Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022

Cheap relative to nuclear or coal and gas? How will offshore farm maintenance ability be improved?

Cheap relative to ten years ago. - Idunno in particular, but practice usually helps :dunno: You're not going to improve offshore maintenance without actually doing offshore maintenance.
 
Cheap relative to ten years ago. - Idunno in particular, but practice usually helps :dunno: You're not going to improve offshore maintenance without actually doing offshore maintenance.

The problem with offshore farms is that during the hardest winter months its very to fix wind mills, as you most often do it by helicopter. This is what I've been told anyway.
 
Cheap relative to ten years ago. - Idunno in particular, but practice usually helps :dunno: You're not going to improve offshore maintenance without actually doing offshore maintenance.

Transmission designs for high-torque applications haven't really changed or advanced all that much, maintenance will always be an issue with wind turbines.
 
maintenance will always be an issue with wind turbines.

...just like radiation leaks will always be an issue with nuclear fission :rolleyes:


The problem with offshore farms is that during the hardest winter months its very to fix wind mills, as you most often do it by helicopter. This is what I've been told anyway.

So far I've personally only seen maintenance by boat... but then that's all in the Baltic Sea, so while technically offshore it's not that offshore.
 
Last edited:
...just like radiation leaks will always be an issue with nuclear fission :rolleyes:

The level of risk to a worker in the physical maintenance of wind farms is far greater than the physical working risks associated in maintaining Nuclear power. Whoever is running the anti-nuclear propaganda machine in Germany is doing a great job.
 
Last edited:
The level of risk to a worker in the physical maintenance of wind farms is far greater than the physical working risks associated in maintaining Nuclear power. Whoever is running the anti-nuclear propaganda machine in Germany is doing a great job.
But at least you can get insurance for said worker, you can not in a Nuclea Power Plant. Also when one has an accident, as they inevitably do, a wind farm does not pollute half a continent where as a nuclear power plant can do. This is a stupid, risky and expensive way to generate electricity, Germany have it right.
 
To reiterate somewhat, the problem I have with fission is that it has been handled poorly. Ignoring the blight of Hanford, the waste issue hasn't been worked out in the U.S. The term interim has become another word for permanent. The storage of the waste we do have was not designed for long lasting use. That alone should halt power plant construction until a permeant site for the radioactive material is found.
 
But at least you can get insurance for said worker, you can not in a Nuclea Power Plant.

That is not correct.

Also when one has an accident, as they inevitably do, a wind farm does not pollute half a continent where as a nuclear power plant can do.

Incorrect. Chernobyl can't be used as the example for all of this nonsense considering their level of standards were several hundred rungs below 'sub-par'. The pollution released by Fukushima pales in comparison to the pollution caused by the earthquake and tsunamis that incapacitated it.

This is a stupid, risky and expensive way to generate electricity, Germany have it right.

Also incorrect especially when you introduce coal to the conversation. Time will show that Germany has it wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

To reiterate somewhat, the problem I have with fission is that it has been handled poorly. Ignoring the blight of Hanford, the waste issue hasn't been worked out in the U.S. The term interim has become another word for permanent. The storage of the waste we do have was not designed for long lasting use. That alone should halt power plant construction until a permeant site for the radioactive material is found.

You can thank that dumb asshole Harry Reid for that.
 
Last edited:
Time will show that Germany has it wrong.

Here it obviously has to be defined what area they will be 'wrong' at; solving fuel poverty through lowering energy prices or making the EU happy by lowering emissions (this includes being hush-hush about nuclear). They're not gonna be able to solve both by trying to go all green.

I personally think nuclear may have a future, but serious amounts of money needs to be invested for that to happen. However, for many people the anti-nuclear argument is purely emotional.
 
Last edited:
You're missing a very important point: As long as nuclear power is seen as acceptable, the search for a clean solution will be persued half-hearted at best.

We know nuclear fuel is a finite resource as is coal, oil, or gas. That's like saying "Let's shut down every coal, oil and gas power plant cos it's hampering the search for the ultimate power source".

Even if it slows it down, we can't just shut everything down cos there's a risk associated with it. Cars kill more people annually all over the world (more than a million people) than all nuclear events since 1945 put together and that includes both bombs over Japan. We are not gonna stop using cars, are we?
 
Last edited:
That is not correct.
I am sorry, what is not correct (Depends what you mean.)? Above certain limits all insurance on Nuclear power stations are held by the government, the commercial insurance market says 'no thank you'.

Another point if they are so efficient then why does the Ukanian Government guarantee twice the rate of return on investment?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24604218

"The two sides have now agreed the "strike price" of ?92.50 for every megawatt hour of energy Hinkley C generates. This is almost twice the current wholesale cost of electricity."

I am no green but just because someone takes a position you think is totally wrong the right answer is NOT always the 100% opposite (See Grammar Schools in Ukania as an example). The first thing is that we all make decisions based either upon bias or from an assessment of known and correct facts. Facts are hard to come by but experience tells us that these things will go bang from time to time (Sometimes it's a big bang sometimes its just a little one).

When it's a big one it is probably not a good idea to have it go off in the second most densely populated country in Europe.

UPDATE - oops wrong link, sorry - now fixed.

