Germany set to abandon nuclear power for good

JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
edited March 2011 in A Moving Train
Finally, a country that "gets" it! Why is it taking so long for the world to realize that the cleanest energy is renewable energy? Major oil spills destroy habitats and livelihoods, dirty coal ruins communities and pollute our air and water, and nuclear plants melt down! It's time for progress. It's time for solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy to become more popular and used more around the world.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110323/ap_ ... ar_power_3

Germany set to abandon nuclear power for good

By JUERGEN BAETZ, Associated Press Juergen Baetz, Associated Press – Wed Mar 23, 12:33 pm ET

BERLIN – Germany is determined to show the world how abandoning nuclear energy can be done.

The world's fourth-largest economy stands alone among leading industrialized nations in its decision to stop using nuclear energy because of its inherent risks. It is betting billions on expanding the use of renewable energy to meet power demands instead.

The transition was supposed to happen slowly over the next 25 years, but is now being accelerated in the wake of Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant disaster, which Chancellor Angela Merkel has called a "catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions."

Berlin's decision to take seven of its 17 reactors offline for three months for new safety checks has provided a glimpse into how Germany might wean itself from getting nearly a quarter of its power from atomic energy to none.

And experts say Germany's phase-out provides a good map that countries such as the United States, which use a similar amount of nuclear power, could follow. The German model would not work, however, in countries like France, which relies on nuclear energy for more than 70 percent of its power and has no intention of shifting.

"If we had the winds of Texas or the sun of California, the task here would be even easier," said Felix Matthes of Germany's renowned Institute for Applied Ecology. "Given the great potential in the U.S., it would be feasible there in the long run too, even though it would necessitate huge infrastructure investments."

Nuclear power has been very unpopular in Germany ever since radioactivity from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster drifted across the country. A center-left government a decade ago penned a plan to abandon the technology for good by 2021, but Merkel's government last year amended it to extend the plants' lifetime by an average of 12 years. That plan was put on hold after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami compromised nuclear power plants in Japan, and is being re-evaluated as the safety of all of Germany's nuclear reactors is being rechecked.

Germany currently gets 23 percent of its energy from nuclear power — about as much as the U.S. Its ambitious plan to shut down its reactors will require at least euro150 billion ($210 billion) investment in alternative energy sources, which experts say will likely lead to higher electricity prices.

Germany now gets 17 percent of its electricity from renewable energies, 13 percent from natural gas and more than 40 percent from coal. The Environment Ministry says in 10 years renewable energy will contribute 40 percent of the country's overall electricity production.

The government has been vague on a total price tag for the transition, but it said last year about euro20 billion ($28 billion) a year will be needed, acknowledging that euro75 billion ($107 billion) alone will be required through 2030 to install offshore wind farms.

The president of Germany's Renewable Energy Association, Dietmar Schuetz, said the government should create a more favorable regulatory environment to help in bringing forward some euro150 billion investment in alternative energy sources this decade by businesses and homeowners.

Last year, German investment in renewable energy topped euro26 billion ($37 billion) and secured 370,000 jobs, the government said.

After taking seven reactors off the grid last week, officials hinted the oldest of them may remain switched off for good, but assured consumers there are no worries about electricity shortages as the country is a net exporter.

"We can guarantee that the lights won't go off in Germany," Environment Ministry spokeswoman Christiane Schwarte said.

Most of the country's leaders now seem determined to swiftly abolish nuclear power, possibly by 2020, and several conservative politicians, including the chancellor, have made a complete U-turn on the issue.

Vice Chancellor Guido Westerwelle said Wednesday "we must learn from Japan" and check the safety of the country's reactors but also make sure viable alternatives are in place.

"It would be the wrong consequence if we turn off the safest atomic reactors in the world, and then buy electricity from less-safe reactors in foreign countries," he told the Passauer Neue Presse newspaper.

But Schuetz insists that "we can replace nuclear energy even before 2020 with renewable energies, producing affordable and ecologically sound electricity."

But someone will have to foot the bill.

"Consumers must be prepared for significantly higher electricity prices in the future," said Wolfgang Franz, head of the government's independent economic advisory body. Merkel last week also warned that tougher safety rules for the remaining nuclear power plants "would certainly mean that electricity gets more expensive."

The German utilities' BDEW lobby group said long-term price effects could not be determined until the government spells out its nuclear reduction plans. Matthes' institute says phasing out nuclear power by 2020 is feasible by better capacity management and investment that would only lead to a price increase of 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

In Germany, the producers of renewable energy — be it solar panels on a homeowner's rooftop or a farm of wind mills — are paid above-market prices to make sure their investment breaks even, financed by a 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour tax paid by all electricity customers.

