Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022

[Cobol74]

If two of the best run countries in the world (Japan and the US) can have serious accidents I am sure our chances are higher than theirs. The cost cutting, 'think of a number and that is all you've got' banana republic of Ukania.

 

[calvinhobbes]

Sadly the ecomentalists seem to have a problem with us flooding deserted highland valleys in case we kill off some rare newts or some crap like that.

You hardly need to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-of-the-river_hydroelectricity

 

[H0nzik]

Cleaning up the Fukushima plant will, according to the latest estimations by a group of experts, who'll release their report by the end of the year, take 30 years at least.

That's actually quite allright, when you compare it to the recultivation of the areas affected by coal mining (both in terms of time and area).

 

[calvinhobbes]

That's actually quite allright, when you compare it to the recultivation of the areas affected by coal mining (both in terms of time and area).

Is it? Many, if not most, of the lignite strip mines of the former GDR have been decontaminated and recultivated since the reunification - and that was only 20 years ago. Recultivation is also obligatory for all currently operating German strip mines, IIRC, to be paid by the mining corporation.

 

[Cellos88GT]

But in the long rung the world will have to, because no matter how you turn it: Resources are running out. Sooner or later there will be no choice but to look for alternatives.

And the first ones who are there, will be the ones to take the most profit. Think about it.

...and the point is still being missed. I never said that the hunt for clean renewable energy should be stopped, I agree that nuclear is interim solution, however with the growing energy needs of this planet no current clean tech will be able to keep up with the demand.

Exactly, we've only got enough readily available nuclear fuel reserves to power the planet for 4000 years, after that we'll have to actually start prospecting to find more.

According to who?

That's exactly my point: Even though the technology may look safe on paper, the human race is not able to safely handle it. End of story. Two major nuclear disasters in 40 years and several near-catastrophes prove that.

It will happen again. The only question is where and when.

I'm sorry but this argument is extremely weak.

1) Chernobyl was not a design that any proper engineer would ever call 'safe on paper'.

2) The disaster at Fukushima was not caused by human error and to be honest the effects of the disaster are/were exaggerated. (I'll add to this soon)

 

[WillDAQ]

Even though the technology may look safe on paper, the human race is not able to safely handle it. End of story.

That's why we should have stamped out aviation early, it was clearly a fools errand with a high death toll.

According to who?

A documentary on fusion power.

 

[calvinhobbes]

2) The disaster at Fukushima was not caused by human error and to be honest the effects of the disaster are/were exaggerated. (I'll add to this soon)

It is interesting that you should say this today, shortly after the arrival of more bad news from Japan:

Fission feared at Fukushima reactor No. 2

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Wednesday that particles from melted fuel in reactor 2 at the Fukushima No. 1 plant may have temporarily triggered a criticality incident.

Although the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said there have been no drastic changes in the reactor's temperature and pressure level, and the reactor itself is stable overall, the discovery may affect the plan by Tepco and the government to achieve cold shutdown of all three crippled reactors by the end of the year.

If anything is certain, it is a huge amount of uncertainty concerning the current state and future of those power plants.

That's why we should have stamped out aviation early, it was clearly a fools errand with a high death toll.

An aviation disaster does not cause widespread uncontrollable and essentially irreparable contamination.

A documentary on fusion power.

Fusion ? Fission

 

[H0nzik]

Is it? Many, if not most, of the lignite strip mines of the former GDR have been decontaminated and recultivated since the reunification - and that was only 20 years ago. Recultivation is also obligatory for all currently operating German strip mines, IIRC, to be paid by the mining corporation.

Yeah, but recultivated into what? Mostly it just means pouring water into it to create lakes. The original landscape, towns and villages are lost forever. And the time from opening the mine to recultivation is definitely more than 20 years.

 

[calvinhobbes]

Yeah, but recultivated into what? Mostly it just means pouring water into it to create lakes. The original landscape, towns and villages are lost forever. And the time from opening the mine to recultivation is definitely more than 20 years.

