The Good, the Bad and the Mutated

#1
Germany has vowed to end it's nuclear program by 2022.

BBC News - Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022

The article best describes the situation but it seems that much of the country was swept up in demonstrations and protests via left greens and activists for a safe ecology in order to abolish nuclear power following the disaster at the Fukushima Power Plant in Japan. The government have responded to the calls and have officially decided to end nuclear power in Germany.

An article link below this one claims that the Swiss will be doing it too.

The thing is, a quarter of Germany's energy currently comes from nuclear power. For such a big country, that's a sizable portion. Now we all know that renewable energy is the way forward, at least for europe, where wind power, wave power and solar power are all starting to take off.

But is nuclear power really so bad?

How dangerous IS nuclear power - excluding national disasters?

Should Britain follow the example?

We're perfectly positioned to take advantage of renewable energy after all.
 
#2
Consider that Fukushima is supposedly the second worst nuclear powerplant disaster in history yet so far not a single death has been confirmed as directly linked to it. It may be bloody expensive if it goes wrong, but nuclear power, if using modern designs and safety techniques, is actually very safe compared to conventional power stations.

The hysteria in Germany is a relic of the strong influence of organisations such as CND and the fear of nuclear disaster, to me this kind of behavior just seems irrational.
 
#4
Success? What, a vociferous minority leading its government by the nose? We need nuclear power as it is one of the few ways we will ever learn to harness it and develop it - and not just for electricity.
 
#5
I doubt Germanys Nuclear powerplants are ever going to be hit by a huge earthquake followed by a bigger tsunami, Nuclear power is one of the olny real options for energy security at the moment untill concepts such as fusion power can be proved to work on an industrial scale as nothing else except for fossil fuels can generate the required energy.
With the UK most green energy producers except for perhaps wave and tidal energy are a joke and a bad one at that, lots of green groups encourage the building of windfarms but all these really do is provide huge profits to the manufacturers. Windfarms are now have the largest footprint of all forms of energy generation in the UK however they also are the smallest contributer to the national grid.
For example did anyone catch episode 3 of Britains secret seas on the bbc, they sang the praises of an off shore wind farm that had 30 turbines spread over a large area generate at full capacity enough power for 40,000 homes when considered their are around 25 million homes in the UK and another 3 million supposed to be built by 2020 and the wind dosnt generate a constant amount of power renewables are just a drop in the ocean so in all practicality coal, gas and nuclear will continue to dominate and im pro nuclear as i doubt we'll ever be hit by a mega earthquake and tsunami and they generate the power relativly cleanly and are quite small facilities. but i'd prefer to see practical fusion power within the next decade or so.
 
#6
I doubt Germanys Nuclear powerplants are ever going to be hit by a huge earthquake followed by a bigger tsunami, Nuclear power is one of the olny real options for energy security at the moment untill concepts such as fusion power can be proved to work on an industrial scale as nothing else except for fossil fuels can generate the required energy.
With the UK most green energy producers except for perhaps wave and tidal energy are a joke and a bad one at that, lots of green groups encourage the building of windfarms but all these really do is provide huge profits to the manufacturers. Windfarms are now have the largest footprint of all forms of energy generation in the UK however they also are the smallest contributer to the national grid.
For example did anyone catch episode 3 of Britains secret seas on the bbc, they sang the praises of an off shore wind farm that had 30 turbines spread over a large area generate at full capacity enough power for 40,000 homes when considered their are around 25 million homes in the UK and another 3 million supposed to be built by 2020 and the wind dosnt generate a constant amount of power renewables are just a drop in the ocean so in all practicality coal, gas and nuclear will continue to dominate and im pro nuclear as i doubt we'll ever be hit by a mega earthquake and tsunami and they generate the power relativly cleanly and are quite small facilities. but i'd prefer to see practical fusion power within the next decade or so.
Of course Germany's nuclear plants aren't going to be hit by a tsunami. But the Germans have been involved in two major wars during the 20th century. Even countries like Libya will have stealth aircraft with precision guided bunker busting munitions available in a decade or so. What sort of lunatic would make their country hostage to fortune by putting up nuclear power stations which could devastate huge swathes of territory if they were bombed or sabotaged? When it comes to knowing all about being on the wrong end of a bombing campaign, believe me, the Germans are experts.

