• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power

Dontero

Banned
Apr 19, 2018
3,046
3,373
650
Germany still has many coal and gas plants in use. And especially our gas plants are currently those who are used when the renewables are fluctuating. You can bring a Gas and Steam Plant from zero to 100 in 20 minutes. And it's normal to use those fast reacting plants to stabilize the grid. That's a normal procedure in every bigger grid.

You are confusing additional stabilizing power in case of failture with unpredictable solar spikes that needs to be accounted for. Until you get better batteries there is nothing you can do to make solar effective.

Take a look for this example:



As whole solar does provide a lot of energy as someone chart pointed out. Problem is that energy is delivered when it is needed THE LEAST and they can't even spend solar power so they have to export it.
And that is currently with such amount of solar panels. If you increase them by 50% or more you are talking about shutting down completely most of powerplants so taht few hours a day solar can power whole thing. AND not exactly like that because solar panels are not concetrated so you either way will need to rebalance network which is HARD on daily basis.

- Ans those 27 Tons are packaged in much more Weight and volume. Let me guess you heard this number once and thought, hey that's not that much, right?

PER 1000MW PER YEAR. Germany whole economy per 2013 used 40k MW per day. Which means for whole year of whole Geramany economy reactors would produce around 1080 tones of waste for 100 years (assuming energy consumption won't increase) : 108000tones which is NOTHING. One good big coal mine could completely store whole thing for next few thousands year. And it that 100 years we will have fussion which produces even less and very low radioactive material.

- Good idea just load those radioactive waste in some regular coal mine perfect. But wait why is there still no final Nuclear repository? If it's so easy why is nobody taking our thousand of tons of nuclear waste we still have in our small country?

Because business is very loosely regulated and various companies are storing that material. AND YES old mines are used most of the time.

- Then show us please how many of those modern reactors are out there and how expensive they are to plan to build and maintain without government subsidies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor

- Yeah, areas that are radiated for very very long time are grossly overestimated. Let's just ignore those 400 (and that number is from what source please?)

https://www.theguardian.com/science...myths-about-nuclear-power-chernobyl-fukushima
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

“There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated. Although most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.”

2008 Raport directly says that if you were not directly exposed to radiation AT THE SITE ITSELF there is no any evidence you would get even increased cancer.

There were extensive studies done on animals who live there since then and those studies did not found any trace of anomaly (like cancer above predicted outcome). Since that tragedy populations of boars and other animals exploded there and those animals were not any different from normal animals.

Simply put our predictions about exposure and effects of radiation do not reflect reality.



- That's the only point I'm with you. Coal plants are bad. very bad. But "just" switching to Fission until Fusion is here is not possible. Fusion is not there to save us in the next future. ITER is not active and DEMO far far away. Wendelstein 7X is awesome and maybe much more interesting then ITER. But still just a small experiment.

And why is that ?

Here is france, they make 90% of their energy from Fission and they produce much less carbon than Germany AND French energy is MUCH cheaper.



Prices of energy before Germany switched off their nuclear reactors after Fukushima:




- Solar and wind are not just wasted money and they work fine for proper mass scale use. There are enough showcases to look up. Denmark, Germany, Marocco. You cant just ognore that.

No they don't. As i said before. They work fine because there are normal powerplants which keep grid alive and provide stable power to grid for whole day.

UNLESS you get proper batteries solar powered cities is just garbage myth. And there is nothing on horizon that can fix that easily.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,325
70,250
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
fast? Oo what do you want them to do? Why do you exactly think that solar and wind are lagging behind? I have the data of two countries ready to tell you that they are capable. What do you have?

Oh, come on. you want to argue with the fuel of transportation for panels and wind turbines? So Please give me the numbers (and please in real units). And the need to be maintained and repaired? That's something very other installation on this planet lacks, right? Bullshit.
You seem super angry. Calm down. I don't have numbers for you, but that doesn't invalidate the fuel costs for the manufacture and transportation of these things, does it? Are you categorically denying that these "clean energy" options don't still cost a ton of fuel to build, ship, install, and maintain?

Yes the USA are the best. But still those plants are not planed. Think about what the reason could be. And Yes think about all the space your country has for wind turbines and solar panels. It would be so fucking easy to generate plenty of energy without the problems of Nuclear power plants.
We already have wind and solar going up around the country, but you realize that not everything in the USA runs on electrical energy, right? That is also true for countries in Europe, even the ones who are moving to renewables. You could build tens of thousands of turbines in the hills, or you could build one mid-sized nuclear plant. Let's not pretend that there aren't very beneficial tradeoffs to using nuclear instead of solar and/or wind. The other major advantage is that nuclear can go almost anywhere, even in the center of a mountain if need be. Wind and Solar are not viable in all areas.

