Main Menu
Login
Username:

Password:


Lost Password?

Register now!





Nuclear Energy
HNN Forums Admin
Joined:
2005/1/2 0:25
From a pink glow star
Posts: 20691
Not sure why we elect politians, stupid people often not having a sense for life and for nature. I still wonder that we haven't yet killed all animals. Luckily the human mankind is stupid enough to first kill themself.

In Germany we have a nuclear minister called Norbert Röttgen, who is proud that now nuclear plants can work plenty of years longer than expected. He was elected so as environment minister.

In the USA they have Obama, who plans a major investment of 36 billion Dollars in nuclear energy!

A part form an article at
http://paenergyalliance.com/obama-bud ... stments-in-nuclear-energy

"President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget outlines a plan for reviving the country’s nuclear power industry, calling for $36 billion in government-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors and setting aside more than $800 million for nuclear energy research.

Obama has said that nuclear power is a key component of the country’s energy future. In his State of the Union speech last month, he outlined a plan to generate 80 percent of the country’s electricity from low-carbon sources including nuclear by 2035."



In Germany I pay for nature energy (wind, solar etc:). The nuclear electricity is provided much cheaper so. I really wonder why! All people have to pay for the long term storage of nuclear garbage, even if you don't want it and only ordered nature energy.
To me nuclear energy must be something 100 times more expensive from a financial perspective.

I live about 70km away from the nearest atomic power plant, Biblis in Germany. It is 27 years old. Biblis was expected to shutdown finally in 2012. With the help of our atomic minister, the earliest shutdown is now 2020.

Posted on: 2011/3/13 18:58
_________________
"it's the spirit in you, that i want to find." - Heather
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
HNN Forums Admin
Joined:
2005/1/2 0:25
From a pink glow star
Posts: 20691
Tonight our chancellor of Germany Angelika Merkel said, our nuclear power plants are safe. I guess the japanese thought theirs are as well and well I even think they have more knowlegde about it. Anyway our chancellor seems to know it better! But why then didn't she warn then Japanese that their nuclear power plants are not safe????
Why does our stupid cancellor first support and actively permits to extend the working time of nuclear power plants like in Biblis/Germany and then consider to rethink of it???
Getting older means to getting wiser? She made a severe contract with the nuclear industry which I think was so stupid. It seems now our chancellor has to learn something. I guess this takes a long time as she still loves the nuclear industry.

I so much hope that all the young people are aware that they have to face all the problems of atomic garbage in the future that current people produce and that kids later have to pay for. That is what german politicians allow. And the nucleare industry therefore are producing "cheap" energy for current people, not knowing what to do later with all those garbage that needs to be aware of for thounds of years.

Posted on: 2011/3/13 22:19
_________________
"it's the spirit in you, that i want to find." - Heather
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
Storm
Joined:
2005/10/14 13:03
From Konstanz, Germany
Posts: 5435
There's a small typo in your second post, Gerd, it should be Angela Merkel.

Posted on: 2011/3/14 12:26
_________________
High until I washed it all away
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
HNN Forums Admin
Joined:
2005/1/2 0:25
From a pink glow star
Posts: 20691
you are right Bene.

I just heard in the news that the risk for each nuclear power plant is between 5000 billion and 50000 billion Euro/Dollars. So for each kWh the costs shouldn't be 0.20 Euro, it should be something 2 or 3 Euro.

I just wonder why so many privat people still order nuclear energy. In germany we could easily get rid of nuclear energy if just the people change their contract! I have done it already a long time ago.

Posted on: 2011/3/14 21:26
_________________
"it's the spirit in you, that i want to find." - Heather
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
The Jasmine Flower
Joined:
2005/1/2 0:28
Posts: 26762
My personal energy at home is 100% water energy. I hope this is better. Each form of energy has its pro's and con's.

Posted on: 2011/3/14 22:07
_________________
"Sweet and gentle and sensitive man, with a deep fascination for numbers" (Kate Bush)
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
The Jasmine Flower
Joined:
2005/1/3 18:45
From usa
Posts: 12545
Nuclear energy has the advantage of being the only form of energy currently implementable on a large scale with existing infrastructure that does not contribute to global warming. It has a pretty decent safety record - most power plants have not had any problems. One big drawback, of course, is that when there is a problem, it can be disasterous and the storage of nuclear waste is an unsolved problem in the United States, anyway, at least politically.

Coal mining kills many workers over a longer period of time and often has a hugely negative impact on the environment. Entire mountain ecosystems and surrounding watersheds are destroyed, and that's business as usual, not an accident.

Oil props up dangerous dictators and will not last long and also is prone to huge ecological nightmares, such as in Alaska and the Gulf. Not to mention less-publicized oil spills around the world. Many pristine and endangered habitates are threatened by drilling. Natural gas poses similar risks. And oil, natural gas, and coal all contribute to global warming, which potentially could wipe out all life on earth or at very least cause a worldwide ecological disaster.

Hydroelectric power carries no greenhouse costs, of course, but can wreak havoc on fragile river ecosystems.

