Earthquakes trigger tsunamis. ;)

 

 

The point is the nuclear power plant was built to withstand earthquakes (which it did), and it would have withstood the tsunami too if the designers hadn't made a fatal miscalculation in terms of the height of the protective wall.:dozey:

That's why this "overreaction" in Germany is particularly daft, as the disaster in Japan was ultimately the result of human error rather than natural forces per se.

The point is the nuclear power plant was built to withstand earthquakes (which it did), and it would have withstood the tsunami too if the designers hadn't made a fatal miscalculation in terms of the height of the protective wall.:dozey:

That's why this "overreaction" in Germany is particularly daft, as the disaster in Japan was ultimately the result of human error rather than natural forces per se.

 

 

even if something like this doesn't happen every day or every month or every year...why shouldn't we be the first ones trying the given better alternatives? If there is a solution to keep our earth "healthier" then we should do it and stop being egoistic human beings.

 

(I wish I could write what I am thinking in german....it would make it much easier:wacky:)

 

 

oh and I agree with you Valerie

Why is it just and only idiocy to try and find alternatives to nuclear power, when we haven't resolved the storage problem of old fuel rods? I personally feel unwell to bequest future generations with that problem. It's not a responsible approach to leave that out of the discussion either, imo.

 

The problem of storing spent fuel rods is minor compared to the problems associated with higher energy costs. Everything has a cost/benefit analysis, and in the case of nuclear energy the market has determined the benefits outweigh the costs. Also, governments insist nuclear plants use Uranium instead of Thorium (which is a far more efficient and environmentally-friendly fuel) because they want the leftovers for nuclear bombs.

 

I know you see the world from the mercantile perspective, which is fair enough, since it's still such a strong motivation and regulating system, but I would find your post more interesting if you would admid (if you agree, that is), that we are facing a time of dire need of structural adjustments. Ecologically for example, and also in trade or governing itself.

 

Structural adjustments occur naturally, they don't need to be coerced. Part of the reason nuclear power plants are so prolific (especially in high-frequency-natural-disaster zones) is because governments guarantee all losses insurance companies refuse to cover. In a market for energy, the price of insuring a nuclear power plant on a fault line or near the ocean would be stratospheric. I get the feeling Germany's plants would be much cheaper to insure, but that's only speculation on my part.

 

The demand of a big part of german people for nuclear power has ceased to exist. That's how things go, non?

 

If the demand really did cease to exist, perhaps the government wouldn't need to point guns at them and force them to shut down the plants. ;)

 

 

You wouldn't want the government to ignore peoples' pledges just to subsidise people and industries who've chosen a career that didn't have a long prognosis. Not you, Saffire, or did I get something wrong? If so I'm sorry, I'm hardly here to say I know things better or best. But my instincts tell me, that nuclear power isn't the best way of producing energy. Not in the hand of us erratic breed anyway.

 

This is not for you, or a handful of politicians to decide. It is something the market will decide through the millions of voluntary exchanges that occur daily.

 

Nobody ever laments over all the jobs lost because of our firms' outsourcing the production of goods to China. It must be the same in the US. Far more jobs have been lost this way, haven't they? And they are really lost. Here we replace one system which isn't trusted any longer by another system. There will be new jobs.

 

You could give everyone in Germany jobs very simply: Just outlaw electricity. Everyone will be forced to work in the fields, using old-fashioned tools and back-breaking labor. Make toothbrushes illegal, and everyone can be dentists.

 

Germany can "afford" the luxury of destroying its nuclear power industry because it is a relatively prosperous country with a strong exports sector. But eventually the higher cost of energy, coupled with the endless devaluation of the Euro due to Greek bailouts (and soon Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc) will destroy the quality of life in that country.

even if something like this doesn't happen every day or every month or every year...why shouldn't we be the first ones trying the given better alternatives? If there is a solution to keep our earth "healthier" then we should do it and stop being egoistic human beings.