For a typical German family of four who pay about euro1,000 ($1,420) a year to use about 4,500 kilowatt-hours, the tax amounts to euro157 ($223).

The tax produced euro8.2 billion ($11.7 billion) in Germany in 2010 and it is expected to top euro13.5 billion ($19.2 billion) this year. The program — which has been copied by other countries and several U.S. states such as California — is the backbone of the country's transition toward renewable energies.

"Our ideas work. Exiting the nuclear age would also be possible in a country like the U.S.," Schuetz said.

Another factor likely to drive up electricity prices is that relying on renewable energies requires a huge investment in the electricity grid to cope with more decentralized and less reliable sources of power. Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle just announced legislation to speed up grid construction but gave no cost estimate.

And even if non-nuclear power is more expensive, Germans seeing images daily of Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear complex seem willing to pay the higher price.

Ralph Kampwirth, spokesman for Lichtblick AG, Germany's biggest utility offering electricity exclusively from renewable sources, said since the Fukushima disaster it has been getting nearly three times more new clients than normal, up from 300 to more than 800 per day, despite prices slightly above average.

Sticking with nuclear power would also have its costs and require public funds.

The only two new nuclear reactors currently under construction in Europe, in France and in Finland, both have been plagued by long delays and seen costs virtually doubling, to around euro4 billion ($5.7 billion) and euro5.3 billion ($7.5 billion) respectively.

The disposal of spent nuclear fuel is also a costly problem, but it has no set price tag in Germany because the government has failed to find a sustainable solution.

Many decades-old reactors are highly profitable as their initial cost has been written off, but they now face higher costs as regulators push for safety upgrades in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. One of the most pressing — and costly — requirements is likely to be a mandatory upgrade to reinforce all nuclear power plants' outer shell to withstand a crash of a commercial airliner.

Utility EnBW pulled the plug for good on one reactor temporarily shut down by the government because the new requirements made operating it "no longer economically viable."

But even if Germany abandons nuclear energy, some of Europe's 143 nuclear reactors will still sit right on its borders.

Since France and other nations are firmly committed to nuclear power, shutting down all reactors across Europe won't happen, but Merkel is now pushing for common safety standards. The topic will be discussed at the European Union summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday.

Merkel said the 27-nation bloc, which has standardized "the size of apples or the shape of bananas," needs joint standards for nuclear power plants.

"Everybody in Europe would be equally affected by an accident at a nuclear power plant in Europe," Merkel said.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Finally, a country that "gets" it! Why is it taking so long for the world to realize that the cleanest energy is renewable energy? Major oil spills destroy habitats and livelihoods, dirty coal ruins communities and pollute our air and water, and nuclear plants melt down! It's time for progress. It's time for solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy to become more popular and used more around the world.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110323/ap_ ... ar_power_3

    Germany set to abandon nuclear power for good

    By JUERGEN BAETZ, Associated Press Juergen Baetz, Associated Press – Wed Mar 23, 12:33 pm ET

    BERLIN – Germany is determined to show the world how abandoning nuclear energy can be done.

    The world's fourth-largest economy stands alone among leading industrialized nations in its decision to stop using nuclear energy because of its inherent risks. It is betting billions on expanding the use of renewable energy to meet power demands instead.

    The transition was supposed to happen slowly over the next 25 years, but is now being accelerated in the wake of Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant disaster, which Chancellor Angela Merkel has called a "catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions."

    Berlin's decision to take seven of its 17 reactors offline for three months for new safety checks has provided a glimpse into how Germany might wean itself from getting nearly a quarter of its power from atomic energy to none.

    And experts say Germany's phase-out provides a good map that countries such as the United States, which use a similar amount of nuclear power, could follow. The German model would not work, however, in countries like France, which relies on nuclear energy for more than 70 percent of its power and has no intention of shifting.

    "If we had the winds of Texas or the sun of California, the task here would be even easier," said Felix Matthes of Germany's renowned Institute for Applied Ecology. "Given the great potential in the U.S., it would be feasible there in the long run too, even though it would necessitate huge infrastructure investments."

    Nuclear power has been very unpopular in Germany ever since radioactivity from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster drifted across the country. A center-left government a decade ago penned a plan to abandon the technology for good by 2021, but Merkel's government last year amended it to extend the plants' lifetime by an average of 12 years. That plan was put on hold after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami compromised nuclear power plants in Japan, and is being re-evaluated as the safety of all of Germany's nuclear reactors is being rechecked.

