because of various reasons, such as low ratio of energy invested vs energy returned, instability (eg. what you do when the wind is not blowing?), requirements for a possible site, et cetera.. I fully agree that it should be the long term goal to switch over to renewable energy, but with current technology it is out of reach. Therefore we a need a stepping stone that the nuclear energy can provide us with.
It is too early to go all in.
As Bill Gates explains the current renewable technology is not viable. This is because of various reasons, such as low ratio of energy invested vs energy returned, instability (eg. what you do when the wind is not blowing?), requirements for a possible site, et cetera.. I fully agree that it should be the long term goal to switch over to renewable energy, but with current technology it is out of reach. Therefore we a need a stepping stone that the nuclear energy can provide us with.
It is too early to go all in.
You are on a discussion level of ten years ago.
All the questions you mention have been discussed for a full decade here. Numerous research institutes have been working on that for a decade. Several plans have been proposed and discussed. As a first step Germany has jump started its renewable energy industry a decade ago. We moved from 6 to 16% during that decade and now have several hundred thousand employees in that industry, numerous small and medium companies, numerous research institutes, ... we are already exporting a lot of that technology. It is expected that in a few years this industry will be larger than our automotive industry.
Our government actually does something for the tax payer money:
Read it here:
http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/47124/3860/
Renewables' contribution to energy supply in Germany continued to rise in 2010
17 percent share of electricity supply 370,000 employees in the sector
The share of renewable energies in Germany's electricity supply rose further in 2010. At 17 percent, the share was about half a percentage point higher than the previous year. These are the preliminary results calculated by the Working Group on Renewable Energy Statistics (AGEE-Stat) for the Federal Environment Ministry. This growth was achieved in spite of the sector being hampered by adverse weather conditions. As there was very little wind in 2010, the wind power yield of 36.5 billion kilowatt hours (KWh) was the lowest since 2006. Even so, wind energy remained the key pillar of renewables, with around a 6 percent share of the total electricity supply. Clear increases were recorded for electricity generation from biogas and the photovoltaic sector. Solar power almost doubled its contribution, covering around 2 percent of total electricity demand.
Current scenarios show that in just ten years, renewables can cover 40 percent of Germany's electricity supply. An increase of 12 terawatt hours (TWh) per year is considered realistic. (1 terawatt hour = 1 billion kWh).
The renewables' share in total final energy consumption for heat rose from 9.1 percent in 2009 to just under 10 percent in 2010. The renewables' share in fuel consumption rose slightly to an estimated 5.8 percent (2009: 5.5 percent).
Overall, in 2010 renewables covered around 11 percent of Germany's total final energy consumption for electricity, heat and fuels. This is significantly higher than the previous year (2009: 10.4 percent) and is remarkable because energy consumption was considerably higher than in 2009, due to both the economic recovery and the cold weather.
Renewables also increased their contribution to climate protection. In 2010, around 120 million tonnes of greenhouse gases were avoided through the use of renewable energies (2009: 111 million tonnes). Around 58 million tonnes of these savings can be attributed to the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) alone.
The figures prove that renewable energies were able to keep pace with the economic recovery and continue their trend of a steadily growing share in our energy supply.
Alongside this, renewable energies also gained importance as an economic factor. Initial estimates for the BMU show that, at around 26 billion euros, investments in renewable energy installations were around one quarter higher than in 2009 (20.7 billion euros).
This development is reflected in the employment figures linked to the expansion of renewables. Last year, employment in renewables rose again and latest estimates show there are now around 370,000 jobs in the sector. This is an increase of around 8 percent compared to the previous year (around 339,500 jobs), and well over twice the number of jobs in 2004 (160,500).
All the questions you mention have been discussed for a full decade here. Numerous research institutes have been working on that for a decade. Several plans have been proposed and discussed. As a first step Germany has jump started its renewable energy industry a decade ago. We moved from 6 to 16% during that decade and now have several hundred thousand employees in that industry, numerous small and medium companies, numerous research institutes, ... we are already exporting a lot of that technology. It is expected that in a few years this industry will be larger than our automotive industry.