Naturally, no German politician is going to even hint in public that Germany might ever be involved in another war. It'd be political suicide. But what's said in public and what's discussed in private are two different things.

Then, of course, there's the small problem of providing permanent storage for nuclear waste. There's not one country in the world which as yet has such storage facilities, and there never will be if the Yucca Mountain debacle in the US is anything to go by -- eleven billion dollars spent on bugger all. And we're told that nuclear power is a cheap way of producing electricity!

The French have the answer, on account of their fantastic expertise with atomic power. They're simply handing on their waste to the Russians, whom, I'm sure will look after it with all due diligence. Probably by digging a hole and dropping the stuff in the bottom of it: the heat will build up inside as the radioactivity continues, the dump will go up like an Icelandic volcano and geiger counters in East Anglia will suddenly start declaring a state of emergency. I just don't envy the UK Prime Minister of the day when he has to go on TV and explain that tinned Argentine bully beef is the only safe food left in the country.

Which about where the currrent Japanese PM is right now, trying to gently break the news to a nation which lives on seafood that radiation poisoning is flowing into the food chain off Japan's coast and may keep on doing so for the next thirty years.

You'd prefer to see a practical fusion plant in the next decade? You and me both, mate. I began reading newspaper stories about how nuclear fusion was just around the corner when I was a teenager. I'm an old age pensioner now and practical fusion power plants are still no closer as far as I can see.

It may be that given a choice between nuclear and clawing back on carbon emissions, then nuclear is unavoidable. Just let's not pretend we'd go down that route if there was any realistic alternative. And if the Germans think they can do without nuclear . . . well, German engineers are the best in the world, and the most ingenious. If anybody can do it, they can. Good luck to them.
 
#7
Of course Germany's nuclear plants aren't going to be hit by a tsunami. But the Germans have been involved in two major wars during the 20th century. Even countries like Libya will have stealth aircraft with precision guided bunker busting munitions available in a decade or so. What sort of lunatic would make their country hostage to fortune by putting up nuclear power stations which could devastate huge swathes of territory if they were bombed or sabotaged? When it comes to knowing all about being on the wrong end of a bombing campaign, believe me, the Germans are experts.

Naturally, no German politician is going to even hint in public that Germany might ever be involved in another war. It'd be political suicide. But what's said in public and what's discussed in private are two different things.

Then, of course, there's the small problem of providing permanent storage for nuclear waste. There's not one country in the world which as yet has such storage facilities, and there never will be if the Yucca Mountain debacle in the US is anything to go by -- eleven billion dollars spent on bugger all. And we're told that nuclear power is a cheap way of producing electricity!

The French have the answer, on account of their fantastic expertise with atomic power. They're simply handing on their waste to the Russians, whom, I'm sure will look after it with all due diligence. Probably by digging a hole and dropping the stuff in the bottom of it: the heat will build up inside as the radioactivity continues, the dump will go up like an Icelandic volcano and geiger counters in East Anglia will suddenly start declaring a state of emergency. I just don't envy the UK Prime Minister of the day when he has to go on TV and explain that tinned Argentine bully beef is the only safe food left in the country.

Which about where the currrent Japanese PM is right now, trying to gently break the news to a nation which lives on seafood that radiation poisoning is flowing into the food chain off Japan's coast and may keep on doing so for the next thirty years.

You'd prefer to see a practical fusion plant in the next decade? You and me both, mate. I began reading newspaper stories about how nuclear fusion was just around the corner when I was a teenager. I'm an old age pensioner now and practical fusion power plants are still no closer as far as I can see.

