Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

[Trantor]

For a-sooo outdated design - aren´t there too much of them still around? Especially in the USA?

Yep, because the fearmongers...

Nice. "You know your opponent has lost it when he goes "ad hominem"".

...insist that we can't build replacements, even when those replacements would be more efficient and safer.

"Safer" means " a major crash only every 30 years instead of every 25"?.

Oh, and btw: Our Chancellor holds a doctorade in nuclear physics and quantum chemistry, so she has probably forgotten more on that topic than all those oh-so sane nukefanboys together will ever know. Or better: Believe.

Your point? Edward Teller, father of the atomic bomb, was in favor of nuclear power.

H-bomb. You want to get informed about that topic.

If your Chancellor knows more than he did it's only because she stood on his shoulders.

You jealous? Because she can think for herself, so she doesn´t fall for, let´s say something like "national superstitiousness" like others?

Well, that wasn´t an exclusive problem of them...

No, but they were the only people who didn't seem to understand the respect that nuclear power required, and prior to Fukushima they were the only people who had a truly significant event. Arguably they still are since Fukushima will likely end up being significantly less impactful than Chernobyl and Fukushima was caused by a natural disaster rather than solely human error.

You don´t get it: It doesn´t matter at all WHO f*cks up.

So feed it to fourth-gen reactors and get power out of it and less hazardous material out.

Fairy tales.

You call our chancellor and our industry insane?

No, he didn't.

He denied them seriousness.



It is interesting that you pick on everything i said execpt our (easyly disbanded) technological leadership in nuclear power. It really must sting that of all people in the world it is the leaders who turn away from that tech, doesn´t it?

And that is why i am so relaxed: You can´t argue or decry our industry. They already calculated AND understood. Renewables are the next big thing, and we´re going to make shi*loads of money while you stay in the nuclear stone age, subsidizing it with trillions of tax money.

[Trantor]

As to wind power? We'll actually be probably forced to block yours soon from entering our grid, because it tends to damage it. The production of it is so unstable and volatile that it's stressing czech and polish networks pretty heavily. Not sure if that was sorted out by now - but it was a pretty huge issue.

That's actually one of the major ails of wind farms.

You know, last winter the french were kinda simultaneously angered and relieved about our oh-so unreliable and dangerous renewables, because it was for them to save their sorry little nuclear asses (they produce 85% of their electricity with npp´s). While their oh-so safe and and reliable npp´s failed (gosh!!) due to low water levels in the rivers, Germany provided the extra Gigawatts to prevent rolling blackouts of power with - tada! - Renewables!
You can see it in the archives of the EEX.
Or e.g. here (in german): http://www.greenpeace.de/themen/atomkra ... mausstieg/

And this summer their npp´s will fail again due to high water temperatures in the rivers, as every summer. And again our Renewables will save them.

So yeah, you´re welcome to "block us" from your grid. As if we would care.

[Turrosh Mak]

Renewables are the next big thing, and we´re subsidizing it with trillions of tax money while you stay in the nuclear stone age making shi*loads of money.

Fixed your quote. This reminded me of a parody of Jaques Cousteau I heard once on Dr. Demento. The "sponsor" was Whale Oil, and their tag line was:

"Whale Oil, turning yesterday into tomorrow... Today!"

Simply put, there is no free lunch. The payback on wind, water, and solar just isn't there. If it were, we would be doing it now without massive taxpayer subsidies. So go on, waste the next 20 years relearning what humans learned at the end of the 19th century. When the bill comes due don't say I didn't tell you so.

[Trantor]

<spin skipped>

http://de.reuters.com/article/topNews/i ... 8720120329

Money (sic!) Quote:
""Bei einem Strompreis von 60 Euro je Megawattstunde können Sie kein Kernkraftwerk bauen", hatte zuvor bereits der künftige RWE-Chef Peter Terium erläutert. Damit sich neue Meiler lohnten, müsse der Großhandelspreis für Strom deutlich steigen. "Der müsste wahrscheinlich jenseits der 100 Euro sein", so Terium"

Nukemanagers whining over cheap renewables ruining their calculation on nukes. Music to my ears.