Our government actually does something for the tax payer money:
Read it here:
http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/47124/3860/
Renewables' contribution to energy supply in Germany continued to rise in 2010
17 percent share of electricity supply 370,000 employees in the sector
The share of renewable energies in Germany's electricity supply rose further in 2010. At 17 percent, the share was about half a percentage point higher than the previous year. These are the preliminary results calculated by the Working Group on Renewable Energy Statistics (AGEE-Stat) for the Federal Environment Ministry. This growth was achieved in spite of the sector being hampered by adverse weather conditions. As there was very little wind in 2010, the wind power yield of 36.5 billion kilowatt hours (KWh) was the lowest since 2006. Even so, wind energy remained the key pillar of renewables, with around a 6 percent share of the total electricity supply. Clear increases were recorded for electricity generation from biogas and the photovoltaic sector. Solar power almost doubled its contribution, covering around 2 percent of total electricity demand.
Current scenarios show that in just ten years, renewables can cover 40 percent of Germany's electricity supply. An increase of 12 terawatt hours (TWh) per year is considered realistic. (1 terawatt hour = 1 billion kWh).
The renewables' share in total final energy consumption for heat rose from 9.1 percent in 2009 to just under 10 percent in 2010. The renewables' share in fuel consumption rose slightly to an estimated 5.8 percent (2009: 5.5 percent).
Overall, in 2010 renewables covered around 11 percent of Germany's total final energy consumption for electricity, heat and fuels. This is significantly higher than the previous year (2009: 10.4 percent) and is remarkable because energy consumption was considerably higher than in 2009, due to both the economic recovery and the cold weather.
Renewables also increased their contribution to climate protection. In 2010, around 120 million tonnes of greenhouse gases were avoided through the use of renewable energies (2009: 111 million tonnes). Around 58 million tonnes of these savings can be attributed to the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) alone.
The figures prove that renewable energies were able to keep pace with the economic recovery and continue their trend of a steadily growing share in our energy supply.
Alongside this, renewable energies also gained importance as an economic factor. Initial estimates for the BMU show that, at around 26 billion euros, investments in renewable energy installations were around one quarter higher than in 2009 (20.7 billion euros).
This development is reflected in the employment figures linked to the expansion of renewables. Last year, employment in renewables rose again and latest estimates show there are now around 370,000 jobs in the sector. This is an increase of around 8 percent compared to the previous year (around 339,500 jobs), and well over twice the number of jobs in 2004 (160,500).
These numbers show the point I'm trying to make here. The resources currently occupied in putting the current inefficient technology to use could be instead used in R&D to develop the next generation solutions faster. During this period of time nuclear reactors (or thorium reactors in the future) could provide a fairly clean and stable source of energy until viable renewable alternatives are found.
There is little inefficiency.
Thorium reactors won't provide any sizeable contribution until 2050. Plus then we go the nuclear route, but again differently. Germany tried already:
* boiling water reactor * pressurized water reactor * Thorium pebble bed reactor * Fast Breeder
and more
enough is enough
Nobody wants a Thorium reactor in Germany. We had one already. It failed.
Thorium reactors won't provide any sizeable contribution until 2050. Plus then we go the nuclear route, but again differently. Germany tried already:
* boiling water reactor * pressurized water reactor * Thorium pebble bed reactor * Fast Breeder
and more
enough is enough
Nobody wants a Thorium reactor in Germany. We had one already. It failed.
Let's see how long this decision holds up, In 2000 they decided to switch off old plants by 2011 (labor+green party). This was anulled by end of 2010 by the conservatives. Only because of Fukushima (and pending elections) did they anull this again. The green party has been winning in the last elections since Fukushima, and the ruling conservatives have lost ground. This is their opportunistic way of trying to avoid becoming meaningless.
