-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Germanys $263 Billion Renewables Shift Biggest Since War
- Thread starter Funky Papa
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, and France just ships it to Siberia where it sits out in the open, in a parking lot...
Ah yeah where they're more than happy to see the waste get shipped to northern France but try to block the roads when we ship back their shit.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
It's not like the people going on the streets were the ones adopting the technology. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Goldrusher
Member
They actually last longer at sea, because there's less turbulence in the air/wind, so the steel in the blades lasts longer.
Most of them however are scheduled to be replaced after 20 years, because by then the generators will be outdated. So even if they still work (they should last 30 years), it will make more sense to replace them with better ones.
On a different but related topic there was an interesting article i read today about China also spending lots of money developing renewable power generation sites.
Here it is http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/19/china-windfarms-renewable-energy
Their situation is different in that they want to move away from coal due to pollution. They are also still developing nuclear power plants.
Here it is http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/19/china-windfarms-renewable-energy
Their situation is different in that they want to move away from coal due to pollution. They are also still developing nuclear power plants.
The waste issue should eliminate nuclear as an option.
"Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 17 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half-life 24,000 years)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Management_of_waste
I am sure there are very thorough plans in place for the next million years to deal with this stuff. Nuclear power is the very definition of a punt. We'll use the power and let future generations figure out what to do with the mess we've made.
Flatline
Banned
I think with the new solar panels that are much cheaper this will soon become a reality.
Thanks for the info, I didn't expect that they'd last that long.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Didn't the German government already try this with 100bn worth of subsidies for personal solar generation?
Yes but there are options you have to deal with these long lived isotopes, such as nuclear transmutation. These can change the long lived transuranic elements into isotopes that decay quicker, reducing the radioactivity levels of the waste to below that of natural uranium in under 1000 years. Creating a structure that lasts for 1000 years is reasonably trivial, from an engineering point of view.
It also should be said that it is incorrect to assume that since nuclear generation methods used in the past have created large amounts of radioactive waste that all future nuclear technologies will do so. Methods such as thorium reactors and fast breeder reactors do not have nearly as much of a problem with this as old uranium/plutonium reactors do. Infact fast breeder reactors can be used as part of the transmutation process i spoke of earlier.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
I almost jumped in on a dutch collective to get discounts on solar panels, have the right roof and everything, but I got my house 1 month too late. Maybe next time around.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
As far as I'm aware, introducing solar panels on a scale that could tackle the power consumption of an industrialized state on the level of Germany would introduce incredible supply issues.
Plus, Germany isn't an ideal location because only about 1/8 of all yearly hours are sun hours here. Figures since we're close to the coast and have a lot of forest, mountain regions, lakes, rivers, cities. Pretty dynamic weather around here.
Private solar panels could really only drive the households they're associated with, and those only to a degree. But it's also controversial. Some people are quite happy with their setups.
Improving the energy consumption profile of the average household is much more important in my opinion.
Plus, Germany isn't an ideal location because only about 1/8 of all yearly hours are sun hours here. Figures since we're close to the coast and have a lot of forest, mountain regions, lakes, rivers, cities. Pretty dynamic weather around here.
Private solar panels could really only drive the households they're associated with, and those only to a degree. But it's also controversial. Some people are quite happy with their setups.
Improving the energy consumption profile of the average household is much more important in my opinion.
Flatline
Banned
I don't know about that but they're definitely becoming more accessible: http://www.digitaltrends.com/green-...n-solar-cells-threaten-fossil-fuel-dominance/
Not a big problem with new nuclear.
More people should be informed of the awesome that is new nuclear. They're basically closer to fusion reactors than nuclear reactors of old as far as cons and benefits go.
Souldriver
Member
Lol.
"I don't like how a government decided to gamble on a specific source of power. Seems uninformed. I suggest they go for that other one specific source of power, based on my uninformed opinion."
I think in the long run Germany will be able to give a "fuck you!" to the rest of the world. Clean energy, energy independence, innovation in the industry, ... there are already more people working in the renewable energy industry than the car industry in Germany. Think about that.
Seems like a gamble indeed, but lets hope it turns out to be a good one.