    Germany currently gets 23 percent of its energy from nuclear power — about as much as the U.S. Its ambitious plan to shut down its reactors will require at least euro150 billion ($210 billion) investment in alternative energy sources, which experts say will likely lead to higher electricity prices.

    Germany now gets 17 percent of its electricity from renewable energies, 13 percent from natural gas and more than 40 percent from coal. The Environment Ministry says in 10 years renewable energy will contribute 40 percent of the country's overall electricity production.

    The government has been vague on a total price tag for the transition, but it said last year about euro20 billion ($28 billion) a year will be needed, acknowledging that euro75 billion ($107 billion) alone will be required through 2030 to install offshore wind farms.

    The president of Germany's Renewable Energy Association, Dietmar Schuetz, said the government should create a more favorable regulatory environment to help in bringing forward some euro150 billion investment in alternative energy sources this decade by businesses and homeowners.

    Last year, German investment in renewable energy topped euro26 billion ($37 billion) and secured 370,000 jobs, the government said.

    After taking seven reactors off the grid last week, officials hinted the oldest of them may remain switched off for good, but assured consumers there are no worries about electricity shortages as the country is a net exporter.

    "We can guarantee that the lights won't go off in Germany," Environment Ministry spokeswoman Christiane Schwarte said.

    Most of the country's leaders now seem determined to swiftly abolish nuclear power, possibly by 2020, and several conservative politicians, including the chancellor, have made a complete U-turn on the issue.

    Vice Chancellor Guido Westerwelle said Wednesday "we must learn from Japan" and check the safety of the country's reactors but also make sure viable alternatives are in place.

    "It would be the wrong consequence if we turn off the safest atomic reactors in the world, and then buy electricity from less-safe reactors in foreign countries," he told the Passauer Neue Presse newspaper.

    But Schuetz insists that "we can replace nuclear energy even before 2020 with renewable energies, producing affordable and ecologically sound electricity."

    But someone will have to foot the bill.

    "Consumers must be prepared for significantly higher electricity prices in the future," said Wolfgang Franz, head of the government's independent economic advisory body. Merkel last week also warned that tougher safety rules for the remaining nuclear power plants "would certainly mean that electricity gets more expensive."

    The German utilities' BDEW lobby group said long-term price effects could not be determined until the government spells out its nuclear reduction plans. Matthes' institute says phasing out nuclear power by 2020 is feasible by better capacity management and investment that would only lead to a price increase of 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

    In Germany, the producers of renewable energy — be it solar panels on a homeowner's rooftop or a farm of wind mills — are paid above-market prices to make sure their investment breaks even, financed by a 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour tax paid by all electricity customers.

    For a typical German family of four who pay about euro1,000 ($1,420) a year to use about 4,500 kilowatt-hours, the tax amounts to euro157 ($223).

    The tax produced euro8.2 billion ($11.7 billion) in Germany in 2010 and it is expected to top euro13.5 billion ($19.2 billion) this year. The program — which has been copied by other countries and several U.S. states such as California — is the backbone of the country's transition toward renewable energies.

    "Our ideas work. Exiting the nuclear age would also be possible in a country like the U.S.," Schuetz said.

    Another factor likely to drive up electricity prices is that relying on renewable energies requires a huge investment in the electricity grid to cope with more decentralized and less reliable sources of power. Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle just announced legislation to speed up grid construction but gave no cost estimate.

    And even if non-nuclear power is more expensive, Germans seeing images daily of Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear complex seem willing to pay the higher price.

    Ralph Kampwirth, spokesman for Lichtblick AG, Germany's biggest utility offering electricity exclusively from renewable sources, said since the Fukushima disaster it has been getting nearly three times more new clients than normal, up from 300 to more than 800 per day, despite prices slightly above average.

    Sticking with nuclear power would also have its costs and require public funds.

    The only two new nuclear reactors currently under construction in Europe, in France and in Finland, both have been plagued by long delays and seen costs virtually doubling, to around euro4 billion ($5.7 billion) and euro5.3 billion ($7.5 billion) respectively.

    The disposal of spent nuclear fuel is also a costly problem, but it has no set price tag in Germany because the government has failed to find a sustainable solution.

