...there's little chance of a tsunami in Germany, and they're not in any earthquake-prone areas, IIRC.
Getting rid of nuclear energy.
Not coal power.
11 years is plenty of time to reverse the decision. I think they just did it to appease the green crowd, since they got all hot and bothered after what happened in Japan.. You're right the coalition of liberals and conservatives was against the stopping of nuclear energy before the tsunami, so they do it to save some votes. But many states of germany are already voting new governments so the regional powerholders change quite alot these days. I believe if you put sufficient fundings in solar energy you can make it more efficient than any other energy. Also you can invest alot in energy saving technologies and you can create more efficient products that simply use less energy. I say if the nuclear waste problem was solved, and if the power plants were actually maintained well I wouldn't be against nuclear energy, but you know how corporations with monopolies are ::)
Nuclear energy is plenty safe though, there's little chance of a tsunami in Germany, and they're not in any earthquake-prone areas, IIRC. Even though Germany's pretty large, I doubt there's enough room to build the amount of windmills and solar panels required to generate enough electricity for the country if you forgo less green options.
I'm frankly baffled as to why a country which is one of the largest producers of nuclear power in the world would suddenly just completely give it up in the wake of one disaster which can't even happen where they are.There has been a movement going on for over twenty years, the green party formed on the grounds of being against nuclear energy. Have you actually seen the latest inventions on the renewable market, and don't forget where moving on from there. If we put collective effort into it we will have all the technologies needed for a self sustaining future. There is far more than wind, water and solar energy. You have thermo-energy, tidal movement energy etc. As the corporations do not have a real interest in these technologies though, the scientific effort put into it is rather low in comparison to other fields. Oh yea, there is also clean coal and oil plants too, and you can use the CO2 produced in these plants to breed algae growing on sewer treatment plants to create biofuel. There is a buckload of possibilities, and I am sure we didn't even get to see the tip of the iceberg.
The thing is, how can you defend a technology which proves to be very dangerous to the Human race?
Why is it that people who support renewable energies, energies that become more effective every year, are looked at like they are lunatics when they are actually trying to show a piece for a better solution. I mean just looking at aesthetics solely you would rather live next to a huge solar plant than next to a nuclear reactor now, or wouldn't you?Now that's just playing the victim role and exaggerating the other group's viewpoint. Supporters of renewable energy aren't ridiculed, opponents just don't see it as a currently-viable solution to the energy problem.
As the corporations do not have a real interest in these technologies though, the scientific effort put into it is rather low in comparison to other fields.That alone proves that most of these technologies aren't really viable in a reasonable timespan. If there was even the possibility of medium-term profit, don't you think corporations would jump at the chance?
Oh yea, there is also clean coal and oil plants too, and you can use the CO2 produced in these plants to breed algae growing on sewer treatment plants to create biofuel. There is a buckload of possibilities, and I am sure we didn't even get to see the tip of the iceberg.I think that produces more CO2 than you can use to grow algae though. And how clean is it really if it still produces emission gasses?
-Detoxicated XXOff-topic, but why do you keep signing your posts with this?
I still push for Nuclear Fusion.
FFFEEE-YYYOOOUUU-SSSHHHUUUNNN!
Chenobyl only killed 46 people directly
As the corporations do not have a real interest in these technologies though, the scientific effort put into it is rather low in comparison to other fields.That alone proves that most of these technologies aren't really viable in a reasonable timespan. If there was even the possibility of medium-term profit, don't you think corporations would jump at the chance?
Do you understand what fission and fusion actually are?Sorry for mistyping, I hope you can jack off to the thought of having me correct my post
But Nuclear Fission creates even more Nuclear Waste and is even more destructive in case of Emergency. We want to go away from that way you know... But I like the concept more, you know to atoms getting it on, banging, to create some smooth energy. Doesn't sound too bad.
Do you understand what fission and fusion actually are?Sorry for mistyping, I hope you can jack off to the thought of having me correct my post
-Detoxicated V
Nuclear is a great solution to generating energy, the people who have a problem with it are those who don't properly understand the risks involved.
But this was a stupid thing to bring up:Chenobyl only killed 46 people directly
First of all because everyone knows Chernobyl was much worse than 46 people dying; secondly because Chernobyl is a poor example, the safety at that plant was never up to standard.
Actually I didn't know much about fusion up till now, I thought it was just as dangerous or more dangerous as fusion. It does sound promising.Basically, Fusion is the endgame for energy sources, since it produces huge amounts of energy, and it's fuel is the most abundant substance in the universe. Hopefully once Fusion is perfected Oil will no longer be needed for anything except to produce chemicals. So yay Major World Crisis resolved!
I am just being a dick to people who are a dick to me.
Basically, Fusion is the endgame for energy sources, since it produces huge amounts of energy, and it's fuel is the most abundant substance in the universe. Hopefully once Fusion is perfected Oil will no longer be needed for anything except to produce chemicals. So yay Major World Crisis resolved!
Ultimately, the best solution would be some way to recycle nuclear waste.
antimatter/matter annihilation reactions for example.
Basically, Fusion is the endgame for energy sources, since it produces huge amounts of energy, and it's fuel is the most abundant substance in the universe. Hopefully once Fusion is perfected Oil will no longer be needed for anything except to produce chemicals. So yay Major World Crisis resolved!
Actually it isn't the end game. Fussion as it's currently being developed also requires lithium to complete the reaction cycle, it's fairly common but not infinite, there are better fuel cycles however, they're just harder to do; and while fussion ranks near the top, there are also higher efficiency reactions out there on the mass to energy conversion scale, antimatter/matter annihilation reactions for example.
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have my opening statement.By god, he's right!
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have my opening statement.By god, he's right!
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have my opening statement.Bygod, he's right!
