mc_squared Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Chancellor Angela Merkel claims victory in German elections By Allan Hall Last updated at 7:23 PM on 27th September 2009 Comments (0) Add to My Stories Chancellor Angela Merkel was returned to power in Germany tonight with the party of her choice. Her conservative CDU/CSU alliance and the business-friendly FDP 'Liberal' party scooped enough votes to form a power-sharing government to rule for the next four years. The narrow victory - exit polls said 48.5 percent of the vote for Mrs Merkel's party and the FDP - spells an end to the uneasy coalition of the last four years with the left-wing Social Democrats of the SPD. Victory: German Chancellor Angela Merkel greets supporters during an election party in Berlin Failure to win with the FDP would have entailed another coalition with the left - a result that news magazine Der Spiegel declared would have been "the beginning of the end" for Mrs. Merkel. As it was the SPD scored just 22.5 percent and the far-left 'Linke' party 12.5 percent. The Greens got 10.5 percent of votes cast. More... Germany says bankers 'must pay' for role in credit crunch WILLIAM REES-MOGG: We can't let our German friends push us around The vote for the SPD was the worst in its postwar history. A widespread purge of the leadership is expected this week. Mrs. Merkel fought a low-key, dispirited campaign focussed on her popular appeal with voters and which was almost totally devoid of political content. It infuriated the old, white male elite of the Christian Democrat Union and its partner party, the Christian Social Union in Bavaria, with plotters preparing a coup had they been forced back into a partnership with the SPD. FDP chairman Guido Westerwelle, left, and his partner Michael Mronz greet supporters. The FDP will form a centre-right coalition with Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats As it was some of of 40 percent of undecided voters in this poll won the day for her. An alliance with the Free Democratic Party gives her more scope for business and tax reforms - and keeping German troops in Afghanistan. Despite abundant sunshine and mild temperatures across most of the country, voter turnout was much lower than four years ago. Security was tight everywhere in the wake of a series of threatening messages from Islamic militants, including one from al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, promising attacks on Germany if the people voted for an administration which vows to keep troops in Afghanistan. Overall, 62.2 million people were eligible to vote for 29 parties vying for power. In contrast to many countries, Germans do not elect their leaders directly but instead vote for parties. With postwar German politics shaped for parties to share power, Mrs Merkel was desperate for an edge that would deliver her victory with ther party of her choice. The SPD, whose left-wing has crumbled with members drifting off to join the hardline Linke Party, failed to connect with voters in any meaningful way aside from Afghanistan. It went to the electorate promising troops out of Afghanistan within three years. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1216492/Chancellor-Angela-Merkel-claims-victory-German-elections.html#ixzz0SMMYEZGs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh42 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 For a sec I thought she was holding a shit ton of weed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saffire Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 For a sec I thought she was holding a shit ton of weed. VICTORY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh42 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 VICTORY! VICTORYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love that episode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Poor Germany!!! That's all I can say... Now Merkel's forming a new coalition with the centre-right and pro-business party FDP. A complete desaster if you ask me! We all know that the economy went down with a coalition between CDU and FDP during the 90's and that was not only because of the reunification. - Guido Westerwelle = new Foreign Secretary :inquisitive: I've never seen such a figure of fun in my life before sorry! - Tax cut In times of indebtedness... great idea! Our children will be grateful about it. :rolleyes: - Withdrawal of the nuclear phaseout Wow excellent idea! Our nuclear plants are safe according to Merkel.... tell that the inhabitants who live close to the power plant in Krümmel near Hamburg. And where will the government now store nuclear waste?! In Gorleben? In Asse? Impossible! Minimum wage, educational deprivation, deprivation of employment rights, electricity generated by nuclear power.... welcome to the new Germany! :rolleyes: All in all, a bad day for Germany's Social Democracy! I'm so glad I'm going abroad for a while soon, so that I'm far away from German politics. Wait! Westerwelle = Foreign Secretary? There's no escape aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Sarah* Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 agreed, this turned out really, really bad... :\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imke Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 ^^ Couldn't agree with you more, Larry. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Niguez Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc_squared Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 So nobody likes Angie?:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 electricity generated by nuclear power. Safest, cleanest and most efficient energy source...what a bad idea! France and most nations are embracing Nuclear power because of its clean and cheap in the long run and you can reuse the materials to you only have 5-10% or radioactive waste left. - Tax cut Are they going to cut spending as well? I can tell you from living under Bush tax cuts don't work if you don't cut spending too! It's common sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc_squared Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 Are they going to cut spending as well? I can tell you from living under Bush tax cuts don't work if you don't cut spending too! It's common sense! When did common sense have anything to do with politics?:dozey: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winnie Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Safest, cleanest and most efficient energy source...what a bad idea You sound like a real bloody politician using all that superlatives... and you don't even