The payback on wind, water, and solar just isn't there. If it were, we would be doing it now without massive taxpayer subsidies.

That was yesterday. Today there´s no more subsidies in Germany, technology has advanced enough to sum up. I´m relaxed.

[Solemn]

It really must sting that of all people in the world it is the leaders who turn away from that tech, doesn´t it?

...but the French haven't turned away from nuclear power. They might eventually, especially since the pro- and anti- nuclear political struggle has been an actual shooting war with real casualties on both sides over there, but not yet.

[Ktrain]

Trantor's right, if stubborn Germans can go green other countries can too.

But if Germans are stubborn, then what does that make Americans.... (the answer's regressive.)

[Trantor]

It really must sting that of all people in the world it is the leaders who turn away from that tech, doesn´t it?

...but the French haven't turned away from nuclear power. They might eventually, especially since the pro- and anti- nuclear political struggle has been an actual shooting war with real casualties on both sides over there, but not yet.

"Leaders" in terms of quality, not quantity.

And to the french: They can only afford their nuclear toy pets because it is us helping stuffing their holes. Every winter and every summer since more than 30 years now, and recently with renewables, since most of our npp´s are shut down.

Trantor's right, if stubborn Germans can go green other countries can too.

Aww, no!
We´re not stubborn, we´re just good at calculating. Which makes us kinda smart, no?

[discord]

trantor:
#1 fourth gen reactors can consume old reactor waste as fuel, fact based on science, test reactors have been done, still working out the kinks of how to do it so safe even if a tsunami, earthquake, solar flare, human laziness, idiocy, an asteroid strike and a good dose of murphy hits at the same time and it will still shut down nicely, or better yet, just keep on working(which seems to be the requirement from the stupid masses.)

#2 heavily subsidized 'renewable energy', that is tax payers are footing the bill for lowered efficiency, and in every industry people are complaining about others taking their profit, government subsidy's are probably one of the more viable complaints imho.

#3 yes of course things fail, without wind wind power produces nothing, in a drought season water power gets a hit(as does old nuclear since they rely on water coolant, LFTR plants can be air cooled or water cooled, probably with a combined cycle for extra power output.), overcast weather and no solar power, etc, the new plants on the drawing boards are much less prone to such problems actually.

bottom line, nuke power is the best alternative it CAN take up the heavy lifting of power generation, sure change building codes for solar power roofs, will help decentralizing power generation, great, but it can't do the heavy lifting.

other things that helps a lot is low power lighting, those old light bulbs are power hogs.

<edit> actually solar power roofs is a great idea, it produces most of the power during heavy load day time.
</edit>

[Trantor]

#1 fourth gen reactors...

Theory vs reality. Or to quote myself: Fairy tales.
On the "safety": The more complexity you add, the uglier the failures are. Engineering school, first year.

#2 heavily subsidized 'renewable energy',...

No more subs here.
And no word about the past and current heavy subsidies for nukes, no?

#3 yes of course things fail,...

Yes, this is a wind generator maximum accident:

Casualties: A bush and some square feet of grass.

Now look on Windscale, Kyshtym, Chernobyl, Fuckupshima...

bottom line, nuke power is the best alternative...

You know, it is only a year ago when you still could enrage me with statementa like this. But today? With us Germans actually demonstrating to the world what the future of energy will look like? I smile, relax, and lean back. We will prove you false. All of you. I hope it stings.

[fredgiblet]

Nice. "You know your opponent has lost it when he goes "ad hominem"".

When people base their decisions on doomsday scenarios it is both accurate and relevant to call them fearmongers. An ad hominen is calling someone wrong solely because of a personal flaw. Calling someone wrong because their decision is based out of fear instead of fact isn't an ad hominem if it's true.