 

(I wish I could write what I am thinking in german....it would make it much easier:wacky:)

 

 

oh and I agree with you Valerie

 

Gitta, everyone is egoistic. Everything you do, you do to make yourself happy. Including when you give money to charity, or pick up trash on the ground.

 

This isn't a battle between the greedy electric companies and the "green" citizens.

 

I'm not a socialist, but even if I were one I would be mad about this decision. Here's a better solution (if you are a socialist): Have the government give $1 billion to the business that can discover a better way to dispose of spent nuclear fuel rods. Give participating companies (in this contest) $250,000,000 each and a list of "rules" they must follow so they don't waste the money or give it to the executives.

 

This way, new jobs are created and people are working on new ways to make nuclear energy "clean", and you get to keep your power plants.

even if something like this doesn't happen every day or every month or every year...why shouldn't we be the first ones trying the given better alternatives? If there is a solution to keep our earth "healthier" then we should do it and stop being egoistic human beings.

 

 

Well as I understand it, the main reason given for shutting down the nuclear power plants was "risk", not environmental concerns, which just seems to be have been a convenient excuse.

Anyway, it's all well and good going down the "green" route, but you should make sure there's enough alternative energy in place first before upsetting the apple cart.:dozey:

At the moment, there clearly isn't.

Saffire, I get it that our approaches on how to handle things ( you utterly liberal, me a starry-eyed idealist (convinced that idealism is essentially more realistic than anything else) with a strong feeling that people need to be educated, preferably within their families, but when that isn't provided any longer, then by the state- that our approaches are like two sides of one coin.

 

Totally contrarian, is it? I wish I could spin my brain around studying the basics of economic sciences, so to be a real and interesting person to discuss classical liberalism with. Sadly, I don't even know what that exactly is. Not to a satisfying content at least. and I flee it like there is no tomorrow. :/

 

So I'm sorry, if I probably mess around with what your ideals are, I'm just too lazy (and maybe even dumb :disappointed: ) to get it.

 

 

ME:The demand of a big part of german people for nuclear power has ceased to exist. That's how things go, non?

 

YOU: If the demand really did cease to exist, perhaps the government wouldn't need to point guns at them and force them to shut down the plants.

 

 

It's not coerced by government, government follows the people here. Hence i said that the demand for nuclear power isn't backed by the majority any longer. Many many people are anti-nuclear power. They have been for decades now. Voters in the last three or four federal state elections went very green, I mean very very very green, that is. I think you mix up cause and effect.

 

I think we'll have to leave it like that maybe?

Different approaches, eveyone means good.

Well as I understand it, the main reason given for shutting down the nuclear power plants was "risk", not environmental concerns, which just seems to be have been a convenient excuse.

Anyway, it's all well and good going down the "green" route, but you should make sure there's enough alternative energy in place first before upsetting the apple cart.:dozey:

At the moment, there clearly isn't.

 

risk? What kind of risk if not for the environment? (I am afraid I am actually being dumb here...:uhoh:)

 

edit: ah yeah and risk for the people of course

 

and at the moment there isn't......that's why it is planned as a process of 11 years

 

oh and Saffire when I am speaking of "egoism" I am clearly not talking of doing things for yourself just to make you happy....rather about being greedy or whatever...might have been the wrong word for what I wanted to say

 

edit 2: yeah the risk when something goes wrong......(fuck my english)

Supplement to my previous post:

 

I don't want to coquet with me being too simple to get it though. I don't believe in the bits that I got from true liberalism so far. People aren't good enough for it yet. It would lead to a survival of the fittest, which I'm very much against. That's more it, and that's why I cannot concentrate on it, I guess.

This man is very happy with the news that Germany shall have to buy more stuff from his mother-land of Russia

 

 

Just don't come asking for power when you suddently relise that renewables ain't upto the job during the winter months.

I think there have already been discussions about shutting down the nuclear power plants before Fukushima.