In 5 years, energy prices will be high, Fukushima will be forgotten, new reactor designs may be available (pushed by Chinese who will have to depend on nuclear?) Let's see what happens then.
In 5 years, energy prices will be high, Fukushima will be forgotten, new reactor designs may be available (pushed by Chinese who will have to depend on nuclear?) Let's see what happens then.
In five years renewable energy will be MORE competitive, not less.
The government decision to increase the life time of the nuclear power plant was highly unpopular. In the German society the majority of people were ten years ago already in favor for the shutdown. You can bet that the next government will not have the FDP and CDU in power and that the move to renewable energy has broad support even then.
The government decision to increase the life time of the nuclear power plant was highly unpopular. In the German society the majority of people were ten years ago already in favor for the shutdown. You can bet that the next government will not have the FDP and CDU in power and that the move to renewable energy has broad support even then.
That's more than 11 years to complete this task. Who can predict what will happen after 11 years? Generating electricity from nuclear fusion may be possible. Or we may move our nuclear plants to the moon.
We shouldn't ignore the fact that 70% of France's energy consumption is backed by nuclear plants, and this makes France one of the cleanest country in terms of energy consumption in the world.
I just don't understand why people are so hesitant to invest in nuclear energy, which is extremely cheap, infinitely available, non-polluting and moderately safe (burning coals may emit radioactive materials directly to the air).
Nuclear energy won't kill thousands of people underground (like coal), nor will it kill tens of thousands of bird (like wind mills). It also doesn't trap heat (like what solar panel does to retain all the heat), or emit greenhouse gases.
It seems that nuclear energy is an ideal energy source for the future. We should spend more time and money to find out better ways (like fusion) to build nuclear plants instead of worrying about the rare accidents (in terms of death per watt, I don't think nuclear energy is going to lose out).
We shouldn't ignore the fact that 70% of France's energy consumption is backed by nuclear plants, and this makes France one of the cleanest country in terms of energy consumption in the world.
I just don't understand why people are so hesitant to invest in nuclear energy, which is extremely cheap, infinitely available, non-polluting and moderately safe (burning coals may emit radioactive materials directly to the air).
Nuclear energy won't kill thousands of people underground (like coal), nor will it kill tens of thousands of bird (like wind mills). It also doesn't trap heat (like what solar panel does to retain all the heat), or emit greenhouse gases.
It seems that nuclear energy is an ideal energy source for the future. We should spend more time and money to find out better ways (like fusion) to build nuclear plants instead of worrying about the rare accidents (in terms of death per watt, I don't think nuclear energy is going to lose out).
It's not infinitely available, you could not run the whole world on it. You'd have to build a plant per day for (IIRC) 20 years, and since that's their lifespan, you'd just keep on decommissioning and building plants. And, if you were using them for all the world's energy, you'd quickly run out of Uranium. So, no.
That's more than 11 years to complete this task. Who can predict what will happen after 11 years? Generating electricity from nuclear fusion may be possible. Or we may move our nuclear plants to the moon
Or, far more likely, we'll still be burning coal.
Hey, it's no skin off my nose, I'm an Australian. If the Germans wanna quit importing our uranium and start importing our coal instead then that's cool, I just think the German greens are gonna wind up looking pretty stupid when they suddenly need to build fifty new coal power plants by 2011.
Or, far more likely, we'll still be burning coal.
Hey, it's no skin off my nose, I'm an Australian. If the Germans wanna quit importing our uranium and start importing our coal instead then that's cool, I just think the German greens are gonna wind up looking pretty stupid when they suddenly need to build fifty new coal power plants by 2011.
I don't think anybody here in Germany would call the nuclear industry 'clean'. That's a french marketing term nobody believes here.
Sorry for this rant, but we germans are rather stupid by going down that road. we keep saying that the costs of renewable energies have gone down, but thats only due to massive subsidies.