If it's total impact that you're comparing, you need to take into account waste storage and the decontamination of nuclear sites:

Well, do you handle nuclear waste and contamination better than we did and do?

Additionally, recultivation means a lot more than channelling water into pits to create lakes. For instance, you often have to manage drainage because chemicals in the damaged landscape would otherwise turn the newly created lakes into almost lifeless dumps.

As for the time from opening a mine to recultivation, MacGuffin's point was the time needed for decontamination - not the actual operation of the mine.

Anyway, I'm far from in favour of open-pit lignite mining. Nowadays, it is at best a filthy and costly stopgap.

 

[Cellos88GT]

It is interesting that you should say this today, shortly after the arrival of more bad news from Japan:


If anything is certain, it is a huge amount of uncertainty concerning the current state and future of those power plants.

1) How many people have died as a result of radiation exposure? None.

2) Is the exposure as bad as Chernobyl? No. The containment on the reactors have done an excellent job in limiting the exposure of the radiation.

How many people died from the earthquake and tsunamis? Why aren't people after the throats of the Japanese gov't for not requiring stricter building construction codes? The public perspective on this whole thing is pretty typical for humans aka it's simplistic and whack.

 

[H0nzik]

As for the time from opening a mine to recultivation, MacGuffin's point was the time needed for decontamination - not the actual operation of the mine.

Well, I am comparing the time an area is unusable for living due to different forms of energy generation.

 

[calvinhobbes]

1) How many people have died as a result of radiation exposure? None.

You are aware of the proven and confirmed long-term effects of radiation?

2) Is the exposure as bad as Chernobyl? No.

the jury is still out on that - it has to be, the disaster is still ongoing.

How many people died from the earthquake and tsunamis? Why aren't people after the throats of the Japanese gov't for not requiring stricter building construction codes?

They are at TEPCO's throats for the neverending list of malfunctions (prior to the quake and tsunami) and the salami tactics and obfuscation after them.

Well, I am comparing the time an area is unusable for living due to different forms of energy generation.

OK, let's do some totting up: Mayak contamination area, Chernobyl exclusion zone, Fukushima exclusion zone (present and likely future), Superfund sites with radioactive contamination, nuclear waste storage sites as "professional" as in Germany (repeatedly linked above) and their potential for long-term irreperable contamination of water tables, Novaya Zemlya and other assorted waste dumps and so on... I think it's safe to say that nuclear power has had quite a substantial effect on large areas. Which doesn't make open pits any better, but it does give some perspective.

 

[Cellos88GT]

You are aware of the proven and confirmed long-term effects of radiation?

Are you aware of the long term effects of anything? If I stand in the sun to long I get cancer, if I become an airline pilot my risk of cancer is greater, if I use my cellphone I'll get cancer, if I eat fish I'll get lead/mercury poisoning, if I wear too much deodorant I'll get cancer, if I don't eat organic foods I'll get cancer, etc. etc. etc.

the jury is still out on that - it has to be, the disaster is still ongoing.

No, it isn't. The two situations are completely different from each other. Comparing them, as the media has done and has been loving to do, is completely inane and shows the level of scientific intelligence of the situation or lack thereof. The spread of radiation will never be as bad as Chernobyl and anyone who tells you as such is a bigoted idiot that probably failed their physics class in high school.

They are at TEPCO's throats for the neverending list of malfunctions (prior to the quake and tsunami) and the salami tactics and obfuscation after them.

You are circumventing the question/point.

 

[WillDAQ]

An aviation disaster does not cause widespread uncontrollable and essentially irreparable contamination.

I tend to use 'lives lost' as a fair indication of disaster, number of deaths as a result of the radiation released by Fukushima: 0.

Fusion ? Fission

Well thank you, Captain Fucking Obvious. The discussion was on the use of Fission as a stepping stone until Fusion is developed.

 

[calvinhobbes]

Oh well. Seems pretty pointless to continue this.

 

[MacGuffin]

Oh well. Seems pretty pointless to continue this.