    Many decades-old reactors are highly profitable as their initial cost has been written off, but they now face higher costs as regulators push for safety upgrades in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. One of the most pressing — and costly — requirements is likely to be a mandatory upgrade to reinforce all nuclear power plants' outer shell to withstand a crash of a commercial airliner.

    Utility EnBW pulled the plug for good on one reactor temporarily shut down by the government because the new requirements made operating it "no longer economically viable."

    But even if Germany abandons nuclear energy, some of Europe's 143 nuclear reactors will still sit right on its borders.

    Since France and other nations are firmly committed to nuclear power, shutting down all reactors across Europe won't happen, but Merkel is now pushing for common safety standards. The topic will be discussed at the European Union summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday.

    Merkel said the 27-nation bloc, which has standardized "the size of apples or the shape of bananas," needs joint standards for nuclear power plants.

    "Everybody in Europe would be equally affected by an accident at a nuclear power plant in Europe," Merkel said.

    those crafty German scientist and their superior knowledge of anything weaponries and rockets must have figured out how to build better defense and attack weaponries with out nuclear power :D ...very cool ! I wish the whole world would dump all nuke plants.

    Godfather.
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    Godfather. wrote:
    I wish the whole world would dump all nuke plants.
    Godfather.

    I don't know I wish the whole world would dump all their coal plants long before they dumped all their nuke plants, but it seems that the coal industry has way better PR people than the nuclear industry since coal power seems like it is generally way worse, and the process seems way more deadly, yet people don't seem to have this over the top fear of coal like they do of nuclear power.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Finally, a country that "gets" it! Why is it taking so long for the world to realize that the cleanest energy is renewable energy? Major oil spills destroy habitats and livelihoods, dirty coal ruins communities and pollute our air and water, and nuclear plants melt down! It's time for progress. It's time for solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy to become more popular and used more around the world.


    Renewable energy that does not have near the capacity of a nuclear plant. It would take, on average, 480 windmills to equal the output of one modern reactor. Let me ask where the land is supposed to come from to build this many? Should the midwest stop farming? Should we start cutting down National Parks and forest like Yellowstone?

    Solar plants are even worse for space/capacity ratio, not to mention many of the parts are made in China and they have no environmental standards so they just pollute whatever river is nearby. Start researching the processes that make the magnets in windmills and the CFL lighting before spouting off with a knee-jerk reaction or a reason to push your opinion on nuclear.

    I personally hope they build 100 new reactors in the US. I'd much rather have one of those near my backyard over 500 windmills.
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    I can see the Indian Point Power Plant Nuclear Facility from my house, it a fear you learn to live with i guess.
    I would love to live without that fear, but i would like to see the stoping of fossil fuels first.

    We need to figure out how to mass produce solar power safely and soon.
  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    unsung wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Finally, a country that "gets" it! Why is it taking so long for the world to realize that the cleanest energy is renewable energy? Major oil spills destroy habitats and livelihoods, dirty coal ruins communities and pollute our air and water, and nuclear plants melt down! It's time for progress. It's time for solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy to become more popular and used more around the world.


    Renewable energy that does not have near the capacity of a nuclear plant. It would take, on average, 480 windmills to equal the output of one modern reactor. Let me ask where the land is supposed to come from to build this many? Should the midwest stop farming? Should we start cutting down National Parks and forest like Yellowstone?

    Solar plants are even worse for space/capacity ratio, not to mention many of the parts are made in China and they have no environmental standards so they just pollute whatever river is nearby. Start researching the processes that make the magnets in windmills and the CFL lighting before spouting off with a knee-jerk reaction or a reason to push your opinion on nuclear.

    I personally hope they build 100 new reactors in the US. I'd much rather have one of those near my backyard over 500 windmills.

    +1
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    lukin2006 wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Finally, a country that "gets" it! Why is it taking so long for the world to realize that the cleanest energy is renewable energy? Major oil spills destroy habitats and livelihoods, dirty coal ruins communities and pollute our air and water, and nuclear plants melt down! It's time for progress. It's time for solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy to become more popular and used more around the world.


    Renewable energy that does not have near the capacity of a nuclear plant. It would take, on average, 480 windmills to equal the output of one modern reactor. Let me ask where the land is supposed to come from to build this many? Should the midwest stop farming? Should we start cutting down National Parks and forest like Yellowstone?

    Solar plants are even worse for space/capacity ratio, not to mention many of the parts are made in China and they have no environmental standards so they just pollute whatever river is nearby. Start researching the processes that make the magnets in windmills and the CFL lighting before spouting off with a knee-jerk reaction or a reason to push your opinion on nuclear.