Thanks to fukushima the green party is like a political Steve Jobs on steroids right now: they can promote whatever dumb legislation and nobody questions it. nobody talks about the coal plants that we gonna need to supplement this. it's astonishingly dumb of my people.
but as we germans have almost no economical education classes in our schools, we're easily fooled. as long as it sounds nice (i.e. humane, ecological, responsible, sustainable blah blah) anyone who calls for soundness is comitting political suicide.
Thanks to fukushima the green party is like a political Steve Jobs on steroids right now: they can promote whatever dumb legislation and nobody questions it. nobody talks about the coal plants that we gonna need to supplement this. it's astonishingly dumb of my people.
but as we germans have almost no economical education classes in our schools, we're easily fooled. as long as it sounds nice (i.e. humane, ecological, responsible, sustainable blah blah) anyone who calls for soundness is comitting political suicide.
come on, another german trait is that everyone believes that everyone is to be fooled easily. People are not that stupid. Most just do not care.
Nuclear plants are a serious political issue here in Germany. Sound voices are not the ones to ride on those political waves.
Last poll on this issue: 22% of Germans are in huge fear of foreign nuclear plants, 29% are in great fear of it, 29% fear it, 20% don't care.
http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/tsunami-in-japan/umfrage-m...
Last poll on this issue: 22% of Germans are in huge fear of foreign nuclear plants, 29% are in great fear of it, 29% fear it, 20% don't care.
http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/tsunami-in-japan/umfrage-m...
[deleted]
> another german trait is that everyone believes that everyone is to be fooled easily.
Historically, they have a reason to believe so.
Historically, they have a reason to believe so.
Debunking myths:
"This won't have consequences, it didn't have any in Sweden either."
=> After the nuclear phase-out was enacted in 2000, two power plants were shut down as planned (Stade 2003, Obrigheim 2005).
=> After the Fukushima incident, eight additional plants were shut down and will never return to the grid again.
"This just leads to increasing energy imports."
=> Germany exported 9 billion kWh in 1Q2010, can hands-down afford shutting down nuclear power plants. Source: http://www.klimaretter.info/energie/hintergrund/6271-deutsch...
"This won't have consequences, it didn't have any in Sweden either."
=> After the nuclear phase-out was enacted in 2000, two power plants were shut down as planned (Stade 2003, Obrigheim 2005).
=> After the Fukushima incident, eight additional plants were shut down and will never return to the grid again.
"This just leads to increasing energy imports."
=> Germany exported 9 billion kWh in 1Q2010, can hands-down afford shutting down nuclear power plants. Source: http://www.klimaretter.info/energie/hintergrund/6271-deutsch...
> "This just leads to increasing energy imports."
=> Germany exported 9 billion kWh in 1Q2010, can hands-down afford shutting down nuclear power plants. Source: http://www.klimaretter.info/energie/hintergrund/6271-deutsch....
That's theory; compare it to practice:
Germany already imports electricity from France[1] -- during peak hours. The capacity your source cites is the optimistic variant. The industry simply can't run on the somewhat fickle solar and wind energy, so energy has to be imported. Of course there are ways around that -- energy storage of various kind, or vastly excess capacity, but those raise costs substantially. And that's the core of the problem: the green power companies shift the costs elsewhere, out of public sight. The sleight of hand works, because the numbers -- the optimistic capacity -- are right.
----
[1] sorry, no link here. They explained it during lecture in Greifswald's powerplant.
That's theory; compare it to practice:
Germany already imports electricity from France[1] -- during peak hours. The capacity your source cites is the optimistic variant. The industry simply can't run on the somewhat fickle solar and wind energy, so energy has to be imported. Of course there are ways around that -- energy storage of various kind, or vastly excess capacity, but those raise costs substantially. And that's the core of the problem: the green power companies shift the costs elsewhere, out of public sight. The sleight of hand works, because the numbers -- the optimistic capacity -- are right.
----
[1] sorry, no link here. They explained it during lecture in Greifswald's powerplant.