Even if we used nuclear as as stopgap for the next 300 years (I imagine humanity will need electrical energy moving forward), why not? We could not only halt most of our emissions but also build a resource for future generations. "Free healthcare", "free education", "universal income", and yet people get so icky when nuclear could offer us "free power".

Hoover Dam 2.0. USA Gov't builds nuclear plants across the country and repairs our old infrastructure. Free power to US citizens with a residence. Power credits provided to all US businesses based on the number of full-time employees they hire. Tax business revenue that uses the free power as a part of their profit (to prevent massive corporate overuse). Easy peasy.
 

#Phonepunk#

Banned
Sep 4, 2018
18,541
36,208
885
40
i dont see why we don't do solar power in outer space? seems like you would be able to get 100% coverage by having satellites completely unencumbered by the Earth's atmosphere.

sure beats nuclear power and the potential that a natural disaster could hit out of nowhere and the area would be screwed for the next 100+ years as shit leaks into the global atmosphere. honestly, why bet against that?

it seems entirely shortsighted. especially in California, which sits directly on San Andreas Fault line. California sits on a CONTINENTAL TRANFORM FAULT. what are those? oh, just the tectonic plates that float above the Earth's volcanic mantel and which hold the 7 continents and are constantly shifting. yes let's build nuclear power plants there. what a grebt idea. /s
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,325
70,250
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
i dont see why we don't do solar power in outer space? seems like you would be able to get 100% coverage by having satellites completely unencumbered by the Earth's atmosphere.

sure beats nuclear power and the potential that a natural disaster could hit out of nowhere and the area would be screwed for the next 100+ years as shit leaks into the global atmosphere. honestly, why bet against that?

it seems entirely shortsighted. especially in California, which sits directly on San Andreas Fault line. California sits on a CONTINENTAL TRANFORM FAULT. what are those? oh, just the tectonic plates that float above the Earth's volcanic mantel and which hold the 7 continents and are constantly shifting. yes let's build nuclear power plants there. what a grebt idea. /s
How can you think it's feasible to float solar power in space yet at the same time be so concerned by our ability to place nuclear plants in safe locations on land?
 

Dontero

Banned
Apr 19, 2018
3,046
3,373
650
i dont see why we don't do solar power in outer space? seems like you would be able to get 100% coverage by having satellites completely unencumbered by the Earth's atmosphere.

Good luck getting those panels there and then figure out how exactly you will transport energy back to earth because wires to earth wont't work.
 
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
i dont see why we don't do solar power in outer space? seems like you would be able to get 100% coverage by having satellites completely unencumbered by the Earth's atmosphere.
Solar power is not only not efficient but it is pretty expensive.
 

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
You are confusing additional stabilizing power in case of failture with unpredictable solar spikes that needs to be accounted for. Until you get better batteries there is nothing you can do to make solar effective.

Take a look for this example:



As whole solar does provide a lot of energy as someone chart pointed out. Problem is that energy is delivered when it is needed THE LEAST and they can't even spend solar power so they have to export it.
And that is currently with such amount of solar panels. If you increase them by 50% or more you are talking about shutting down completely most of powerplants so taht few hours a day solar can power whole thing. AND not exactly like that because solar panels are not concetrated so you either way will need to rebalance network which is HARD on daily basis.

I don't speak about shutting them down tomorrow. What I say is that we could replace the fossil fuel Plants with renewable energy in form of Solar, Wind, Power to Gas. And could you please show this dayline from 2018? Thats a 5 year old graph and doesnt represent the current situation.

PER 1000MW PER YEAR. Germany whole economy per 2013 used 40k MW per day. Which means for whole year of whole Geramany economy reactors would produce around 1080 tones of waste for 100 years (assuming energy consumption won't increase) : 108000tones which is NOTHING. One good big coal mine could completely store whole thing for next few thousands year. And it that 100 years we will have fussion which produces even less and very low radioactive material.

Because business is very loosely regulated and various companies are storing that material. AND YES old mines are used most of the time.

108,000 Tons is nothing? I know those nice coal mines. In fact, I live above hundreds of kilometres of coal mines and I can tell you that those mines are not stable. After all these years we still didn't found a good place to store the waste. We even have the problem that a mine that we thought would be good enough is leaking and created now a massive problem.



Sooo many reactors. unbelievable.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...myths-about-nuclear-power-chernobyl-fukushima
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

“There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated. Although most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.”

2008 Raport directly says that if you were not directly exposed to radiation AT THE SITE ITSELF there is no any evidence you would get even increased cancer.