You jealous?

Why would I be?

Because she can think for herself, so she doesn´t fall for, let´s say something like "national superstitiousness" like others?

Relevance? None? OK.

He denied them seriousness.

And you proceeded to twist his words to make him look bad and you look like the victim. Solid debating technique.

It is interesting that you pick on everything i said execpt our (easyly disbanded) technological leadership in nuclear power.

Because it's irrelevant? I never argued against that and it really doesn't mean much. You used to like nuclear power, now you don't. So what?

It really must sting that of all people in the world it is the leaders who turn away from that tech, doesn´t it?

Nope. I DO like how you are pulling schadenfreude out of thin air though, you're not just putting words in our mouths you're putting feeling in our heads.

While their oh-so safe and and reliable npp´s failed (gosh!!) due to low water levels in the rivers

I love it. Shutting down != failing

[Trantor]

Nice. "You know your opponent has lost it when he goes "ad hominem"".

When people base their decisions on doomsday scenarios...

Sce-na-ri-os? Sounds kinda "fictional", at least in the undertones. So, how many more Chernobyls and Fukushimas do you need to rethink?

Because she can think for herself, so she doesn´t fall for, let´s say something like "national superstitiousness" like others?

Relevance? None? OK.

Hehe, i´ve seen this before? Smells like Wikipedia, no?

While their oh-so safe and and reliable npp´s failed (gosh!!) due to low water levels in the rivers

I love it. Shutting down != failing

Exactly this IS failing. A multi-billion-franc facility shutting down for such a triviality? Srsly?

[Solemn]

How many thousands more must die of cadmium poisoning before the world stops manufacturing solar panels?

[Arioch]

How many thousands more must die of cadmium poisoning before the world stops manufacturing solar panels?

How many tens of thousands more must die before we stop flying planes?

Oh wait, they're many times much safer than cars.

[Hālian]

How many millions must be banned before we stop having pointless arguments on the Internet?

[Solemn]

How many thousands more must die of cadmium poisoning before the world stops manufacturing solar panels?

How many tens of thousands more must die before we stop flying planes?

Oh wait, they're many times much safer than cars.

But surely the risk of disaster outweighs the benefits of normal function. If we'd only banned commercial air travel, we could have prevented 9-11.

One of my close relatives is a nuclear engineer. I have an urge to show him this thread, but he would doubtless think less of me for it.

Though, his work isn't with reactors.

[junk]

Nice. "You know your opponent has lost it when he goes "ad hominem"".

When people base their decisions on doomsday scenarios...

Sce-na-ri-os? Sounds kinda "fictional", at least in the undertones. So, how many more Chernobyls and Fukushimas do you need to rethink?

Because she can think for herself, so she doesn´t fall for, let´s say something like "national superstitiousness" like others?

Relevance? None? OK.

Hehe, i´ve seen this before? Smells like Wikipedia, no?

While their oh-so safe and and reliable npp´s failed (gosh!!) due to low water levels in the rivers

I love it. Shutting down != failing

Exactly this IS failing. A multi-billion-franc facility shutting down for such a triviality? Srsly?

Actually comparing Chernobyl and Fukushima on a basis of a doomsday scenario is pretty weird. Chernobyl was an old style reactor that had people do something with it that was never meant to be done. Mistake was learned and you don't really see anyone messing around with stuff like this anymore.

For good reason and internation oversight is also stricter.

And once more - Considering what hit Fukushima you can only consider it to be an amazing piece of equipment. On top of that the majority of European reactors are in geostable positions. You don;t really risk a tsunami|Earthquake|Typhoon|Other connecting issues. And again the impact of both disasters on the environment is not very high. Essentially people were forced to move out of the area, but beyond that the environment is healthy.