 

It is a good thing to shut them down whatever some might say.

 

Now how many wont even being restarted? 6 out of 17 or something like that? Wow and I still have some energy for feeding my laptop to come on here on CPing :shocked2:

 

Norway will always have some spare nuclear energy for us and France as well^^

 

It will cost a bit but that's worth it. Germany shouldn't be the only country doing this.

 

This is idiocy.

It's a major overreaction.:dozey:

NOT.

I personally don't think that the cost of new energy should trump the risk of another plant being damaged and subsequently leaking out radiation into our air and our water. The way Fukushima has been handled up until now has been beyond embarrassing and the fact that the US government didn't at the very LEAST warn people on the west coast to prepare for heightened levels of radiation, is sickening. Increased levels of radiation have been detected all over the northern hemisphere and I'm sorry to say that ANY radiation is harmful to virtually all life. Any event that causes yellow rain (pollen? my ass) is a huge disaster. And what a lot people don't want to admit is that this event has affected almost all of us already.

 

Nuclear energy is risky because it has the ability to compromise the health the GLOBAL population if something goes wrong. One of the cores is leaking plutonium / uranium hybrid material, and plutonium has a half life of 24,000 years. Look it up. It's no thanks to incompetence & cover-ups that we're going to have to deal with a lot more health problems in our species' future. Really makes my blood boil when I hear idiocy such as here in the UK, where apparently we STILL want to press on with building new reactors. When will it end?

 

And of course any move away from nuclear energy is going to be costly, because too few states have invested the proper amount of time and money looking into and developing alternatives. Germany being part of the EU is already a hindrance to their economy, and with places like the UK where the government insist on spending 6 million pounds a day to kill civilians in the middle-east, going on wild goose chases, toppling and propping up political leaders, etc... it's no WONDER people are anxious about the costs. Priorities need to change before anything sensible and constructive starts to get done on this planet, and unfortunately the way things are going, it's only going to get worse.

 

The leaders of the world really need to start getting their shit together.

 

[/end_rant]

The people will get the government they deserve, and the future of Germany is one of higher prices, longer working hours, higher unemployment, and a lower quality of life.

 

If you're perpetually in fear, you might as well not leave the house. But you won't make any friends, and you won't enjoy your life.

I didn't exactly think, that you might be that genius mind Chuck Sir, hahah. :P (Good, I've been playing dumb and it's working!:laugh3:) But I figured that you are well informed on what's hot in the current state of green engineering. Thanks for presenting all the means we could use as of today here. Btw, in Germany almost all people who renovate their houses now wrap them up in a thick layer of damming material, there are solar panels on not only private but many official buildings, such as schools, etc. What's happening in the US in that regard?

I've been trying to become more of a rounder or sorts, to get a better feel on common sense (and as Voltaire said, common sense is not that common).

I delve pretty deeply at times into green engineering, but also do a lot of grazing; thanks for the accolades! One thing I wanted to mention was that thermal solar energy is actually quite a bit more efficient than solar cell panels, and good energy portfolios should include a balance of solar, wind, geothermal, tidal power, hydroelectric, and biomass. (dry basics, you're probably already aware of..) Winters are the challenging thing, when solar is almost nil, winds can greatly diminish depending on siting; and that leaves biomass, tides, geothermal, stored power, and imports to take up the slack. But that's where efficiency comes into play, as you mention with the thick layers of damming materials to improve efficiency in homes being renovated - this is to me the 80% of the answer, and when demand is greatly reduced, renewable energy can fill the bill for the remaining 20% as supply. Yes, I see all the advances in Germany, you are way ahead of us in regards to solar power for hot water and electricity in residential, school, and business applications! We're really just starting to do that - our local high school for example has installed some photovoltaic panels on it's roof. Its gradually coming into being, even with the budget shortfalls and corporate interest detractors (king coal doesn't want competition), solar has been gaining strong momentum, and wind energy is already becoming a norm here. Same issues though - some people don't like seeing the wind turbines because they cast moving shadows, or just stand out when they look at a hillside or lake shore. I counter by saying it's either wind towers or smoke stacks, mercury, fallout, waste, and mountain top removal.