have a clue... just like the real politicians... It's neither the safest, nor the cleanest nor the most efficient energy source... It's not the safest source of energy, because the radiation of the atomic waste will still be dangerous in hundreds of thousands of years, because the half lives of these products are usually greater than thousands of years. And nobody knows what happens to the atomic waste in this huge time period - nobody can tell, the scientists just can guess... and guessing is far from safe, so I wouldn't call it a safe source of energy... especially not the safest. For the same reason it's (obviously) also not the cleanest energy source. What if the repositories aren't as leakproof as anybody thought for the next few centuries? What if our grandchildren's ground water becomes contaminated just because politicians tried to find a simple solution to get rid of the waste? In the german repository 'Asse' was recently discovered a leak which slowly floods that radioactive pit and nobody knows if this isn't gonna happen to any other atomic wast disposal site sooner or later... so, no, atomic energy is definitely not the cleanest energy source. Regarding the efficiency... well, like any other power plant based upon conversion of thermal energy the efficiency of atomic energy is typically between 30-50%. Due to the inevitable loss of exergy (=thermal energy which can be used to produce electrical energy) during the whole process of energy conversion the efficiency can't become any bigger. It really isn't any better than electrical energy from coal, worse than natural gas (50-60%) and it's much worse than the efficiency of hydroelectricity (up to 90%). I think, you get the idea... The only reason why France, Germany and every other country is running atomic power plants is because it's a very cheap source of energy... and they don't have to care about CO2 emissions... in the end it's always the money... why care about the dangers of radiation, about the future and the lost potential of renewable energy if they have money and an alibi for reducing CO2-emissions... That's real bigotry, isn't it? But politicians are great with that.. especially the guys'n'girls from the CDU/FDP... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imke Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 ^^ Thank you, Winnie. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc_squared Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 You sound like a real bloody politician using all that superlatives... and you don't even have a clue... just like the real politicians... Well that's no surprise, because he has ambitions to be one!:laugh3: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 So nobody likes Angie?:confused: I don't know one person in my circle of friends and in my family who actually likes her. :laugh3: There was a strange atmosphere at my uni today. Everyone seemed to be quite shocked about the results. Well the republic is very old, so I guess it were mostly the older people who voted for the CDU. Btw, does anyone know the election campain clip of the Green party? It couldn't get any better! :D Lazy Merkel! [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQYfuMPt1ao]YouTube - Szenen einer Ehe[/ame] Good night Germany! :rolleyes: You sound like a real bloody politician using all that superlatives... and you don't even have a clue... just like the real politicians... It's neither the safest, nor the cleanest nor the most efficient energy source... It's not the safest source of energy, because the radiation of the atomic waste will still be dangerous in hundreds of thousands of years, because the half lives of these products are usually greater than thousands of years. And nobody knows what happens to the atomic waste in this huge time period - nobody can tell, the scientists just can guess... and guessing is far from safe, so I wouldn't call it a safe source of energy... especially not the safest. For the same reason it's (obviously) also not the cleanest energy source. What if the repositories aren't as leakproof as anybody thought for the next few centuries? What if our grandchildren's ground water becomes contaminated just because politicians tried to find a simple solution to get rid of the waste? In the german repository 'Asse' was recently discovered a leak which slowly floods that radioactive pit and nobody knows if this isn't gonna happen to any other atomic wast disposal site sooner or later... so, no, atomic energy is definitely not the cleanest energy source. Regarding the efficiency... well, like any other power plant based upon conversion of thermal energy the efficiency of atomic energy is typically between 30-50%. Due to the inevitable loss of exergy (=thermal energy which can be used to produce electrical energy) during the whole process of energy conversion the efficiency can't become any bigger. It really isn't any better than electrical energy from coal, worse than natural gas (50-60%) and it's much worse than the efficiency of hydroelectricity (up to 90%). I think, you get the idea... The only reason why France, Germany and every other country is running atomic power plants is because it's a very cheap source of energy... and they don't have to care about CO2 emissions... in the end it's always the money... why care about the dangers of radiation, about the future and the lost potential of renewable energy if they have money and an alibi for reducing CO2-emissions... That's real bigotry, isn't it? But politicians are great with that.. especially the guys'n'girls from the CDU/FDP... Well said Felix! I completely agree! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 You sound like a real bloody politician using all that superlatives... and you don't even have a clue... just like the real politicians... I do, it's the safest and cleanest energy that works. Like I said even France has embraced Nuclear energy. It's not the safest source of energy, because the radiation of the atomic waste will still be dangerous in hundreds of thousands of years Most of the waste is re-used leaving only around 5% of the original waste behind, that is small enough to be buried deep underground. For the same reason it's (obviously) also not the cleanest energy source. Cleaner than coal, oil, natural gas the three major alternatives. It does not give off emissions like Coal, oil and natural gas do and does not destroy as much land to mine the materials. There is no 100% safe clean efficient energy source, nuclear is the closest. Or we could all go back to living in caves? It's simply the safest cleanest efficient energy