There were extensive studies done on animals who live there since then and those studies did not found any trace of anomaly (like cancer above predicted outcome). Since that tragedy populations of boars and other animals exploded there and those animals were not any different from normal animals.

Simply put our predictions about exposure and effects of radiation do not reflect reality.
Thanks for the source. And good that the area was not densely populated and that this population was evacuated fast. Same in Japan.
It is still not recommended to eat Fungus from Forests in Bavaria because of Chernobyl. We know that accidents like Chernobyl are releasing huge amounts of radiating materials. And we know that those are mostly alpha and beta radiators. When you take them in this problematic and not exactly healthy. If such an accident happens in here in West germany or Benelux, I can tell you the number of people that would be affected is another magnitude than in Chernobyl.

And now! Buy Radium water! But hey nuclear is awesome

And why is that ?

because hoping for something that works in theory but in commercial use is not the hailbringer. Don't get me wrong. Fusion is awesome and if we are able to build fusion reactors that work. Awesome.

Here is france, they make 90% of their energy from Fission and they produce much less carbon than Germany AND French energy is MUCH cheaper.

Energy is subsidised in France and funnily France needs Germany to stabilize the national power grid ;)
Prices of energy before Germany switched off their nuclear reactors after Fukushima:

So? Taxes.

No they don't. As i said before. They work fine because there is normal powerplants who keep grid alive and provide stable power to grid for whole day.

UNLESS you get proper batteries solar powered cities is just garbage myth. And there is nothing on horizon that can fix that easily.
Damn how does Denmark even work.

I don't want to say that we won't need any investors. That would contain storage and a better grid, but we would need those too when we would build some new nuclear plants.
And why are you just talking about solar? Wind and other sources are still there. But wind and solar have the most potential.

Solar power is not only not efficient but it is pretty expensive.

Based on what?

 
Last edited:

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
You seem super angry. Calm down. I don't have numbers for you, but that doesn't invalidate the fuel costs for the manufacture and transportation of these things, does it? Are you categorically denying that these "clean energy" options don't still cost a ton of fuel to build, ship, install, and maintain?
I'm calm. Sry my shouldnt appear angry.
You have no number but want to create something that you seem to feel. (Transportation etc) Without numbers it makes no sense to argue about this.

We already have wind and solar going up around the country, but you realize that not everything in the USA runs on electrical energy, right? That is also true for countries in Europe, even the ones who are moving to renewables. You could build tens of thousands of turbines in the hills, or you could build one mid-sized nuclear plant. Let's not pretend that there aren't very beneficial tradeoffs to using nuclear instead of solar and/or wind. The other major advantage is that nuclear can go almost anywhere, even in the center of a mountain if need be. Wind and Solar are not viable in all areas.

You can put solar on the top of a mountain if you want to. But you need moving water for the Nuclear power plan ;) Nuclear is also not vialbe in all areas but that not the problem we invented something that is called powerline.

Even if we used nuclear as as stopgap for the next 300 years (I imagine humanity will need electrical energy moving forward), why not? We could not only halt most of our emissions but also build a resource for future generations. "Free healthcare", "free education", "universal income", and yet people get so icky when nuclear could offer us "free power".

Waste. It's still a problem. You just can't stop thinking about the waste. The waste is a problem. Give me a viable solution and I would be glad.

Hoover Dam 2.0. USA Gov't builds nuclear plants across the country and repairs our old infrastructure. Free power to US citizens with a residence. Power credits provided to all US businesses based on the number of full-time employees they hire. Tax business revenue that uses the free power as a part of their profit (to prevent massive corporate overuse). Easy peasy.

Your infrastructure really is old. That's a problem. But if this would be easy peasy it would already have happened. This topic is as easy as healthcare. Which seems to be very easy for your "president".
 
Last edited:

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
What the fuck? I would pay like 10k inclusive batteries. How much kWhp do you need for your needs?
My parents converted their House for 10k with 6kWhp 10 years ago. This would be like 5 today. We calculated that with a little 10 kWh battery they could use solar completely even kn winter.
But our houses have a different standard then in the us. We mostly use better insulation, windows and radiators which are more efficient then common US air heating. So ln the Ende the energy footprint is much smaller.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,325
70,250
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
I'm calm. Sry my shouldnt appear angry.
You have no number but want to create something that you seem to feel. (Transportation etc) Without numbers it makes no sense to argue about this.
It makes perfect sense. The fossil fuel cost of creating the "clean energy" device/machine/infrastructure/whatever should be factored into it, correct? The notion that it is clean energy forever and for all time moving forward is absolutely false.

