Germany set to abandon nuclear power for good

polaris_x

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.

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 p

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

Kel Varnsen

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_x

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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 ...

LikeAnOcean

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.

polaris_x

LikeAnOcean 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 ...

LikeAnOcean

polaris_x wrote:

LikeAnOcean 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.

whygohome

LikeAnOcean wrote:

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 P

polaris_x wrote:

LikeAnOcean 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?

polaris_x

Jason P wrote:

What is Mississippi?

ya ... and surrounding states ...

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

Jason P wrote:

What is Mississippi?

ya ... and surrounding states ...

Yes! Nailed it!

LikeAnOcean

Instant vasectomies for boys who can't maintain at least a C average through getting their high school diplomma?


Energy crisis solved!

polaris_x

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Instant vasectomies for boys who can't maintain at least a C average through getting their high school diplomma?


Energy crisis solved!

go see *waiting for superman* ... you'll come up with a whole whack of solutions! ...

Godfather.

LikeAnOcean wrote:

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.

natural gas.......eat more beans and carry an air tight vacuum strapped to our backs then discharge the collected gas's into a containment tank in our own back yards, the farmers and the citizens alike stand to profit
by just a single can of beans at a time.
there ya have it problem solved.

Godfather.

polaris_x

fyi ... at peak capacity ... solar panels in germany produce more power than the Fukushima nuclear power plant (all 6 reactors combined) ...

whygohome

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Instant vasectomies for boys who can't maintain at least a C average through getting their high school diplomma?


Energy crisis solved!

C+.....let's shoot a little higher

Pepe Silvia

lukin2006 wrote:

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.

unless you count the yankee nulcear plant in the northeast that, a year or two ago, was leaking radioactive waste into the watertable turning some of it almost as dirty as straight reactor water....this started months after the company lied under oath saying there weren't any underground pipes at the plant then saying they must have misunderstood the question months later :roll:

by the way, it took many months for them even to discover where the leak was coming from. and oddly this was pretty much all unreported in the mainstream corporate media

if nuclear power companies want to build new plants fine, but do it without all the corporate welfare they demand. how many decades will they take to pay us back for those loan guarantees? i'd rather see that money go into renewables. it's not like the only choices are windmills or coal or nuclear. we could put solar panels in the parts of the country uninhabited like parts of death valley, use turbines powered by the tide on coastal regions, windmills in plain areas with not much people....

not to mention where are you gonna store all the waste?? because the DOE has said yucca mountain can not be a permanent location

unsung

That water was nowhere close to reactor water. I sat in on a conference on Vermont Yankee, please stop spreading false implications.