It may be that given a choice between nuclear and clawing back on carbon emissions, then nuclear is unavoidable. Just let's not pretend we'd go down that route if there was any realistic alternative. And if the Germans think they can do without nuclear . . . well, German engineers are the best in the world, and the most ingenious. If anybody can do it, they can. Good luck to them.
well , if as an act of war a foreign country has stealth and all the clever bits anyhow whats to stop them dropping a dirty bomb anyplace ? why go for a reactor, it would be judged just as bad an act of war.

as for geiger counters in east anglia suddenly declaring an emergency.... the mutations will be hidden amongst the natural occurances thereof in that part of the world. I know, I live in the fens. My best mate has only got 3 toes.............. on each hand !

we'll end up with so many wind turbines, in this part of the world there wont be any wind left to harvest.
 
#8
Of course Germany's nuclear plants aren't going to be hit by a tsunami. But the Germans have been involved in two major wars during the 20th century. Even countries like Libya will have stealth aircraft with precision guided bunker busting munitions available in a decade or so. What sort of lunatic would make their country hostage to fortune by putting up nuclear power stations which could devastate huge swathes of territory if they were bombed or sabotaged? When it comes to knowing all about being on the wrong end of a bombing campaign, believe me, the Germans are experts.

Naturally, no German politician is going to even hint in public that Germany might ever be involved in another war. It'd be political suicide. But what's said in public and what's discussed in private are two different things.

Then, of course, there's the small problem of providing permanent storage for nuclear waste. There's not one country in the world which as yet has such storage facilities, and there never will be if the Yucca Mountain debacle in the US is anything to go by -- eleven billion dollars spent on bugger all. And we're told that nuclear power is a cheap way of producing electricity!

The French have the answer, on account of their fantastic expertise with atomic power. They're simply handing on their waste to the Russians, whom, I'm sure will look after it with all due diligence. Probably by digging a hole and dropping the stuff in the bottom of it: the heat will build up inside as the radioactivity continues, the dump will go up like an Icelandic volcano and geiger counters in East Anglia will suddenly start declaring a state of emergency. I just don't envy the UK Prime Minister of the day when he has to go on TV and explain that tinned Argentine bully beef is the only safe food left in the country.

Which about where the currrent Japanese PM is right now, trying to gently break the news to a nation which lives on seafood that radiation poisoning is flowing into the food chain off Japan's coast and may keep on doing so for the next thirty years.

You'd prefer to see a practical fusion plant in the next decade? You and me both, mate. I began reading newspaper stories about how nuclear fusion was just around the corner when I was a teenager. I'm an old age pensioner now and practical fusion power plants are still no closer as far as I can see.

It may be that given a choice between nuclear and clawing back on carbon emissions, then nuclear is unavoidable. Just let's not pretend we'd go down that route if there was any realistic alternative. And if the Germans think they can do without nuclear . . . well, German engineers are the best in the world, and the most ingenious. If anybody can do it, they can. Good luck to them.
What a load of retarded ******* bollocks, another mindless anti nuclear **** who cannot provide any legitimate reasons as to why we should not be using nuclear power so instead he has to try and claim Libya might bomb a nuclear plant. Give your head a wobble you daft ****.
 
#9
I do not like nuclear power. but I like peace
We all like going on the peace, but we wont achieve much by denying the world the nuclear energy it needs to develop.

As has been hi-lighted above, wind energy and wave energy just wont give us enough power to light our cities and heat our homes. And as also said on here, we have been waiting many years for fusion power to be developed, but we will get there and nuclear power is arguably cleaner than most other forms of energy such as gas, coal and oil.

Nuclear power will become cleaner and safer as we develop new techniques in harnessing it.

Lets face it nuclear power is fundamental to the universe, even the sun runs on it.
 
#10
Nuclear power may well lead more sustainable energy in the future, but without building them and advancing the techology we will never know. It will be a lot more efficient than the pointless wind farms etc.