You put forth the idea that solar and wind are "clean". I am disagreeing by pointing out that they are not "clean": they require not-zero amounts of fossil fuels to build, transport, and operate. They use rare metals that have to be mined from the earth in expensive and environmentally-unfriendly ways. They are built with plastics that still use oil. Many are built in factories powered by coal. This is a fact. Do you disagree with this fact? Why call them clean energy when they are not actually clean? That is my point.

I may not have exact numbers as to the amount of metal and coal and oil and so forth used in the production of solar and wind devices. But that isn't a necessary part of making my point. I'm pointing out the obvious fact that solar and wind aren't "clean" because they are built and maintained using a ton of "unclean" materials and "unclean" manufacturing techniques, environmentally speaking.

You can put solar on the top of a mountain if you want to. But you need moving water for the Nuclear power plan ;) Nuclear is also not vialbe in all areas but that not the problem we invented something that is called powerline.
Let me put this another way: nuclear is more power per square foot, if you will. Yes, you could certainly stretch many thousands of turbines across mountains, build all the service roads, hire all the road crews and repair personnel, stretch many more miles of electrical cable, knock down far more forests and natural areas, spend way more money both in short term and long term, etc etc by building wind turbines or solar panels on the top of a mountain. It is still very costly. Nuclear power plants can use things called "pumps" to move water around.

Waste. It's still a problem. You just can't stop thinking about the waste. The waste is a problem. Give me a viable solution and I would be glad.
Yep, waste is a problem. Even at full tilt, the waste would be significantly less and of a different nature than our current waste. I'm not saying it would be a permanent solution, but it's better than what we are using now.

Like I've pointed out above, there is waste and pollution generated by solar and wind in their own way.

What you have yet to respond to is as follows:

- you haven't explained how solar or wind are "clean"
- you haven't explained how nuclear generates more waste or worse waste compared to our current means of energy production
- you haven't explained how a large number of wind turbines / solar panels is superior to a single nuclear plant


Your infrastructure really is old. That's a problem. But if this would be easy peasy it would already have happened. This topic is as easy as healthcare. Which seems to be very easy for your "president".
So you're a reductionist, not anyone with a real logical standpoint. Glad we had this one-sided conversation.
 
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
What the fuck? I would pay like 10k inclusive batteries. How much kWhp do you need for your needs?
My parents converted their House for 10k with 6kWhp 10 years ago. This would be like 5 today. We calculated that with a little 10 kWh battery they could use solar completely even kn winter.
But our houses have a different standard then in the us. We mostly use better insulation, windows and radiators which are more efficient then common US air heating. So ln the Ende the energy footprint is much smaller.
We have a thing called central air because it is fucking unlivable here without it. I remember a brit person saying how we were just weak until he moved to another country with similar weather. He took that shit back.
 

Boss Mog

Member
Dec 12, 2013
8,803
13,962
1,060
For Germany I can maybe see it because they're pretty free of natural disasters, but building nuclear power plants right in the middle of earthquake country is probably not the way to go as evidenced by Japan.
 

Musky_Cheese

Banned
Oct 23, 2016
9,431
20,784
1,185
Waste. It's still a problem. You just can't stop thinking about the waste. The waste is a problem. Give me a viable solution and I would be glad.

You can recycle it? USA doesn't because old Administration said no.

A good number of Plants in America are going to shut down. And politics has a lot to do with it. It's not all about profits. People are concerned with Safety. USA is full of dumb people who are Jon Snow when it comes to Nuclear Energy.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,325
70,250
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
You can recycle it? USA doesn't because old Administration said no.

A good number of Plants in America are going to shut down. And politics has a lot to do with it. It's not all about profits. People are concerned with Safety. USA is full of dumb people who are Jon Snow when it comes to Nuclear Energy.
What does this even mean? :messenger_grinning_sweat:
 

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
- you haven't explained how solar or wind are "clean"
- you haven't explained how nuclear generates more waste or worse waste compared to our current means of energy production
- you haven't explained how a large number of wind turbines / solar panels is superior to a single nuclear plant

1. They are clean in the production of Energy. Not the production of themselves. But Wind is at the point where they reduce the usage of rare minerals further down so that the impact is less and less every year. Solar is a different story. But the general amortisation is going down as well. I think the last number was 10 month for amortisation. But after that, we have clean energy.
2. Thats a good point. We have some nasty chemicals on one side for mining and sperarating Uran in extremly dirty mines plus tonnes and tonnes of waste afterwards and we have nasty chemicals on the the side of solar. there will never be a perfectly clean way. But we have a way that could reduce many aspects.
3. No Fuel, no comparable accidents, scaleability, sinking production costs.