Does not compute
nuclear technology creates nuclear waste. Waste that needs to be put somewhere for thousands and thousands of years. So nuclear technology is the correct decision, despite putting a burden on later generations (your 50-100 years thinking)? This does not make any sense. It wouldn't even make any sense, if nuclear energy was really cheap. It's just cheap for the companies, because they don't have to save monies for storing the waste for all those years. Additionally they don't have to have insurance in case of worst case scenario (see: Japan). No insurer in the whole world would be mad enough to do this. If everyone using this crap would have to pay the actual total price, it would be much more expensive, even ignoring the risk of having nuclear plants.
I have to agree with the OP. One of the only good decisions coming from German government.
correct.
mclaren777
Member
Agreed.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
there is an absolutely fantastic documentary about nuclear waste storage in finland called onkalo
into eternity trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LicOO8i1N3s
into eternity trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LicOO8i1N3s
Some of the pro-nuclear comments are so stupid, I have no words.
Germany needs to import energy from France?
1. France needed to to import energy from Germany this winter! The French were told to not use their washing machines because there were severe energy shortages. Despite having shut down 8 nuclear power plants, Germany handled this easily.
2. Even if Germany shut down all of its nuclear power plants immediately, it would still produce more power than it needs.
Nuclear power at no point accounted for more than 20% of Germany's energy production.
Germany needs to import energy from France?
1. France needed to to import energy from Germany this winter! The French were told to not use their washing machines because there were severe energy shortages. Despite having shut down 8 nuclear power plants, Germany handled this easily.
2. Even if Germany shut down all of its nuclear power plants immediately, it would still produce more power than it needs.
Nuclear power at no point accounted for more than 20% of Germany's energy production.
No sir, you are not.
The deficit in December wasn't nearly as bad as 2010, and overall in 2011 France exported more to Germany than it imported from (complete opposite of 2010). That's a direct consequence of Germany's decision.
speculawyer
Member
The wind is always blowing somewhere. If you spread the turbines around, you use statistical multiplexing to always have power.
Wind often blows more an night than during the day in places such that you can also do statistical multiplexing between wind & solar. With these techniques, you can significantly reduce the intermittentcy issues. Then you just mix in some storage & traditional generating capacity.
Somehow I thought that it'd be a larger area than that. Not too bad considering you'd need over 6 sq miles for a new nuclear facility and wind farms can be put offshore.
SlipperySlope
Banned
Now about the cost/efficiency issues...
Starfish_Oxide
Member
Germany why you no make thorium based nuclear power plants?
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
Well, what about cost/efficiency? To get the waste to Gorleben, they have to mobilize thousands of policemen each year. Add to that the research cost to get a proper storage facility going, the potential financial damage in case shit goes wrong, the extremely costly security measures, the time wasted arguing about nuclear power issues.
Hold against that the win of not being as dependant on Russian gas anymore. Also, a more diverse power structure affords less vulnerability when it comes to specific disasters, so outages will be less damaging for most scenarios, which is also money.
The wind...stops blowing? When does that happen, especially at sea? This will serve as a means to only replace 1/5th their power generation according to the article. It's not meant to be the end-all, be-all. Hats off to Merkel. The word absolutely must take steps to move to clean energy on a massive scale.
Yeah, the actual efficiency problem is much more trivial: We need effin cables!
el retorno
Member
Didn't they just aprove a storage site in some nowhere town in Castilla-La Mancha?
Speaking of that I just read this story in a German magazine critizing a lot of the Green movement. (Its in english)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,821396,00.html
Nuclear Waste is locking something up for a while. Nuclear power is irrational fear driven by 3 events, 2 of which haven been proven to be deadly to anyone (the radiation). Unlike the thousands who die from coal and other types of power.
People have an irrational fear of radiation.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Yes. Hence the awakening comment.
Hari Seldon
Member
Except that is retarded thinking. If we can keep that shit safe for 500 years or so, the problem will be trivial for our ancestors 500 years from now when they get around to wanting to clean up whatever mountain that shit is buried under. Look at science 500 years ago, and look at it today, and tell me that there won't be some $500 device that can recycle that material into baby toys.