Germany exports electricity to France, already.
There are two things going on:
* there is an energy market. Energy is traded for different prices at different times. Sometimes energy from France is cheap (well, it is government subsidized anyway) - sometimes not. For example the Nuclear Power Plants of France are idling a lot on the weekend, when the demand is low.
* there are times when the nuclear power plants have not enough capacity to power France. In winter the demand is possibly very high, like last winter, when it was cold and France was heating a lot with electricity (which we do not that much in Germany). In summer the nuclear power plants have to reduce their capacity, because the rivers are dry and there is not enough cooling water for them.
There are two things going on:
* there is an energy market. Energy is traded for different prices at different times. Sometimes energy from France is cheap (well, it is government subsidized anyway) - sometimes not. For example the Nuclear Power Plants of France are idling a lot on the weekend, when the demand is low.
* there are times when the nuclear power plants have not enough capacity to power France. In winter the demand is possibly very high, like last winter, when it was cold and France was heating a lot with electricity (which we do not that much in Germany). In summer the nuclear power plants have to reduce their capacity, because the rivers are dry and there is not enough cooling water for them.
Good move aka burning bridges. If managed right, this will enhance the development and use of better technologies.
IIRC the German government stated that at least in the short to mid-term they'd offset the main part of the decrease in energy production with additional coal power plants.
I doubt that that's a good move...
I doubt that that's a good move...
Nuclear is the safest form of energy that we currently have. More people die from installing solar panels than deaths occurred in nuclear accidents: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener... .
>Nuclear is the safest form ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_accidents_by_coun...
"The nuclear industry says that new technology and oversight have made nuclear plants much safer, but 57 accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Two thirds of these mishaps occurred in the US. The French Atomic Energy Agency (CEA) has concluded that technical innovation cannot eliminate the risk of human errors in nuclear plant operation. An interdisciplinary team from MIT have estimated that given the expected growth of nuclear power from 2005 – 2055, at least four serious nuclear power accidents would be expected in that period"
http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy-briefs/201101_RSU_Poli...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_accidents_by_coun...
"The nuclear industry says that new technology and oversight have made nuclear plants much safer, but 57 accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Two thirds of these mishaps occurred in the US. The French Atomic Energy Agency (CEA) has concluded that technical innovation cannot eliminate the risk of human errors in nuclear plant operation. An interdisciplinary team from MIT have estimated that given the expected growth of nuclear power from 2005 – 2055, at least four serious nuclear power accidents would be expected in that period"
http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy-briefs/201101_RSU_Poli...
I've heard that argument before. I'm actually inclined to believe the general sentiment (in the sense that producing and burning most non-renewables, or building huge dams is disgusting). However, I'm highly skeptical that they are accurately tracking long term health effects of radiation poisoning.
I'm also highly sceptical of tracking reduced age expectancy due to atmospheric coal pollution.
How many people die from building and maintaining nuclear power plants?
Chernobyl accident .. cancer
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22037/full
"Models predict that by 2065 about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400–72,000) cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000–59,000) cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident, whereas several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes. Although these estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty, they provide an indication of the order of magnitude of the possible impact of the Chernobyl accident. It is unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates—other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions—that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22037/full
"Models predict that by 2065 about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400–72,000) cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000–59,000) cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident, whereas several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes. Although these estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty, they provide an indication of the order of magnitude of the possible impact of the Chernobyl accident. It is unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates—other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions—that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident."
The difference is, you can install a solar panel on your house.
A nuclear reactor is a high security area which is not open to the public.
A nuclear reactor is a high security area which is not open to the public.
You can apply this reasoning to anything, so what makes you think it necessarily applies to nuclear power? That is to say, by what reasoning do you argue that nuclear power itself isn't a 'better technology'? And better than what?
A technology that can - by the core physics behind it - make large parts of a country uninhabitable upon failure has no future. And is crazy for a small country like Japan.