Let me put this another way: nuclear is more power per square foot, if you will. Yes, you could certainly stretch many thousands of turbines across mountains, build all the service roads, hire all the road crews and repair personnel, stretch many more miles of electrical cable, knock down far more forests and natural areas, spend way more money both in short term and long term, etc etc by building wind turbines or solar panels on the top of a mountain. It is still very costly. Nuclear power plants can use things called "pumps" to move water around.

Power per square meter (grrr :D) is of course better. Uran is awesome at this point. As someone who lives in a country with many many wind turbines I can say you that you overestimating the maintenance and area that is needed.
A simple pump will not be enough to cool the reactor down. There is a reason why those reactors are on rivers and seasides.

I may not have exact numbers as to the amount of metal and coal and oil and so forth used in the production of solar and wind devices. But that isn't a necessary part of making my point. I'm pointing out the obvious fact that solar and wind aren't "clean" because they are built and maintained using a ton of "unclean" materials and "unclean" manufacturing techniques, environmentally speaking.

And nuclear powerplants just apear from nothing? Nothing is perfectly clean.

So you're a reductionist, not anyone with a real logical standpoint. Glad we had this one-sided conversation.

no, I'm not. I just wanted to say that nothing is just easy peasy. When your idea works and grants the benefits you mentioned that would be awesome! But I don't Think that it is just that easy.

You can recycle it? USA doesn't because old Administration said no.

A good number of Plants in America are going to shut down. And politics has a lot to do with it. It's not all about profits. People are concerned with Safety. USA is full of dumb people who are Jon Snow when it comes to Nuclear Energy.

How can you recycle it? At what costs? With which technology? I know the concepts you are pointing on. But those are not here. When transmutation is here and works as intended. I will be there to promote it.
 
Last edited:

Musky_Cheese

Banned
Oct 23, 2016
9,431
20,784
1,185
1. They are clean in the production of Energy. Not the production of themselves. But Wind is at the point where they reduce the usage of rare minerals further down so that the impact is less and less every year. Solar is a different story. But the general amortisation is going down as well. I think the last number was 10 month for amortisation. But after that, we have clean energy.
2. Thats a good point. We have some nasty chemicals on one side for mining and sperarating Uran in extremly dirty mines plus tonnes and tonnes of waste afterwards and we have nasty chemicals on the the side of solar. there will never be a perfectly clean way. But we have a way that could reduce many aspects.
3. No Fuel, no comparable accidents, scaleability, sinking production costs.



Power per square meter (grrr :D) is of course better. Uran is awesome at this point. As someone who lives in a country with many many wind turbines I can say you that you overestimating the maintenance and area that is needed.
A simple pump will not be enough to cool the reactor down. There is a reason why those reactors are on rivers and seasides.



And nuclear powerplants just apear from nothing? Nothing is perfectly clean.



no, I'm not. I just wanted to say that nothing is just easy peasy. When your idea works and grants the benefits you mentioned that would be awesome! But I don't Think that it is just that easy.



How can you recycle it? At what costs? With which technology? I know the concepts you are pointing on. But those are not here. When transmutation is here and works as intended. I will be there to promote it.

Isn't there already plants outside the USA doing it?
 

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
Isn't there already plants outside the USA doing it?
Like? I think you are educated? No there are none. The concept is great.
the THTR 300 in my hometown would be able to use those lower dense energy fuel to produce energy but the reactor didn't run very well. It used Thorium as fuel for testing.
 
Last edited:

Dontero

Banned
Apr 19, 2018
3,046
3,373
650
108,000 Tons is nothing?

Coal mines operate in MILIONS of tons per year (data from polish mines) and that is just coal not total amount of rock and everything they take out of the ground to get to coal.
So 108000 tons PER 100 years is literally nothing.







Sooo many reactors. unbelievable.

And ? You will move goal posts again ? France doesn't open up new nuclear reactors because they are already exporting a lot of energy and then don't need more. Similar situation to many other nations like US.

Thanks for the source. And good that the area was not densely populated and that this population was evacuated fast. Same in Japan. It is still not recommended to eat Fungus from Forests in Bavaria because of Chernobyl. We know that accidents like Chernobyl are releasing huge amounts of radiating materials. And we know that those are mostly alpha and beta radiators. When you take them in this problematic and not exactly healthy. If such an accident happens in here in West germany or Benelux, I can tell you the number of people that would be affected is another magnitude than in Chernobyl.
And now! Buy Radium water! But hey nuclear is awesome

I just literally sourced you study on how there is no any evidence that people/animals who lived very near Chernobyl have increased risk of any disease which should show after almost 30 years.
So the idea that you can now take some fungi from Germany and get radiation poisoning is completely false.