God*
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have my opening statement.Bygod, he's right!
God*
*MIGHTY ODIN
As an atheist I do not capitalise it, because that would imply it's a name of an existing being.You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have my opening statement.By god, he's right!
God*
I am not going to bother reading all the previous posts so I am going to say this:
If you are contra-nuclear you are dumb.
EDIT: I read the thread and am going to narrow it down to Detoxicated.
About radiation risk; unless something goes disastrously wrong with a nuclear power station somewhere within less than a hundred miles of you, you will be exposed to orders of magnitude more radiation just from the food you eat, than you will from the negligible fraction of background radiation produced by nuclear powerplants.*stops eating* :x
I am not going to bother reading all the previous posts so I am going to say this:
If you are contra-nuclear you are dumb.
EDIT: I read the thread and am going to narrow it down to Detoxicated.
Intelligent statement, really mature too... You get a dick point.
And munchkin, I misunderstood, your post sounded sarcastic in my head, so shame on me and the inability of text to transmit subcontext.
Um, how is a power which is constantly releasing substances that cause terminal illnesses, while creating waste which destroys the land any good? Like I can see your point of bashing coal power and the likes, but honestly defending nuclear fission energy, knowing that it causes diseases and problems, destroying biotopes is not clean. There might be less CO2 coming out, but on the other hand you have a duckload of terminal things coming out. The human actions cause maybe 5 percent of the actual CO2 emissions so it shouldn't be the leading argument. Nuclear fission is still unrenewable energy, so it won't last forever, but we won't see the end coming. We do know of the terrible byproducts. I am just saying there is you can gain energy in harmony with nature, and its already possible to an extend which is simply denied by many of you, as nobody even read the wiki link I posted, as I must presume, because there was no comment on it. But I guess it's better to use good old clean, corporate nuclear energy, for a better tomorrow.
-Detoxicated III
I think it is horrible. First off using a disaster to push political agenda is wrong because it takes advantage of people who have knee jerk reactions and do stupid stuff like the Germans without thinking the benefits greatly outnumber the risks. Second nuclear is safe (Chernobyl does not count since a book could be written with everything they did wrong.) Not one death has been attributed to three mile island.The Fukushima plant radiation that spread to other countries was less than that of a banana. Also, the plant was not originally built to handle tsunamis which I assume we now know a lot more on the subject then 30 years ago. They tried retrofit the plant but no one can completely protect anything from a natural disaster. Nuclear is the future until something better comes a long that is more efficient and clean. Herpderping people that want nuclear gone are morons who don't know the facts.The thing is, the movement of having Nuclear energy removed exists for more than thirty years, and has become part of political life in Germany. Germany has alot less Citizens than the US and has therefore an infrastructure of a different scale. There is no huge metropolis as there are in the US, the biggest city is Berlin with 3.5 million citizens. A big part of the people still live in rural areas and small towns. These small towns often have the ability to build City Owned electricity buildings, which led to towns that could partially or entirely could live by solar and wind technology. They're starting to build Geothermical Plants too. So in ten years you could reduce the necessity for "stronger" energies by distributing more and more to smaller communities. This will boost the economy on that sector and also will it increase the rate of improval per year of these technologies. You could start building cell phones and other electric things running entirely on solar power.
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have my opening statement.Bygod, he's right!
God*
*MIGHTY ODIN
>:(
Chernobyl was built out of duct tape and unicorn fur. To say that it was not up to code would've been the understatement of the twentieth century. The Soviets decided to build it retardedly. Enough said.
Three Mile Island, well, if my sources are correct, there were insignificant casualties if any; plus it was caused by user inefficiency, rather than any sort of problem with the power source.
Am I the only person who thinks that we should seriously look into antimatter energy generation? Really, you get no leftover waste from that stuff. NO WASTE. AT ALL. An if anyone brings up the fact that it would obliterate the planet, it could just as easily be produced on demand so none is ever in storage.
So I heard that you can get skin cancer from being out in the sun too longAnd that's the reason why I don't do crack
BAN SOLAR POWER
Actually, fusion is moving away from the original Tokamak designs, that used magnetic fields to focus the reaction and generate heat for your "tea kettle", and towards Focus Fussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_plasma_focus#DPF_for_nuclear_fusion_power), which causes the plasma to compress under it's own magnetic field in such a way that it emits a directed electron beam that can be used in combination with coils to generate electricity directly.
Welcome to the ****ing future, it's powered by electric laser beams.
SO why don't you post sources for a change? I haven't seen any yet.http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/21/nuclear-waste-energy-technology-breakthroughs-nuclear.html (For how to deal with the waste.)
Actually, fusion is moving away from the original Tokamak designs, that used magnetic fields to focus the reaction and generate heat for your "tea kettle", and towards Focus Fussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_plasma_focus#DPF_for_nuclear_fusion_power), which causes the plasma to compress under it's own magnetic field in such a way that it emits a directed electron beam that can be used in combination with coils to generate electricity directly.
Welcome to the ****ing future, it's powered by electric laser beams.
They're moving away from fusion? Well that massive new reactor in France is gonna be a waste of money then.
Hey guys, have you heard? Germany has passed laws, which state that there will be no nuclear energy used after the year 2022 in good ole Germany. This was possible due to the Green party, which rooted in the eighties and which has since then been a political activator for the green cause. What are your thoughts on this? What are your thoughts on nuclear energy? What are you thoughts on renewable ressources?
Discuss!
-Detoxicated III
But I imagine you do just about everything else in existence.So I heard that you can get skin cancer from being out in the sun too longAnd that's the reason why I don't do crack
BAN SOLAR POWER
-Detoxicated III
And that's the reason why I don't do crack
-Detoxicated III
Good morning bastard forum.