Maybe it is better than coal. But Germany plans to replace them with renewable energy.
Maybe it is better than coal. But Germany plans to replace them with renewable energy.
German politicians want to replace them with renewable energy. They have no realistic plan to do so. Meanwhile they will continue to import power with no regard for how it was generated. It's pandering and hypocrisy.
As for physics, how about the physics of an oil spill?
As for physics, how about the physics of an oil spill?
Italy has always been nuclear free because it couldn't afford it. I guess sometimes it pays off being economically weaker.
I guess it is pretty obvious that a non-nuclear energy strategy will definitely result in higher energy prices in the short term. That said, some people might be comfortable with this as long as the price increase is moderate.
In the long run however, renewable energy sources are absolutely the way to go. It might actually pay off nicely to invest a lot of resources in renewable energy early on and come out ahead of the pack once coal, uranium, gas and oil become more expensive.
Whether or not Germany will actually be able to carry this off and reap the benefits of it will remain to be seen, though.
In the long run however, renewable energy sources are absolutely the way to go. It might actually pay off nicely to invest a lot of resources in renewable energy early on and come out ahead of the pack once coal, uranium, gas and oil become more expensive.
Whether or not Germany will actually be able to carry this off and reap the benefits of it will remain to be seen, though.
I agree..except that's assuming a static world for the next decade. Both China and India are intently looking into Thorium reactors (and the US sorta is)...that's where I'd put my money too.
Yup. Thorium fuel cycle is the holy grail of Indian nuclear research. Its the main focus if not the only major focus. This could change but with our investments in renewable energy and closed thorium cycle, we could be looking at a more cleaner future for the world.
As for the risks associated with the nuclear power, its clearly a necessary risk. India consumes 1/25th of the American per capita consumption. Even assuming we consume less than US that's a lot of new electricity that has to be added to the grid. Something renewable energy can't provide. I would rather have us build reactors than coal plants. Of course all bets are off, if we ever tame fusion.
http://www.physorg.com/news205141972.html http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/19093.asp
As for the risks associated with the nuclear power, its clearly a necessary risk. India consumes 1/25th of the American per capita consumption. Even assuming we consume less than US that's a lot of new electricity that has to be added to the grid. Something renewable energy can't provide. I would rather have us build reactors than coal plants. Of course all bets are off, if we ever tame fusion.
http://www.physorg.com/news205141972.html http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/19093.asp
That's why I actually like seeing the negative sentiment around current nuclear reactors. Because this way the status quo can be broke, and they will actually look int other safer technologies and put their money on them to improve them faster. I'd prefer if we'd use mostly only such power from the sun or wind, but I'm open minded enough to accept a safer nuclear power option such as Thorium based reactors.
And as a human race working with atoms like that is probably inevitable anyway, but we just need to make sure we choose the right paths. Perhaps the Uranium one wasn't the very best path. Hopefully we can even make fusion reactors in a few decades.
And as a human race working with atoms like that is probably inevitable anyway, but we just need to make sure we choose the right paths. Perhaps the Uranium one wasn't the very best path. Hopefully we can even make fusion reactors in a few decades.
Also discussed at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2598475
I'm a German and I think myself that it is really stupid. The way to think should not be "Don't do nuclear power anymore" but "do X". We have no plan what X is. So we didn't solve any problem.It's so frustrating. We really had a chance with the strong movement from most people here.
We have plans. Maybe you should get in contact with our government and check it out. There are a lot of publications from them about the future energy strategiy.
Alternative energy sources are a viable "do X", and not just left-green propaganda. I read somewhere that as soon as 2013, solar power is going to be as cheap as coal [citation needed], which is an important milestone. If projects like Desertec move on, large parts of europe could be solar-powered within our lifetime. The Germans were always ahead of the rest of us in these matters.
In march, I was flying over Germany on a sunny day. I saw hundreds of wind turbines polluting the landscape. They are ugly, inefficient, and apparently a huge danger for the birds. I really cannot see how that is environmentally friendly.