I agree. Some points made here in the last 20 or so posts are so ridiculous and simply wrong, ignorant and stupid, that my toe nails rolled up. Just because the Fukushima plant didn't go "BOOM" in a huge, devestating, landscape-flattening explosion, that killed millions at once, doesn't mean it's not a full-grown catastrophe going on there. The "see no evil, hear no evil" mentality is very widely spread.

After all, it's just a local problem on the other side of the world, right? Doesn't concern any of us. Could never happen to us. Nah...

Or could it?

But no worry, most scientists say it wouldn't happen.

Probably.

Unless the volcano breaks out big time.

Oh well...

 

[Cellos88GT]

I agree. Some points made here in the last 20 or so posts are so ridiculous and simply wrong, ignorant and stupid, that my toe nails rolled up.

Right, my father who has a Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering is simply wrong, ignorant, and stupid.... I'm sorry but where is your Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering?

 

[calvinhobbes]

Right, my father who has a Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering is simply wrong, ignorant, and stupid....

Neither did anybody say a word about your father, nor did he compare wearing deodorant to getting irradiated. That is what you did and where my interest in this conversation ended.

 

[jmsprovan]

After all, it's just a local problem on the other side of the world, right? Doesn't concern any of us. Could never happen to us. Nah...

It is pretty rich to go from talking about "ignorant and stupid" posts to stating the above.

Fukushima was a perfect storm of things which on their own would have been comparatively inconsequential.

The reactor buildings were designed to survive an earthquake because they had diesel generators to maintain power. (the diesel generators were knocked out by the tsunami)
The reactor buildings were designed to survive a tsunami because mains power should have held in that situation. (the mains power was cut off by the earthquake)
The reactors themselves were a design which has been obsolete since the 70s and were due to be decommissioned in the weeks following. (new reactors have none of the problems which these did)

Those are facts, the reason it happened was because they combined in a freak event which was unpredictable.

Your stated dislike of nuclear because of the bad things which could happen is just daft, its like the people who say we shouldn't go into space because it might disturb aliens and lead them to us. We can't predict that, but we do it under the knowledge that such an event is so unlikely to occur. The calculated risk of Nuclear is lower than any other power source, it has killed fewer per GJ produced than any other power source and out of the hundreds of built reactors there have been a handful of accidents which have resulted in actual damage to people/land/ect and all have occurred in reactors with serious inbuilt deficiencies.

Personally I have nothing against renewables, but I have to be realistic in seeing that they will never grow to the levels which will sustain us and they have to be augmented with the least worst option, which in the opinion of many who are much smarter than we are is Nuclear.

 

[Cellos88GT]

It is pretty rich to go from talking about "ignorant and stupid" posts to stating the above.

Fukushima was a perfect storm of things which on their own would have been comparatively inconsequential.

The reactor buildings were designed to survive an earthquake because they had diesel generators to maintain power. (the diesel generators were knocked out by the tsunami)
The reactor buildings were designed to survive a tsunami because mains power should have held in that situation. (the mains power was cut off by the earthquake)
The reactors themselves were a design which has been obsolete since the 70s and were due to be decommissioned in the weeks following. (new reactors have none of the problems which these did)

Those are facts, the reason it happened was because they combined in a freak event which was unpredictable.

Your stated dislike of nuclear because of the bad things which could happen is just daft, its like the people who say we shouldn't go into space because it might disturb aliens and lead them to us. We can't predict that, but we do it under the knowledge that such an event is so unlikely to occur. The calculated risk of Nuclear is lower than any other power source, it has killed fewer per GJ produced than any other power source and out of the hundreds of built reactors there have been a handful of accidents which have resulted in actual damage to people/land/ect and all have occurred in reactors with serious inbuilt deficiencies.

Personally I have nothing against renewables, but I have to be realistic in seeing that they will never grow to the levels which will sustain us and they have to be augmented with the least worst option, which in the opinion of many who are much smarter than we are is Nuclear.

How dare you come in this thread bringing rational level-headed thought!