In terms of renovation for efficiency, that's become more and more the norm as well, but lags behind I think because it doesn't have a big donor in our government. I've done it quite effectively for a family's rental house; we topped out the blower door test and may have set a record for a residential remodeling job in terms of overall energy efficiency and building envelope tightness.

The point is the nuclear power plant was built to withstand earthquakes (which it did), and it would have withstood the tsunami too if the designers hadn't made a fatal miscalculation in terms of the height of the protective wall.:dozey:

That's why this "overreaction" in Germany is particularly daft, as the disaster in Japan was ultimately the result of human error rather than natural forces per se.

If you read over in the Japan thread I think the plant was designed to only withstand a 7 or 8 magnitude earthquake. It's true that the tsunami did most of the damage-

 

Screw it you're just bickering for the sake of bickering

What blows my mind is that Fukushima hasn't been buried under 500 feet of lead and cement by now.

 

The simple fact is, the government and the nuclear power executives didn't want to admit how bad things were. So they lied and sent a bunch of men to their deaths to go "fix" something that was already way out of control. They should have started to bury it IMMEDIATELY after the waters receded and they verified a meltdown. Now it's contaminating the land and killing people.

 

If you're going to build a nuclear power plant on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, right next to the "Ring of Fire" fault line, you might as well also hire Paris Hilton to perform open heart surgery on your grandmother.

They feared a meltdown might uhm melt right DOWN into the ground and then the groundwater (imagine the consequences of that happening!) and since it's so ridiculously placed also into the pacific ocean. Which is already radioactively polluted anyway, but a melting trough the ground would have made it far worse. Having it covered up would mean you cannot reach stuff to prevent exactly that melt-down any longer.

 

By the way the sarcophagus of Chernobyl is pretty rotten, they will have to build a new and even bigger one around it. If it cracks open again, we will have a similar scenario to 1986.

 

 

Nuclear energy is shit in the hands of us at our current state of evolution.

The shell around Chernobyl was meant to be a temporary measure lasting 25 years.

 

25 years later it's still there with no permanent measure put in place

The shell around Chernobyl was meant to be a temporary measure lasting 25 years.

 

25 years later it's still there with no permanent measure put in place

How about developing hydroelectrical power. Some countries use a lot 0f that. I am scared of the dangers nuclear meltdown. There is an increase of radiation in the Pacific ocean on USA beaches.

If you read over in the Japan thread I think the plant was designed to only withstand a 7 or 8 magnitude earthquake. It's true that the tsunami did most of the damage-

 

 

Either way it was mostly the result of human error. The plant should obviously have been built to withstand an earthquake of a greater magnitude than it was.

It was quite simply a disaster waiting to happen.:dozey:

Well as I understand it, the main reason given for shutting down the nuclear power plants was "risk", not environmental concerns, which just seems to be have been a convenient excuse.

Anyway, it's all well and good going down the "green" route, but you should make sure there's enough alternative energy in place first before upsetting the apple cart.:dozey:

At the moment, there clearly isn't.

 

+1

There are nuclear power plants like the one in Japan in the USA, and they are out of date and still running.

There are nuclear power plants like the one in Japan in the USA, and they are out of date and still running.

 

Maybe so, but are any of them in earthquake zones?:thinking:

dunno if anyone said this before, but even if we shut down all of our nuclear power plants (which of course would be great as long as there are alternative energy sources available), there would still be loads of old and possible dangerous reactors in most of our neighbouring countries. so even if we managed to shut down our reactors, the risk of "suffering" from a nuclear accident would still exist.

^No, it has not been mentioned yet. And yep, that's something we have to live with.