Compare that to virtually any oil spill and the sheer astounding devastation it causes. Or compare it to the absolutely massive environmental impacts damns bring. Hell those have destroyed more communities and environmental niches than every single radition accident in history.

Or maybe you want to use the use of irradiated material outright? Makes sense right, considering the most accidents are caused by medical equipment as opposed to nuclear power. And probably more people have died due to mishandling those.

I admit I've never heard of the issues plaguing french nuclear reactors. But most renewable energy sources are plagued even more. Solar power tends to provide very little during winters, wind has issues on a lot of days, water is in even more danger from floods than anything else (though damn are usually built to help control floods).

Honestly no power soruce has no environmental impact. Some have different impacts. Some have normal pollution (traditional means), some have long lasting irraditated waste, that is relatively easy to store, others take large swathes of lands (solar) more created noise pollution problems (wind) and others completely reshape the ecosystem and environments - water.

[Absalom]

Nice. "You know your opponent has lost it when he goes "ad hominem"".

When people base their decisions on doomsday scenarios...

Sce-na-ri-os? Sounds kinda "fictional", at least in the undertones. So, how many more Chernobyls and Fukushimas do you need to rethink?

We don't care about failure count, we care about failure density & severity. Outside of Japan, the Fukushima reactor won't produce any meaningful radioactive effects. Honestly, there's as much reason to worry about the floating debris that's completely unrelated to the reactor, as there is to worry about the reactor's leakage. The air-dispersal is complete, and the ocean dispersal is going to be so dispersed that it won't matter. The only radioactive effects that anyone will have genuine reason to worry about are purely local ones.

While their oh-so safe and and reliable npp´s failed (gosh!!) due to low water levels in the rivers

I love it. Shutting down != failing

Exactly this IS failing. A multi-billion-franc facility shutting down for such a triviality? Srsly?

No, that's not a plant failure. An engineering failure? Sure, but a plant failure would require non-safe operation within the plant. I've gotten the impression that you're somehow involved in aviation engineering, but I'm not impressed with your critical thinking skills, this water complaint is quibbling over nonsense.


What are you expecting from nuclear, perfection? Doesn't exist. All you can do is get close enough that flaws don't matter. Right now, the best non-greenhouse reliable energy source is nuclear.

Wind isn't usable everywhere with current equipment (and might not be with upcoming equipment) and isn't stable anyways. Solar only covers the high-load portion of the day, and thus is restricted to a supplemental role (though it is very good there). Hydroelectric is highly geographical in distribution, and traditional forms pose alternative environmental challenges. Biogas & similar are supplemental, due to an inherently greater demand than supply. All other production-ready bio-fuels are low-quality. Geothermal has reliable disaster problems (injection geothermal turns out to reliably produce earthquakes, though fortunately they've been minor so far), and thus extra-strong NIMBY issues.

Out of all the "green" energy sources, nuclear is the only one which is:
1) capable of producing reliable output with current equipment,
2) capable of being built anywhere with current equipment,
3) capable of producing required output magnitudes with current equipment.

The only current replacements for nuclear power here on Earth are conventional fuel-based CO2 emitters. Nothing else has the combination of total output, reliable (a.k.a. 24-hour reliability) output, and variety of building sites. There's CO2 emitters & there's nuclear, everything else is still in R&D.


Personally, I'm holding out for the Polywell, but you really need to improve your anti-nuclear arguments.

[fredgiblet]

Hehe, i´ve seen this before? Smells like Wikipedia, no?

Are you implying that I think Obama was right? I don't. I don't necessarily agree with the Mercedes version either though, IIRC a Frenchman made a car-like vehicle a century before Mercedes, though I could be wrong about that and it would probably depend on what your definition was.

My point was that your point was irrelevant to the actual discussion.

[fredgiblet]

How many millions must be banned before we stop having pointless arguments on the Internet?

ALL OF THEM! Our banhammers will blot out the sun!

[CptWinters]

Then we will troll in the shade.