    I personally hope they build 100 new reactors in the US. I'd much rather have one of those near my backyard over 500 windmills.

    +1

    Let's just wait and see how this fares for the Germans before we offer our expert advice. Germany seems to be far ahead of the U.S and most of the world right now. Their economy is better, their healthcare system is better, their schooling system is different, but universities are free and the system they have seems to work well. My girlfriend is German; I have been there many times and we follow the what is going on in Germany on a daily basis. Also, we talk to her family, so we have insight into what Germans are thinking and how they feel about their countries direction. Germany is not perfect, but they are doing fairly well these days.
  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    Maybe Germany can...but how could Japan, it is a very small country and large population, where would they put all those windmills?

    Here in Ontario, Canada nuclear energy accounts for about 50% of our energy needs, they've been been plopping down windmills everywhere for the last 8 years and they still only meet 7% of our energy needs. We could have expanded our nuclear plants and added way energy than what these windmills account for.

    And to my knowledge we've never come close to an nuclear accident with our plants.
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    unsung wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Finally, a country that "gets" it! Why is it taking so long for the world to realize that the cleanest energy is renewable energy? Major oil spills destroy habitats and livelihoods, dirty coal ruins communities and pollute our air and water, and nuclear plants melt down! It's time for progress. It's time for solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy to become more popular and used more around the world.


    Renewable energy that does not have near the capacity of a nuclear plant. It would take, on average, 480 windmills to equal the output of one modern reactor. Let me ask where the land is supposed to come from to build this many? Should the midwest stop farming? Should we start cutting down National Parks and forest like Yellowstone?

    Solar plants are even worse for space/capacity ratio, not to mention many of the parts are made in China and they have no environmental standards so they just pollute whatever river is nearby. Start researching the processes that make the magnets in windmills and the CFL lighting before spouting off with a knee-jerk reaction or a reason to push your opinion on nuclear.

    I personally hope they build 100 new reactors in the US. I'd much rather have one of those near my backyard over 500 windmills.

    you aren't supposed to think about feasibility, just fear of what could happen...

    it is funny that lots of people who talk about how the right-wing drums up fear for support are falling into the exact same cycle when it comes to things they want to see happen. The rose colored glasses we all look through certainly have very different lenses...When are knee-jerk reactions ever considered the best course of action?
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • nuffingmannuffingman Posts: 3,014
    Let's see what happens when the maths is done, the necessary land required found and the public outrage when Franz discovers there's going to be a windmill in the garden.

    It'll be good if it happens though.
  • markin ballmarkin ball Posts: 1,075
    unsung wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Finally, a country that "gets" it! Why is it taking so long for the world to realize that the cleanest energy is renewable energy? Major oil spills destroy habitats and livelihoods, dirty coal ruins communities and pollute our air and water, and nuclear plants melt down! It's time for progress. It's time for solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy to become more popular and used more around the world.


    Renewable energy that does not have near the capacity of a nuclear plant. It would take, on average, 480 windmills to equal the output of one modern reactor. Let me ask where the land is supposed to come from to build this many? Should the midwest stop farming? Should we start cutting down National Parks and forest like Yellowstone?

    Solar plants are even worse for space/capacity ratio, not to mention many of the parts are made in China and they have no environmental standards so they just pollute whatever river is nearby. Start researching the processes that make the magnets in windmills and the CFL lighting before spouting off with a knee-jerk reaction or a reason to push your opinion on nuclear.

    I personally hope they build 100 new reactors in the US. I'd much rather have one of those near my backyard over 500 windmills.

    Cutting down Yellowstone forest? A bit dramatic don't you think. I live in Southern Nevada which is one of the most cloudless parts of the world. Currently a solar plant gives us 6% of our energy but let me tell you, there is plenty of room out her to build more or bigger solar plants. It's actually quite dependably windy around these parts as well. You may have some valid points about these systems not being flawless environmentally but maybe, and I know this is something we agree on, if we stopped voting for corporate controlled puppets, we could manufacture the windmill and solar parts here, while developing better and more efficient technologies in the process.
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."

    "With our thoughts we make the world"
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    I can see the Indian Point Power Plant Nuclear Facility from my house, it a fear you learn to live with i guess.
    I would love to live without that fear, but i would like to see the stoping of fossil fuels first.

    We need to figure out how to mass produce solar power safely and soon.


    I hope I never live in that fear. Three accidents in 50 years of commercial nuclear production, two were operator error (one an admitted experiment) and the other a once in a lifetime natural event.