Not to mention that we already have plans for nuclear power plants that run on 'waste'. Nuclear waste is not waste at all, we can keep using it for power generation until it's harmless.
el retorno
Member
There was a pretty comprehensive special on the future of nuclear power in last weeks Economist. That didn't sound too positive, and I don't think the Economist can be accused of being made by leftist hippies. Basically, when all is said and done, nuclear power really isn't as cheap, future-proof and efficient as it's made out to be. Although of course they disagreed with Germany's decision to stop using running reactors. Recommended reading material for both sides of the discussion.
That's another thing that's mentioned in the Economist. IIRC, they concluded that this technique is completely ineconomic so far.
That's another thing that's mentioned in the Economist. IIRC, they concluded that this technique is completely ineconomic so far.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
That's all truly cause for concern. It should only serve to initiate more critical thinking though.
Of course, it doesn't have much to do with nuclear power.
There's nothing irrational about the fear of radiation. It's pretty dangerous.
What you're trying to say is that the fear of radiation assumes a higher risk under the circumstances than science dictates. But you're saying that because you're probably not living at a distance of 10km from where the waste is standing in an effectively open storage depot.
Of course, the air is being filtered. And the filters are waste as well. But this whole ordeal, if you extrapolate with regards to the energy needs of a Germany in 100 years, explodes in terms of complexity, danger, manageability. It's a real concern.
Also, the whole point of La Hague is recycling of waste, and there's a significant amount of resulting fuel that's being carried off to stations. This is not being debated. The problematic waste is the kind that isn't recyclable. And that waste ends up in Gorleben, in an open storage depot.
I mean, it would be less of a debate if we had a desert around here, I guess. But we don't have that "luxury". So the concerns are pretty real at the least because there are people everywhere.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
A bit misleading, since that's only possible with certain kinds of nuclear waste. Unfortunately there is no troll physics that allows you to magically run on isotopes until they are completely safe. Nuclear waste is still a damn PITA to manage with ENORMOUS ancillary costs and will remain as such for quite a while.
Nuclear plants don't scare me as long as they are well maintained and placed in safe locations, but their proponents are all too happy to rage on green energy subsidies while ignoring the crazy amounts of money required to keep everything clean and safe.
Baconsaurus Rex
Member
If my calculations and rough estimates are correct, then it is a rather large area we're talking about.
I'm still hopeful that we will finally build a space elevator and just launch that shit into the sun.
SolidusDave
Member
at least they look cool!
(Horns Rev 1 in the North Sea)
(Horns Rev 1 in the North Sea)
What I don't understand is, why don't they put the nuclear waste back where they mined it? I know it takes a long long time for them to cool off, but does that not make sense? I mean the fuel is volatile when mined, what difference does it make when it's put back where it came from?
Science gaf, explain!
Science gaf, explain!
fizzelopeguss
Banned
Upscale that US naval gauss cannon....
Anton668
Member
its funny that right after seeing this thread I turn on HBO to see this playing...
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/
ItAintEasyBeinCheesy
it's 4th of July in my asshole
Cool, I imagine this will make electricity pretty damn expensive though.
anonymous_abc
Member
Ok, sure science has done alot in 500 years but so has everything else, it's ludicrous to think one can keep all that waste "safe" for even 100 years who the frack knows what will happen in that time, one bad earthquake in an unexpected area and all the shit contaminates god knows what.
Same goes for tracking why would anyone even consider risking our safe underwater supply it's the blood of the entire planet and it's beeing unjustly risked so that we can live the high life for a mother couple of years.
In German there is a saying.
"Nach mir die Sintflut"
Very Fitting.
After me the Giant flood can come what do i care...
And considering uranium Mining i can only recommend the documentary "uranium is ist a Country"
Very disturbing, Trailer Here
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...pnJT1hNLMYew0xkjw&sig2=jI3GK3RUhMHU_cLVLXqdwQ
I grew up in an oil and gas family, the magic on the word fracking was lost on me long long ago
Seriously though. LFTR nuclear power + wind + water + solar. focus on getting LFTRs out the door as a backbone to energy production and then work on getting your wind etc programs producing a lot of energy without taking up massive land space.
Maybe if that economist article mentioned things more than vaguely then I would actually consider what it had to say but....
http://www.economist.com/node/21549936
http://www.economist.com/node/21549098
It's kind of a flaccid article for people to be basing opinions on.
anonymous_abc
Member
This is also relevant, as ever
- Status