Energy is subsidised in France and funnily France needs Germany to stabilize the national power grid ;)

You don't make any point here. Nuclear power is CHEAPER than any form of energy production. Especially when you take into account gasses produced which you don't account for.
 
Last edited:

Warm Machine

Member
Jun 9, 2004
15,810
63
1,585
Vancouver
firebase.ca
Solar should not be a power generating solution for the grid. It needs to be on top of the very thing it should be powering. It is the most effective way and safest way for any city or town to operate. If the grid fails or is attacked you still have your own personal power generation. Power should be decentralized where it makes sense on the planet to do just that.
 

Trogdor1123

Member
Mar 2, 2012
9,544
2,858
955
fast? Oo what do you want them to do? Why do you exactly think that solar and wind are lagging behind? I have the data of two countries ready to tell you that they are capable. What do you have?

Oh, come on. you want to argue with the fuel of transportation for panels and wind turbines? So Please give me the numbers (and please in real units). And the need to be maintained and repaired? That's something very other installation on this planet lacks, right? Bullshit.

Yes the USA are the best. But still those plants are not planed. Think about what the reason could be. Maybe tell this trump. I bet he would think that this is a good idea. How about 10 new nuclear power plants for the USA. GEneration 4 Of course. They need to be safe right? That would cost you about 20 Billion $ per plant and GWh. Without the disassembly costs and the costs for storing the waste. so think about 30 Billion $. So 300 Billion. It's not like he already pushed the deficit up. What is 300 Billion more?

But Think about what you could build with 300 Billion $ in renewables. Think about it.
And Yes think about all the space your country has for wind turbines and solar panels. It would be so fucking easy to generate plenty of energy without the problems of Nuclear power plants.
But they have their own terrible problems, they are far from a free lunch.

The biological ( for lack of a better term) PV systems are a real step in the right direction though. Solves a ton of problems and nearly doubled output.
 

Dontero

Banned
Apr 19, 2018
3,046
3,373
650
Nuclear is not 100% clean. We still don't know what to do with nuclear waste.

We dump it into earth. Similar how you get nuclear fuel in first place (from earth).
So we know what to do with it. And amount of waste produced is less than amount of stuff you take out of uranium mines in first place. As i already pointed out before for country like germany if you use nuclear reactors with their 2013 energy use for 100 years you would produce around 100 000 tons of waste which is nothing compared to even one medium sized mine which operates in milions of tons takes out of ground per year.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,350
945
How many people were blown up trying to tunnel for trains?
Only construction workers. No long term nuclear contamination, unlike with nuclear power plants. Consequences are vastly different.

Yes, they outnumbered us because they were mass-produced without safety in mind. There's a pretty good book on the whole topic called 'Against the Tide' that details the progression of our nuclear arsenal versus the Soviet one. Something it points out is that since our subs were better-built, longer-ranged, and more reliable, it enabled us to go on more missions for longer periods of time. Going on more missions means better-trained crews. Better-trained crews meant safer operations. It had a compound effect.
We are going hardcore offtopic here, but I see no other thread to respond.

Our subs all patrolled the same general seas, for the most part.
US subs had little business to do near Murmansk etc, unlike Soviet subs.

Overall, US lost 2 nuclear submarines, USSR 5, if we trust wiki. It's roughly proportional to the (submarine) fleet sizes.

This is why we still dominated the ocean wargames with a much smaller fleet.
USSR never tried to match US Navy, it was just way too expensive. That's why in "achievement" comparisons of Navy, you'd see USSR vs UK. There was nothing even remotely resembling Nimitz class carriers, never produced, never even planned.

Overall, armament arsenals of USSR and USA were asymmetric. USA had hands down stronger fleet. USSR had more nuclear submarines and amazing strategic missiles (Р-36, known as S-18 Satan in the West). USSR also had larger army of 4 million

(partially to cover China, which was considered to be a real threat). US had options to position mid and short range missiles close to Soviet border, being able to reach Volga in 4 minutes. (This is why Able Archer nearly triggered a third world war, Soviet generals considered pre-emptive strike to be the only viable option.)
 

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
first google result for can you recycle...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/01/why-doesnt-u-s-recycle-nuclear-fuel/

Seems to suggest France does.

Nah, they don't. They send their Stuff to us and glazing the rest.

I don't have the time to argue with everyone here. And in fact, I don't give a fuck why someone tries so hard to push Nuclear. Take it as you will.