    People are worried about "fallout" from Japan hitting the west coast and rushing out like idiots that jam the malls the day after Thanksgiving. People let chaos rule. These people that worry about radiation from Japan have no problem jamming a cell phone to their ear eight hours a day while driving and puffing three packs of smokes to get their nicotine fix.

    Stupid people make me laugh.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    unsung wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Finally, a country that "gets" it! Why is it taking so long for the world to realize that the cleanest energy is renewable energy? Major oil spills destroy habitats and livelihoods, dirty coal ruins communities and pollute our air and water, and nuclear plants melt down! It's time for progress. It's time for solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy to become more popular and used more around the world.


    Renewable energy that does not have near the capacity of a nuclear plant. It would take, on average, 480 windmills to equal the output of one modern reactor. Let me ask where the land is supposed to come from to build this many? Should the midwest stop farming? Should we start cutting down National Parks and forest like Yellowstone?

    Solar plants are even worse for space/capacity ratio, not to mention many of the parts are made in China and they have no environmental standards so they just pollute whatever river is nearby. Start researching the processes that make the magnets in windmills and the CFL lighting before spouting off with a knee-jerk reaction or a reason to push your opinion on nuclear.

    I personally hope they build 100 new reactors in the US. I'd much rather have one of those near my backyard over 500 windmills.

    Ya know, you guys may call my post 'knee-jerk' but I've been researching renewable energy, as well as mountain top coal-mining for years. I've lived near a nuclear plant growing up, and it was always questioned what would really happen if meltdown occurred. My hometown has had its share of alarm tests.

    And you may want to rephrase your sentence that renewable does not have the capacity of a nuclear plant yet. Additional land is not required for solar energy...all you need is a roof. You can put solar shields on anything and have it gain energy, including light fixtures, laptop cases and backpacks. Land is not required for wind farms, look up off coast wind farms if you'd like. Wave power is from, that's right, waves, and geothermal is under ground. Perhaps you should dive into researching the topic.You can point the finger rather well and defend energies that have proven their downfalls, yet where are your solutions? Nuclear power has proven that it's not the way of the future.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    I don't believe land will be an issue for wind based turbines. Farmers can dot them in their fields and the kick-backs they get from the power company for rent will more then offset crop loss.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Jason P wrote:
    I don't believe land will be an issue for wind based turbines. Farmers can dot them in their fields and the kick-backs they get from the power company for rent will more then offset crop loss.

    Land isn't an issue. The issue is getting the population on board with change, and that's always the big problem.
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    unsung wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Finally, a country that "gets" it! Why is it taking so long for the world to realize that the cleanest energy is renewable energy? Major oil spills destroy habitats and livelihoods, dirty coal ruins communities and pollute our air and water, and nuclear plants melt down! It's time for progress. It's time for solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy to become more popular and used more around the world.


    Renewable energy that does not have near the capacity of a nuclear plant. It would take, on average, 480 windmills to equal the output of one modern reactor. Let me ask where the land is supposed to come from to build this many? Should the midwest stop farming? Should we start cutting down National Parks and forest like Yellowstone?

    Solar plants are even worse for space/capacity ratio, not to mention many of the parts are made in China and they have no environmental standards so they just pollute whatever river is nearby. Start researching the processes that make the magnets in windmills and the CFL lighting before spouting off with a knee-jerk reaction or a reason to push your opinion on nuclear.

    I personally hope they build 100 new reactors in the US. I'd much rather have one of those near my backyard over 500 windmills.

    Cutting down Yellowstone forest? A bit dramatic don't you think. I live in Southern Nevada which is one of the most cloudless parts of the world. Currently a solar plant gives us 6% of our energy but let me tell you, there is plenty of room out her to build more or bigger solar plants. It's actually quite dependably windy around these parts as well. You may have some valid points about these systems not being flawless environmentally but maybe, and I know this is something we agree on, if we stopped voting for corporate controlled puppets, we could manufacture the windmill and solar parts here, while developing better and more efficient technologies in the process.

    If I remember correctly one of the big problem with putting those kind of solar or wind plants out in the middle of now where is you basically have to build a new distribution system to get the electricity from no where to the places where people need it. I mean sure you could cover Nevada and Arizona with solar panels, but building the high voltage power lines and stations needed to get the electricity to cities is difficult. Plus I believe there are also issues with efficiency of the power lines, and losses when you are running high voltage from the middle of no where to populated areas.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Godfather. wrote:
    I wish the whole world would dump all nuke plants.
    Godfather.