You can just see the risk manager in Fukashima going 'and we identified a risk of a catastrophic failure if the coolant fails to circulate'. We have the answer to that! Back up diesel engines! Just to make sure that it works we are going to have two. He was not to know that a giant wave would flood both generators so that neither could start (Like I said it is inevitable that the will be accidents.)
 
Last edited:
The level of risk to a worker in the physical maintenance of wind farms is far greater than the physical working risks associated in maintaining Nuclear power. Whoever is running the anti-nuclear propaganda machine in Germany is doing a great job.

Maybe that's true - but if a wind farm has a boo-boo, its effect is contained locally. Maintenance workers may get hurt, but that's it. If a nuclear power station has a boo-boo that's a different story as you can observe in Japan.
 
Maybe that's true - but if a wind farm has a boo-boo, its effect is contained locally. Maintenance workers may get hurt, but that's it. If a nuclear power station has a boo-boo that's a different story as you can observe in Japan.

What occurred in Japan is by no means a "boo-boo", what occurred in japan is equivalent to a traumatic brain injury yet, 0 deaths have occurred and this is the effect it had on the environment.
 
What occurred in Japan is by no means a "boo-boo", what occurred in japan is equivalent to a traumatic brain injury yet, 0 deaths have occurred

Seriously: What did it take you to become that ignorant?

The Fukushima accident is still happening. It is NOT over yet. That molten cores (mind the plural) are still melting. Contaminated water is seeping through cracks in the fundament into the ground, contaminating the earth and the ground water, rivers and finally the sea. Independent (which means "not inflenced by Tepco or the Japanese government") organizations have measured worryng levels of radioactivity off the coast not only Fukushima but also in the mouths of rivers in the area, which the ground water flows into.

Of course you don't see that on the Japanese news, because since the accident the prime minister has changed and the current one is way more nuclear-friendly than his predecessor. The nuclear lobby has seen to that.

To this day nobody knows what is actually really happening inside the former reactors, because no one can go in. The whole area is uninhabitable probably for centuries.

But sure, that isn't enough for you. Because as long as nobody died instantly and as long as you cannot count bodies, you can claim "Hey, nobody died... yet, so it 's not so bad". That kind of cynism and belittlement frankly pisses me off. Massively!

Heck, even your own navy soldiers are sueing Tepco right now, because they got a good amount of radiation and some already fell sick. I mean those, who went in to help right after the catastrophe and were told not to worry, because there was no danger. But of course just being sick isn't enough, since only dead bodies count for you, right? And Americans have been known to sue anyone for just anything, right?

What else does it take to make you understand, that radioactivity doesn't necessarily kill people instantly but over years and decades? Or are you really believing, that once some time has past, nobody can connect diseases and deaths with radioactivity anymore anyway and therefore it shouldn't be counted?

Are you so convinced of your precious nuclear energy, that you are willing to become that misanthropic and cynical? If that is the case, if you really believe what you say, I want to see you eating some fish caught off the coast of Fukushima and saying "Mmmh... that was delicious, can I have some more?"

Or even better: Let's organize a tour to Fukushima for those, who deny the dangers of nuclear power. Let them wander around the deserted area, do not handle them a Geiger counter and pick them up again a week later. Take the family with you, while you're at it. The kids'll love it. How's that idea sound to you? I'm sure you'd be willing to do that, because - as you say - it cannot harm you. Right?
 
Last edited:
What occurred in Japan is by no means a "boo-boo", what occurred in japan is equivalent to a traumatic brain injury yet, 0 deaths have occurred and this is the effect it had on the environment.

The impact on the environment is hard to measure. However, the death toll is quite easy for a lower bound - upper bounds are again hard, due to late-showing effects from radiation exposure. So let's look at that lower bound.
We know a handful of people died in the days after the tsunami while working in the power plant - none of those are directly related to radiation, but still that's not "0 deaths".
Dozens of people died as a direct cause of the evacuation, such as hospitalized people left behind. That is directly related to radiation, you wouldn't need to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people because wind turbines had a malfunction.
Hundreds of thousands of livestock perished due to the evacuation, which again would not have occurred if the plant was not nuclear.

That's just a minute of research on the lower bounds of fatalities, reality may be much worse after long-term effects.
 
And the economics just do not work - no more plutonium for weapons is needed, which let us face it, was the real reason these things were built in the first place.
 
And the economics just do not work - no more plutonium for weapons is needed, which let us face it, was the real reason these things were built in the first place.

I'm curious to hear how you think the economics for wind power is any better.
 
If you ask me, creating electricity is a luxury in our highly developed human civilization. A luxury we can't and won't give up. No matter how you look at it and no matter how it's created, it doesn't come without a cost. That doesn't necessarily mean money consumers have to pay but also long term effects on our environment.


The question we have to answer now (which means today) is what we prefer to pay: money? Or our future?

Personally I rather pay the money...

Or - and that might come as a revolutionary thought for some people here - try to save energy (!!) That may sound revolutionary for some but consider it for just a moment...
 
Last edited:
And the economics just do not work - no more plutonium for weapons is needed, which let us face it, was the real reason these things were built in the first place.

You're right... the only reason many uranium based reactors (unable to use or create weapons grade fuel) were built was to enable the creation of more weapons grade fuel...

:spectre:
 
Top