But some Fact for my last post in this thread:

- We had this year the first day where the whole country was powered by renewables.
- We are constantly exporting Power to our nuclear neighbour France with their extremely unflexible grid and temperature sensitive plants. Funnily even France wants to grow their renewables without building new plants.
- You can't just put this trash into some normal mine just because there is enough space. Space was never the problem. The Problem is to contain this nasty and now extremely concentrated Toxic stuff in places where no groundwater or tectonic activities for the next 64,000 Years. If you don't care. Fine then have fun putting this in your local coal mine.
- Every way to produce Energy has its problem but we need to think about what is more problematic than others. And what is maybe recyclable and what not? Hint: You can recycle the material of Wind turbines and Solar cells up to 95% (Today).
- The Efficiency of PV is still getting better and the price is constantly going down.
-When you look about what an MWh costs when produced in a nuclear power plant. Please don't forget to include the waste disposal and plant disassembling costs. The numbers the nuclear lobby puts out don't include those. When you still want to take the risk. That's your choice.
- I'm glad that my country (which is mentioned in the title of the topic) is not going strong in nuclear.
- You can't run away from renewables. Because they get cheaper and cheaper.

good night.
 
Last edited:

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
So the part of France recycling is wrong?

This is what happens:

In nuclear power plants, plutonium can only be used in small quantities as fissile material. In fuel element factories it is mixed with uranium and further processed to so-called MOX fuel elements which can be used in light water reactors. However, they are considerably more expensive than conventional fuel elements.
The amount of nuclear waste is not reduced by reprocessing: the volume is even considerably increased and handling is made more difficult.
After reprocessing, most of the radioactive material accumulates as a liquid which, even after vitrification, is less suitable for final disposal than the original fuel elements.
There are two reprocessing plants in Europe: one in England and one in France.
Compared to nuclear power plants, reprocessing plants release considerably larger quantities of radioactive substances into the environment during normal operation.
This is not the recycling that is needed to eliminate the danger. What we want is transmutation in reactors. But there are still no working reactors for commercial use. If we had those the situation would be completely different.
 

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
Why do people talk like this 'waste' thing for nuclear fuel just like a few chocolate bar wrappers and banana peels? Waste is not a good description of the byproduct at all

Highly toxic, highly reactive, highly concentrated, extremely dangerous material. But hey only 100.000 Tons. That's nothing. Just put it in some generic mine because there is room for some barrels. That's how it works.

Maedre Maedre

Ok. So they are?

Its reprocessing and not recycling.
 
Last edited:

Musky_Cheese

Banned
Oct 23, 2016
9,431
20,784
1,185
Highly toxic, highly reactive, highly concentrated, extremely dangerous material. But hey only 100.000 Tons. That's nothing. Just put it in some generic mine because there is room for some barrels. That's how it works.
Or in a facility designed and protected to house it.
 

GoldenEye98

posts news as their odd job
Jan 7, 2018
1,109
1,078
545
Maedre Maedre The problem is you are arguing for perfect. But if you apply that to everything you wouldn't bother doing anything. The fact is the amount of consistent low emission energy provided by nuclear energy outweighs the cons of waste. And even some future designs significantly reduce the waste (can even use waste from old reactors as fuel) and up the safety.
 
Last edited:

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
Or in a facility designed and protected to house it.

House something for such a long time? We are glad to live in a time where Europe is stable for 80 years.

Maedre Maedre The problem is you are arguing for perfect. But if you apply that to everything you wouldn't bother doing anything. The fact is the amount of consistent low emission energy provided by nuclear energy outweighs the cons of waste. And even some future designs significantly reduce the waste (can even use waste from old reactors as fuel) and up the safety.

To argue with something that might come up is highly problematic. Because you don't know when this future design comes to the full realization. We need to lower our Carbon output massively. And Nuclear seems to be the way to go sure. But we are currently not able to buy those good designs in that speed that would be needed. The finances that would be needed are not ready.

It takes a long time to build a nuclear power plant that checks all the boxes
It es extremely expensive to build them
They are not flexible.
They are dirty (Waste).

And I don't see how anything outweighs the cons of the waste. The handling is extremely expensive and dangerous. I did my experiences in our national grid. I was able to talk to specialists in that field and I worked on many projects that had the target to reduce carbon emission. I know how renewables are working in small and large scale. I know the models that are helping to predict to output due to the sun and win. As mentioned above. I don't need to persuade anyone here. Its just sad to see some here talking about this waste as something that is easily ignorable. That made me more emotional then I Should have been. But hey, let's see how it will develop.
My prediction is that the number of Nuclear power plants will go down (More are getting cloesd than new are build) and renewables will rise more.
This is the current norm for new reactors.
Olkiluoto NPP in Finland said:
Unit 3, an EPR reactor, is under construction since 2005. The start of commercial operation was originally planned for May 2009[2] but the project is delayed and the latest estimate (as of June 2018) for start of regular production is September 2019.[1] In December 2012, the French multi-national building contractor, Areva, estimated that the full cost of building the reactor will be about €8.5 billion, or almost three times the delivery price of €3 billion.[3][4]