    I don't know I wish the whole world would dump all their coal plants long before they dumped all their nuke plants, but it seems that the coal industry has way better PR people than the nuclear industry since coal power seems like it is generally way worse, and the process seems way more deadly, yet people don't seem to have this over the top fear of coal like they do of nuclear power.

    Coal and oil are worse than nuclear, by far, since the likeliness of contamination is more likely than meltdown. The Coal and Oil industries have powerful lobbies that basically control the Washington making it very difficult for any sort of reform, regulation or renewables to gain any ground. The catastrophes of the Appalacian area is not well documented in the media because the truth portrays the damage it's really doing to the miners, community, land, water and the air we breathe. Mainstream media would never let the world find that out easily, because that would spread awareness. Whereas news of a nuclear meltdown in Japan is likely not able to be hidden very easily.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    I don't believe land will be an issue for wind based turbines. Farmers can dot them in their fields and the kick-backs they get from the power company for rent will more then offset crop loss.

    Land isn't an issue. The issue is getting the population on board with change, and that's always the big problem.
    The good news is that I've seen wind farms start to spring up across the midwest. A group was even planning to put a bunch in the next county over from where I live ... but a county commisioner was linked to the group funding it so now it is on hold until an investigation can be completed. :(
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Ya know, you guys may call my post 'knee-jerk' but I've been researching renewable energy, as well as mountain top coal-mining for years. I've lived near a nuclear plant growing up, and it was always questioned what would really happen if meltdown occurred. My hometown has had its share of alarm tests.

    And you may want to rephrase your sentence that renewable does not have the capacity of a nuclear plant yet. Additional land is not required for solar energy...all you need is a roof. You can put solar shields on anything and have it gain energy, including light fixtures, laptop cases and backpacks. Land is not required for wind farms, look up off coast wind farms if you'd like. Wave power is from, that's right, waves, and geothermal is under ground. Perhaps you should dive into researching the topic.You can point the finger rather well and defend energies that have proven their downfalls, yet where are your solutions? Nuclear power has proven that it's not the way of the future.


    Nuclear has proven that it is the future, but I'm not going to sit here and argue with MSNBC talking points. Obama decided to shut down the spent fuel repository in Yucca Mtn wasting the billions of dollars the taxpayers had already invested in the place. That is the only real issue with nuclear in this country. We need either a permanant storage facility or build new reactors that are designed to use all of the fuel.

    Green technology is a scam, save some energy in the US while polluting the entire country of China. Some tradeoff. But not in my backyard, right?
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    unsung wrote:
    Green technology is a scam, save some energy in the US while polluting the entire country of China. Some tradeoff. But not in my backyard, right?
    ???
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • markin ballmarkin ball Posts: 1,075
    The risks involved with nuclear power are too great, even if a tragedy happens "only" three times in 50 years. We also have to store the most toxic substances known to man for millions of years on a planet that is known to decide to change things up from time to time. There has got to be a better way to boil water, which is all a nuclear reactor does. Talk about a scam.
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."

    "With our thoughts we make the world"
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    the primary reason why nuclear power should be abandoned is simply cost ... it's probably the most expensive form of new energy we could institute ...

    we don't need it, never have ...

    the reality is that we can be powered strictly on renewables right now! ... we just need to cut through the ignorance and myths ...
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    forgive my lack on knowledge on this subject, I was thinking more along the lines of nuclear weapons but those nuke power plants worry the crap out of me also, we have a nuke plant in a area of San Diego called San Clemente where my bro. n law worked, he died of cancer and his wife blames the nuke plant for it.
    this plant is right on the beach what whould would happen if it leaked into the ocean ? sure seems it would be more divesting than the coal mines and such.


    Godfather.
  • g under pg under p Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
    Well it's about time because even though some may think of this way of getting energy is clean my problem has always been what do we do with the nuclear waste and it's by products. We search near and far to finds places to dispose of it like in our deserts or in the fricking ocean. I know our earth is near 75% water but these nuclear wastes lasts for thousands of years just think of what it is doing to the oceans animals .

    I hope many other countries will follow including this one.

    Peace
    *We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti

    *MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
    .....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti

    *The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)


  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    The Great London Smog event of 1952 killed around 4000 people and it was caused by burning coal. It seems that event alone, plus all the miners that get killed in coal mines, should be enough to make coal the priority as far as power plants to get rid of. Once those plants are gone then I think it would be reasonable to talk about getting rid of nuclear plants.