 
#11
Little Jim you appear to be suffering from the same mass hysteria bug that has hit the Germans. This is purely as a result of Fukushima, that Germany is not exactly an island in the worst earthquake zone on Earth appears to have escaped most people. The German Government, currently CDU and FDP are in severe need of an out of phase shreddie change. The FDP has nose dived in popularity and the Greens are getting gobbier and more sucessful, they now have their very first Minister President in Baden Wurtemberg. The Federal Gov't has merely jumped on the band wagon, being somewhat afraid of the potential election results in 2 years. As for so called renewable energy, aside from the fact that energy is not renewable, the alternatives have not been well thought out. Futher more the costs have been glossed over, but the fact remains that closing down a nuclear power station is not the end of the matter, actually getting rid of it will cost an arm and a leg, per station; their are 17 (?). Guess who will end up footing the bill?
The ultimate irony, Germany may well end up having to import nuclear power from the neighbours.

PS In another thread I posted a link to the website "without the hot air". Alternative energy sources will result in a slight change to the landscape. It will be wall to wall wind turbines and solar panels and even that may not be enough.
 
#12
Depends on whether you decide to build a nuclear plant to a) make plutonium with electricity as by product or b) make electricity with plutonium as a by product or c) just make electricity.

If you fancy a bit of c) then you might want to build a fast breeder built using thorium as a fuel. If you can cope with b) then there are plenty of designs for mini nuclear plants such as those found in our strategic submarine fleet that would power large cities for a very long time and yet take up no more room than a football pitch.

There are however plenty of folks like littlejim who exist at the level of word association when it comes to debate, therefore:

"fast breeder" equates to "monstrous quantities of plutonium"
"plutonimum" equates to "two headed mutations" or "armageddon"
"isotope" equates to "no frickin idea but it sounds dangerous and has got to be stopped at all costs"
 
#13
Won't someone please think of the children!
 
#14
It seems like gesture politics to me, if Germany shuts all its N-Plants, it is still surrounded by countries that run Nuclear power plants. It hardly makes Germany safer from the effects of radiation.
 
#15
It seems like gesture politics to me, if Germany shuts all its N-Plants, it is still surrounded by countries that run Nuclear power plants. It hardly makes Germany safer from the effects of radiation.
Nimby, then. Meaning not within our borders (NWOB). But happy to import electricity generated by nuclear power stations in France. Rather an odd situation, what?
 
#16
I thought Your mum's pal was being ironic, now I realise he isn't. What a depressing thought.

Perhaps in future years as we huddle in the dark around our wood/coal fires, the young ones will listen in wonder as the elders talk of a time when electricity was available ALL the time, not just when the weather is right.

Our children will curse us for having the opportunity to develop nuclear power whilst the last fossil fuel gave us the time to do so, and pissing that chance away to play with windmills.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#18
Well the Poles for one are going as fast as they can for nuclear power - they are fed up with being held to ransom over energy by the Russians. The French are increasing their reliance on nuclear generation, as they know that 'renewables' are bollocks in practical terms. Here, even though we are selling our souls for green nonsense, the idea that we can do without them is ludicrous - especailly as wind speeds seem to be dropping: Wind farms: Britain is 'running out of wind' - Telegraph


The German position is as a result of short-term political problems, and has sod all to do with anything else, especially logic.
 
#19
What this does mean is that the Germans will have to cosy up even more to the Russians to get hold of lots of cheap gas. Cue the states in between those two being thrown under the bus and the Americans getting decidedly unhappy. The implications for NATO are ... interesting. The recent formation of the Baltic Battlegroup gives you a clue how some see things developing. And again, being Polish will mean being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The other aspect to all this which most greens need slapping around the face until they accept is that modern population levels are only sustainable as long as the energy supply holds out. Less energy means fewer people. Deep green means mass population dieoff.

My top tip for the future of terrorism is the emergence of green nutters seeking to sabotage infrastructure and do on to return us to a purer, simpler, kinder, eco-friendlier way of living. One with a lot fewer people, and them in charge.
 
#20
Nimby, then. Meaning not within our borders (NWOB). But happy to import electricity generated by nuclear power stations in France. Rather an odd situation, what?
The latest funky idea from the green lobby is to lay a few more cables upto Norway and then use Wind/solar/pixiebreath generated "excess" electricity to run pumped storage hydroelectric stations which will run when the wind stops or at night.

What fun it will be when not only oil and gas but also electricity must be imported, makes you feel all safe and secure.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top