Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022

Yacht???
 
About as much sense as my living here and not owning a boat or two.
 
About as much sense as my living here and not owning a boat or two.

Did you notice those two parts of the lake look like legs?

Also, did you notice there is a town called Gaylord in the crotch region between those two legs? :lol:




On a more serious note, this: http://maps.google.de/?ll=55.268163,11.239014&spn=1.53671,4.22699&t=h&z=9
Loads of little islands and small marinas to relax :beer:
I assume the average boat over there is something low, fast, loud, and preferably with a V8? I prefer wind power.
 
Legs??

My boats are paddle powered, but most are gas engines. Some are pretty fast, even scarey fast on water.
 
Last edited:
Anyways, just so you're all aware, I'm not playing dumb to the dangers of Cesium-137 however, for the conditions that caused the disaster the plant design did what it could with 1967 technology and if anything it should be an eye opener to the Gov'ts that we need to update and bring out the newer Gen-III/IV Nuke plants. The knee-jerk reaction of tossing out all Nuke power is just pathetic and dumb.
 
If it was a Russian designed reactor, sure things could've been much worse. However, I think things got about as bad as they could have. My father who specializes in Risk Assessment of Nuclear Safety Systems, said that under those conditions, you couldn't have had a worse failure.
 
Last edited:
There are too many "ifs" in that, I thnk.

But sooner or later you have to face the fact, that there aren't nearly enough new nuclear power plants in the pipeline to replace all of the old ones. At some point people will realize, that an alternative has to be found.

Actually you should be glad and watch with interest, what will happen here, while Germany is so willingly playing the guinea pig for the rest of the world.

One effect I can already tell you: I'm currently planning on building a house and it will be as energy-efficient as possible. Double brick walls with an insulation layer inbetween, most current insulated glazing, geothermal heat pump, solar panels on the roof, wood-pellet oven and automatic air ventilation (so you don't have to open the windows in winter) will be standard features.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
It's not what will happen, it's what has happened:
We have no one but the clowns who call themselves our current government to blame for that. Had they not repealed the previous government's widely accepted strategic decision against nuclear power, only to make a tactical "AAAH WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!" one for the same thing but much faster after the Fukushima disaster, we would now be on a gradual route away from nuclear power. The only thing Kohl's girl has brought us into is a classic case of NIMBYism.

The reality is, no alternative energy source is going to give you the same rewards and cost-benefits as a Nuclear reactor.
Spoken like a paid lobbyist...
 
Spoken like a paid lobbyist...

Nope, spoken like a true scientist, engineer, and physicist.

Please tell me another energy source that provides as much energy for the cost? Please tell me another energy source that provides as much energy for its given CO2 emissions? Please tell me another energy source that has a safety record that beats Nuclear power?
 
Wind and sun.
 
geothermal heat pump

:clap:

automatic air ventilation (so you don't have to open the windows in winter)

A heat exchanger with the outside? If so, :clap:

Anyone building a new house and not going the extra distance to incorporate these features is an idiot. Retrofitting may be prohibitively expensive, putting them in right from the planning phase barely raises the price of the house yet saves wheelbarrows of cash over its lifetime. That's before you think about the children environment, it's a purely economic decision.

The reality is, no alternative energy source is going to give you the same rewards and cost-benefits as a Nuclear reactor.

https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2011/07/21/1e4d1_solar-nantenna-ed01.jpg

^ would like a word. There only is the pesky issue of getting efficient 500THz rectifiers to work, but they're already at around 100-150THz, so that's just a matter of time hopefully.

Please tell me another energy source that has a safety record that beats Nuclear power?

I can't recall any problems with the safety of solar power. There aren't many issues with wind either in terms of safety.
 
Last edited:
Wind and sun.

Please tell me another energy source that provides as much energy for the cost? Please tell me another energy source that provides as much energy for its given CO2 emissions? Please tell me another energy source that has a safety record that beats Nuclear power?

Neither of those satisfy the above two conditions.
 
Please tell me another energy source that provides as much energy for the cost? Please tell me another energy source that provides as much energy for its given CO2 emissions? Please tell me another energy source that has a safety record that beats Nuclear power?

Neither of those satisfy the above two conditions.

The sun provides huge amounts of energy at zero cost and zero CO2 and zero safety issues if you put on your SPF. Just park your car in the sun, it will take in loads of energy for free.
 
The sun provides huge amounts of energy at zero cost and zero CO2 and zero safety issues if you put on your SPF. Just park your car in the sun, it will take in loads of energy for free.

Gamma ray bursts also provide lots of energy and it's free.
 
The problem with PVs are the band-gap energies of the semi-conducting elements used. The puzzle is trying to convert all of the solar radiation into frequencies that the PV materials can absorb. This is a major hurdle in PV development and it explains why they can't be the solution to the world's energy demands.

You guys can continue living in la la land with your wind and solar but Nuclear is the only solution to the world's energy needs in this moment.
 
Top