AFAIK, nuclear fuel cannot be produced, it can only be distilled. So, we're only using whatever radioactive materials exist on Earth anyhow. Were they mined from deep underground? Let's bury the waste deep underground, and there should be no problem.
I see three long-term solutions. 1) Use nuclear energy in a safe and responsible way. 2) wait until solar panels are developed enough and use them. However, both these solutions still have a big problem: batteries suck (they are heavy, inefficient, expensive and toxic, short-lived). Final solution: 3) grow genetically modified algae and use them to produce bio-diesel. The only problem would be the concentration of CO2 and other exhaust gasses in urban areas.
AFAIK, nuclear fuel cannot be produced, it can only be distilled. So, we're only using whatever radioactive materials exist on Earth anyhow. Were they mined from deep underground? Let's bury the waste deep underground, and there should be no problem.
I see three long-term solutions. 1) Use nuclear energy in a safe and responsible way. 2) wait until solar panels are developed enough and use them. However, both these solutions still have a big problem: batteries suck (they are heavy, inefficient, expensive and toxic, short-lived). Final solution: 3) grow genetically modified algae and use them to produce bio-diesel. The only problem would be the concentration of CO2 and other exhaust gasses in urban areas.
I find wind mills much nicer than the huge nuclear sites heating up the rivers, their large cooling towers with the large clouds, their large power lines, ...
I find it much better if a city has their windmills, compared to huge mega corporations and monopolies of the nuclear industry backed by corrupt politicians.
I find it much better if a city has their windmills, compared to huge mega corporations and monopolies of the nuclear industry backed by corrupt politicians.
Well, that's a shame. I think the famed German ingenuity and attention to detail could provide some really great nuclear innovation and development.
Meanwhile Japan itself, which has weathered the effects of several nuclear disasters (Fukushima being the mildest), is doing no such thing.
And apparently Germany will continue to import power derived from nuclear plants.
And apparently Germany will continue to import power derived from nuclear plants.
Yes, they are actually.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/29/inhabitats-week-in-green-...
Speaking of solar power, Japan unveiled plans to construct 10 new solar power plants in the wake of the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis, while Switzerland announced that it will completely phase out the use of nuclear power.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/29/inhabitats-week-in-green-...
Speaking of solar power, Japan unveiled plans to construct 10 new solar power plants in the wake of the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis, while Switzerland announced that it will completely phase out the use of nuclear power.
What does that link have to do with anything? You claim Japan intends to follow Germany's lead in becoming nuclear-free? Anything to support that?
The Czechs and the French are most likely glad that Germany will become a permanent net electricity importer.
They aren't glad.
The french can't even meet their own demand in summer and winter. They are importing electricity from Germany.
The french can't even meet their own demand in summer and winter. They are importing electricity from Germany.
Sounds like good news for the Czechs then, Temelin will be running at capacity most of the time. Maybe reactors 3 and 4 which should be under construction soon will earn the Czechs needed export income, and keep the lights on in Germany.
Good luck to the Czech, if this thing goes the Chernobyl/Fukushima/ThreeMilesIsland route.
Too bad for them that Germany follows a totally different strategy. But Czech companies will be happy working in the German supply chain for clean tech, too. Manufactured goods one can actually export.
Too bad for them that Germany follows a totally different strategy. But Czech companies will be happy working in the German supply chain for clean tech, too. Manufactured goods one can actually export.
It took twenty years until a reactor was closed, and five more years until one whole plant was closed.
During this time, Sweden's energy consumption has of course gone up, and although there's been some increase in wind and water power, the net result is that each time we close a nuclear reactor, we have to import a lot more electricty from Danish or German coal-powered plants.
So the net result for the environment is negative, but the environmentalist movement thinks it's a huge win.
I'm willing to wager that this German proposal will have the exact same end result. The only way to successfully switch to renewable energy is by making renewable energy cheaper than coal or nuclear.