source we have. It's not perfect, but nothing is completely 100% safe and perfect, its a compromise. Would you rather use coal and oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc_squared Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 I do, it's the safest and cleanest energy that works. Like I said even France has embraced Nuclear energy. Most of the waste is re-used leaving only around 5% of the original waste behind, that is small enough to be buried deep underground. Cleaner than coal, oil, natural gas the three major alternatives. It does not give off emissions like Coal, oil and natural gas do and does not destroy as much land to mine the materials. There is no 100% safe clean efficient energy source, nuclear is the closest. Or we could all go back to living in caves? It's simply the safest cleanest efficient energy source we have. It's not perfect, but nothing is completely 100% safe and perfect, its a compromise. Would you rather use coal and oil? Anyone ever told you that you sound like a party political broadcast?:lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winnie Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Most of the waste is re-used leaving only around 5% of the original waste behind, that is small enough to be buried deep underground. Can you please prove these numbers? The only reason why the nuclear industry is reprocessing their nuclear waste is because they want to save money and keep the amount of "fresh" uranium relatively low... relatively. That the reprocessing of radioactive waste is a clean process and reduces the amount of irradiated crap is a wrong statement and I'd really like to know who told you that 95% of the world's nuclear waste is recycled. Just think of it carefully: the reprocessing of atomic waste is a long and dirty process, lots of equipment is involved - not to mention how dangerous it is since most of the processed waste is highly irradiated. So there's lots of equipment involved and this equipment gets irradiated too und you can't reuse these machines/auxiliary tools/air vents/filters/water pipes/etc. ... all this stuff along with everything else which can't be reprocessed is melted into glass and will find it's way to the repositories. The problem is: when reprocessing radioactive waste, you significantly increase the volume of radioactive waste by extracting an infinitesimal small amout of re-useable nuclear resources. It just ain't worth the effort, the risk and the multiplication of radioactive waste. I don't know where you got your numbers from - do you read commercial flyers of nuclear re-processors in your spare time, by any chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc_squared Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 Can you please prove these numbers? Of course he can't.;) I don't know where you got your numbers from His backside?:rolleyes: do you read commercial flyers of nuclear re-processors in your spare time, by any chance? Extremely likely, I'd say!:laugh3: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I was at a presentation two weeks ago about nuclear energy plants about to be built in Florida and one of the subjects was nuclear waste. Reprocessing spent fuel rods can recover 96 percent of the uranium for use in new fuel rods. This article says about 96% can be recycled, in the meeting they said it was really between 90-95%. France is doing this now, America is not due to laws prohibiting it. http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/174362 Of course he can't I was at the presentation while Mark was defending himself to 15 yr old kids. Once more Marky you spoke too soon, you should tame your tongue. The only reason why the nuclear industry is reprocessing their nuclear waste is because they want to save money and keep the amount of "fresh" uranium relatively low... relatively. Does it matter why? If it helps everyone out, I don't care if they do it out of fear of unicorns. It makes nuclear energy much safer and better in the long run, 5-10% waste instead of 100% is a damn good improvement. I'd really like to know who told you that 95% of the world's nuclear waste is recycled. I didn't mean it is now, but if people were to stop fear mongering they could reuse around 90-95% of spent nuclear fuel rods. Do you have a better efficient alternative? It's simply the best thing we have now, if we want cheap, clean energy it's our safest option not perfect but NOTHING ever is or will be. Like I said would your prefer coal or oil? do you read commercial flyers of nuclear re-processors in your spare time, by any chance? No, I spend my days learning about all the major issues of our time...I'm going to be involved in a local unities company who option for the future is natural gas and nuclear, we are deciding if nuclear is a better safer, cheaper long term option to natural gas and coal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 The question is what is the cheapest, most efficient, cleanest safe option for power...we have to have power. Right now it's natural gas and nuclear power...we can't magically conjure up energy that is 100% safe in clean, we must live in the real world and look for real world solutions. Mark is glued to a computer screen of roll eyes and does not understand how life works. Thanks for the input Marky, always have something to add...(some people are out there learning and getting involved with the future) Yes a future that does not include "roll eyes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc_squared Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 ^None of that proves anything. Sounds like the usual blatant propaganda we've come to expect from you.:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 ^None of that proves anything. Sounds like blatant propaganda to me.:rolleyes: France is reusing around 95% of it's spent nuclear fuel rods right now... Wait a minute France does not exist, you're right Mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmmaLouiseSmyth Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 When i read the title of this thread i thought it said Meerkat :lol: sorry >.< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc_squared Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 France does, but I'm not so sure about you.............................. :rolleyes: France is reusing around 95% of it's spent nuclear fuel rods right now... Wait a minute France does not exist, you're right Mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-overlay.thumb.png.655b81ee5d7c1b7ed4cccb4ebc64b6cf.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now