In February 2005, the Finnish cabinet gave its permission to TVO to construct a new nuclear reactor, making Finland the first Western European country in 15 years to order one.[14] The construction of the unit began in 2005. The start of commercial operation was planned for 2010,[15] but has been pushed back several times.[16] As of June 2018, the estimate for start of production is September 2019.[1]

Olkiluoto 3 is the first EPR, which is a type of third generation PWR, to have gone into construction. It will have a nameplate capacity of 1600 MW. Japan Steel Works and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries manufactured the unit's 526-ton reactor pressure vessel.[17]

At the start of construction, the main contractor was Areva NP (now Framatome, after the sell-off mentioned below), a joint venture of Areva and Siemens. However, in 2009, Siemens sold its one-third share of Areva NP to Areva, which is now the main contractor.[18][19] Siemens remained on the project as the subcontractor with the main responsibility for constructing the turbine hall. Areva sold its majority stake in Framatome (previously Areva NP), its nuclear reactor and fuel business, to Électricité de France.
so many years for a single block.
 
Last edited:

Dontero

Banned
Apr 19, 2018
3,046
3,373
650
Why do people talk like this 'waste' thing for nuclear fuel just like a few chocolate bar wrappers and banana peels? Waste is not a good description of the byproduct at all

Because you put it in bottom of mine and you throw dirt on it. Literally nothing can happen. At 2 km underground there are no aquifers, without ventilation no oxygen (especially if you throw bunch of dirt and rocks on it). So regardless if you are talking about atom bomb or nuclear waste nothing can happen.

You sound like nuclear waste will just move on its own or something.

Highly toxic, highly reactive, highly concentrated, extremely dangerous material. But hey only 100.000 Tons. That's nothing. Just put it in some generic mine because there is room for some barrels. That's how it works.

And ? Do you think someone will dig 2km underground RANDOMLY to meet it ? Or you believe it has hands and legs and will move on its own ? Please make sense first instead of going for nonsense.
 
Last edited:

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
And ? Do you think someone will dig 2km underground RANDOMLY to meet it? Or you believe it has hands and legs and will move on its own ? Please make sense first instead of going for nonsense.
Good. So please take some kg Nuclear waste and put it in your cellar. Hey it doesn't move, right? But when the hull of the security container is rusting away and the neutron radiation is making everything brittle or when a flood floods your cellar and you are surrounded with radioactive water, please don't cry for help. It seems like you never had any contact with anything in relation to nuclear power plants.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,325
70,250
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
Good. So please take some kg Nuclear waste and put it in your cellar. Hey it doesn't move, right? But when the hull of the security container is rusting away and the neutron radiation is making everything brittle or when a flood floods your cellar and you are surrounded with radioactive water, please don't cry for help. It seems like you never had any contact with anything in relation to nuclear power plants.
Go put some barrels of spent automotive oil in your cellar. Plus some carbon ash and heavy-metal pollutants from coal burning. Hey, it doesn't move, right?

This is handwaving.

It isn't a real argument.
 

bigedole

Member
Mar 10, 2015
1,851
2,312
770
Austin, TX
WTF are you talking about?

He's indicating that your point is stupid. No one is suggesting we put nuclear waste barrels in people's cellars. We're talking over a mile underground. We're all already smart enough not to store obviously caustic/flammable/harmful materials in our cellars.
 

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
He's indicating that your point is stupid. No one is suggesting we put nuclear waste barrels in people's cellars. We're talking over a mile underground. We're all already smart enough not to store obviously caustic/flammable/harmful materials in our cellars.
It's ok guys. Just do what you want.
 

Dontero

Banned
Apr 19, 2018
3,046
3,373
650
I think some people believe uran is created in labs or something not that it is actually mined like coal from mines.
 

Musky_Cheese

Banned
Oct 23, 2016
9,431
20,784
1,185
I think some people dont know the difference between Uranoxid you find in the nature in low density and the Stuff that is used in reactors.
I think the people who work in the industry do. I think the people who work at the plants know the measures that have been taken for safety.
 

Dontero

Banned
Apr 19, 2018
3,046
3,373
650
I think some people dont know the difference between Uranoxid you find in the nature in low density and the Stuff that is used in reactors.

And you grossly overestimate waste "danger" because you believe that if you put that waste 2 km underground to be FOREVER burried under rock and dirt will "somehow" lead to "danger"