    In fact I would say the earth quake in Japan is an example of how safe nuclear power is. I mean those Fukushima plants were built starting in 1967 and they were hit by one of the worst earthquakes ever, and then a Tsunami on top of it. Yet still the workers in the plant were able to prevent a full meltdown. I mean if something 44 years old can be built that safe that is impressive to me. Sure there is risk with nuclear power, but to me that is a pretty low risk. It seems about as risky the fact that someone putting a solar panel on their roof could fall off and die.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    The Great London Smog event of 1952 killed around 4000 people and it was caused by burning coal. It seems that event alone, plus all the miners that get killed in coal mines, should be enough to make coal the priority as far as power plants to get rid of. Once those plants are gone then I think it would be reasonable to talk about getting rid of nuclear plants.

    In fact I would say the earth quake in Japan is an example of how safe nuclear power is. I mean those Fukushima plants were built starting in 1967 and they were hit by one of the worst earthquakes ever, and then a Tsunami on top of it. Yet still the workers in the plant were able to prevent a full meltdown. I mean if something 44 years old can be built that safe that is impressive to me. Sure there is risk with nuclear power, but to me that is a pretty low risk. It seems about as risky the fact that someone putting a solar panel on their roof could fall off and die.

    did you just compare nuclear power to a solar panel in safety?

    in any case, the plants in Japan have already caused massive consequences ... they just are understated right now ... the radiation in the food/water that is being consumed now is not going to instantly kill people ..

    the reality is that people wake up every day now in increasing amounts with cancer ... yes, detection is better but the rates are still high ... no one is sitting there going ... shit, that dirty air i've been breathing for 3 years, or the pesticides in my food gave me this ...
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    edited March 2011
    Here's an idea. How about we start having half the amount of babies we are currently having, that way in a few generations we will require half the amount of energy from this planet? After a few hundred years there will be more than enough clean resources to support a few hundred thousand of us. The planet will be much cleaner and we will be much happier.


    What do you guys think?


    We can argue about where we are going to get energy, where we are going to fit it until we are blue in the face, but 8 billion and growing people are going to suck this planet dry.
    Post edited by LikeAnOcean on
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Here's an idea. How about we start having half the amount of babies we are currently having, that was in a few generations we will require half the amount of energy from this planet? after a few hundred years there will be more than enough clean resources to support a few hundred thousand of us. The planet will be much cleaner and we will be much happier.


    What do you guys think?

    birth rates are in decline across all developed countries except for one area in one country ...

    i'll give you a hint: birth rates are linked often with poverty and lower education levels ...
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    edited March 2011
    polaris_x wrote:
    Here's an idea. How about we start having half the amount of babies we are currently having, that was in a few generations we will require half the amount of energy from this planet? after a few hundred years there will be more than enough clean resources to support a few hundred thousand of us. The planet will be much cleaner and we will be much happier.


    What do you guys think?

    birth rates are in decline across all developed countries except for one area in one country ...

    i'll give you a hint: birth rates are linked often with poverty and lower education levels ...
    Enforce a chasity belt for girls until they at least get a high school diploma. I know that's an unpopular opinion, but whatever sorry souls are still survivng on this planet a few hundred years from now will thank us dearly.

    If we don't do something, we are going to be our own end. Finding clean energy solution is only a temporary solution, a band aid to a growing disease.


    I am 32 years old. When I was born there were less than half of the amount of people on the planet than there are now. Tell me that's not the problem.
    Post edited by LikeAnOcean on
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    Here's an idea. How about we start having half the amount of babies we are currently having, that way in a few generations we will require half the amount of energy from this planet? After a few hundred years there will be more than enough clean resources to support a few hundred thousand of us. The planet will be much cleaner and we will be much happier.


    What do you guys think?


    We can argue about where we are going to get energy, where we are going to fit it until we are blue in the face, but 8 billion and growing people are going to suck this planet dry.

    Human beings are too stupid to follow such a plan. This plan makes too much sense.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    polaris_x wrote:
    Here's an idea. How about we start having half the amount of babies we are currently having, that was in a few generations we will require half the amount of energy from this planet? after a few hundred years there will be more than enough clean resources to support a few hundred thousand of us. The planet will be much cleaner and we will be much happier.


    What do you guys think?

    birth rates are in decline across all developed countries except for one area in one country ...

    i'll give you a hint: birth rates are linked often with poverty and lower education levels ...
    What is Mississippi?
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
Sign In or Register to comment.