- Nov 24, 2008
- Frechen, Germany
- Model 3, Cargobike
also how it "mathematically beats out all other forms of power generation" - that is something I'd love to read lolPlease explain to us how much safer nuclear energy is compared to wind and solar.
you do understand how fact vs opinion works right? because the first part that you dispute, is a fact: there is no insurer that agrees to insure nuclear. hence the label "uninsurable". now the rest of your statement is your opinion... which seems to differ from the assessment of the worlds insurers, because... well see above, I guess? I will agree that if the worlds coal-burners were held accountable for the actual risks and subsequent damages, that shit would probably also be uninsurable.It’s not uninsurable. The risks posed to nuclear and its waste is far smaller than those of coal mining and utilization. If people applied the same irrational logic to nuclear that they did to coal, coal would also be uninsurable.
See above: with switching off those remaining plants, Germany doesn't suddenly have a big hole in its generation capacity it has to fill. Renewables have, for the most part, filled up the free capacity in the grid and prices have actually sunk - despite what certain fudsters would have you believe.The problem I have with all of this is there seems to be no real solution to replace the electricity generated by these plants.
Ok, I misunderstood the significance of nuclear in Germany.
I think the main focus first is getting people’s meters upgraded so you can use the system installed. That then of course leaves us with customers that are less reliant on the grid. That’s good to spread out the electrical generation but bad for grid maintenance and revenue because, how do the companies maintaining the infrastructure get revenue to pay for repairs should we send power back?
Yeah that's really the short of it and the truth for most residential photovoltaic systems here. there's usually a differente of 3:1 or even 4:1 between energy taken from the grid and energy fed into it (although that's not quite fair, because the former includes taxes and grid fees and suchlike).Second, the power company doesn't pay you the same rate that they are charging for using your power.
Sure:Please explain to us how much safer nuclear energy is compared to wind and solar.
An estimated 200,000 wind turbines operated globally in 2011. Based on data in the IAFSS report, we can assume there were 117 fires that same year (both reported and unreported). That means 1 in every 1,710 turbines caught fire in 2011.
Another data set produced by DNV GL, an internationally accredited registrar and classification society, estimates the rate of fire in wind turbines at 1 in 2,000 each year.The DNV GL analysis examined all wind turbine fires, regardless of whether the fire resulted in a total loss of the turbine.
A 2020 article in Wind Power Engineering Magazine also estimates that 1 in 2,000 wind turbines catch fire each year.
I’m sure some obtuse bad faith argument will be orchestrated to refute it so let’s look at something like fire risk. The fire risk of wind turbines is given by:
why should we care? Well…
By comparison, you will struggle to find a safety-critical system or component in an NPP that would have a failure rate within 5 or 6 orders of magnitude.
Chernobyl was a freak accident of very many idiotic decisions including an inferior design that even Russia stopped using as it was back then. Fukushima was due to building nuclear plant in an earthquake prone area. Germany and most of Europe is neither those things.
Fire can be contained and put out, and that area will recover in a few years. Contamination from radiation is much harder to deal with. See both Fukushima and Chernobyl. When will those areas be able to recover?
You don't actually know that. In the case of Fukushima, the probability of a flood or a tsunami knocking out the backup power was deemed to be within the acceptable amount of risk tolerance. Given that the earthquake and tsunami killed exponentially more people than the failure of the plant itself, the risk calculation was not wrong.Technically, both were examples that the worst case scenario (that had been considered in the design) wasn't bad enough.
Unfortunately, since the average person is incapable of assessing risk, this point is lost on them, and instead decided to double down on stupid things like Lithium batteries which have some of the worst rates of failure and risk exposures.
Clearly, you are much smarter than everyone else Thus, since I’m apparently too dumb to follow your reasoning, I will now start ignoring your posts