Wind can kill many threatened birds but also has no global warming impact. It may not be able to support energy use on a large scale. The same is largely true of solar, with giant solar farms threatening vibrant but fragile desert ecosystems. When used on each rooftop in sunny environments, solar is ideal, but solar panels do require many rare minerals which may run out.

Geothermal is probably ideal, but only feasible in a very few places.

tl;dr: Bernd is right. Each form of energy has advantages and disadvantages. Solar is probably the longterm answer, but great technological improvements are still necessary. In the meantime, it may be reasonable to build more nuclear power plants as an alternative to coal, which can be more damaging to human life, wild habitats, and the longterm climate.

Posted on: 2011/3/15 15:18
_________________
Cass - they/them
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
The Jasmine Flower
Joined:
2005/1/2 0:28
Posts: 26762
Quote:

gerd wrote:
I just wonder why so many privat people still order nuclear energy. In germany we could easily get rid of nuclear energy if just the people change their contract!

No, not when all people do it at the same time.

Posted on: 2011/3/15 15:35
_________________
"Sweet and gentle and sensitive man, with a deep fascination for numbers" (Kate Bush)
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
Storm
Joined:
2005/1/2 12:40
From close to Antwerp
Posts: 6457
I think it's funny you can choose which kind of electricity you get, in Belgium we can't choose that !

Posted on: 2011/3/15 22:18
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
Storm
Joined:
2005/1/2 12:40
From close to Antwerp
Posts: 6457
Although I'm not in favour of nuclear energy, the problems in Japan are not caused by a nuclear disaster, but by the tsunami.

Maybe it's not clever to build nuclear plants in a region that is vulnerable to earthquakes.

On the other hand, if Osama Bin Laden had a plane crashed on the nuclear plant of Doel (Antwerp), it would be a major disaster too.

Posted on: 2011/3/15 22:20
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
HNN Forums Admin
Joined:
2005/1/2 0:25
From a pink glow star
Posts: 20691
My thoughts are currently with those 50 people remaining in the nuclear power plant in Fukushima and trying to still reduce the impact of this tragedy. Maybe with what they are trying to do, they can still save a few lifes, can make some people live a bit longer. They are heroes to my giving up their life to reduce the pain this tragedy will bring to people and nature.

Posted on: 2011/3/15 23:01
_________________
"it's the spirit in you, that i want to find." - Heather
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
HNN Forums Admin
Joined:
2005/1/2 0:25
From a pink glow star
Posts: 20691
we have 6 billion people in the world. none of them prevented us from another nuclear accident. how stupid is the human race?
How many nuclear "accidents" do we need to learn from?

America, China, France and all other countries, please give us the date, when you will stop using nuclear power plants. Just the year would be fine to know!

Posted on: 2011/3/15 23:35
_________________
"it's the spirit in you, that i want to find." - Heather
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
The Jasmine Flower
Joined:
2005/1/2 0:28
Posts: 26762
Quote:

gerd wrote:
America, China, France and all other countries, please give a the date when you will stop nuclear energy. JUst the year would be fine to know!

The year 3000 maybe?

I don't know. I see the dangers of nuclear power plants, but I also see the dangers of the climate change. It's a lose-lose situation.

Posted on: 2011/3/15 23:37
_________________
"Sweet and gentle and sensitive man, with a deep fascination for numbers" (Kate Bush)
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
The Jasmine Flower
Joined:
2005/1/3 18:45
From usa
Posts: 12545
Thousands of people die in coal-mining accidents each year as well.

Posted on: 2011/3/16 2:08
_________________
Cass - they/them
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
Storm
Joined:
2005/1/2 12:40
From close to Antwerp
Posts: 6457
Charcoal powered energy plants are not so dangerous in the short term, but they add more to the warming of the earth in the long run...

The best is not to have any children, or only 1, to save the planet.

And to buy enviromentally friendly cars. (And not eat meat)

Posted on: 2011/3/18 9:52
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
Storm
Joined:
2005/1/2 12:40
From close to Antwerp
Posts: 6457
Charcoal powered energy plants are not so dangerous in the short term, but they add more to the warming of the earth in the long run...

The best is not to have any children, or only 1, to save the planet.

And to buy enviromentally friendly cars. (And not eat meat)

Posted on: 2011/3/18 9:52
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
Storm
Joined:
2005/10/14 13:03
From Konstanz, Germany
Posts: 5435
Well, if the advice really were not have any children anymore, the problems at least for mankind would be solved rather fast...

Posted on: 2011/3/18 12:24
_________________
High until I washed it all away
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
The Jasmine Flower
Joined:
2005/1/3 18:45
From usa
Posts: 12545
Well, I think Johan was trying to say that the population is growing too fast or that there are too many people, not that there should be none.

Cause 6 billion is kind of alot, you know? And given the strain on the rest of the species here, one could say that we are pretty well out of balance.

Posted on: 2011/3/18 13:37
_________________
Cass - they/them
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
Storm
Joined:
2005/10/14 13:03
From Konstanz, Germany
Posts: 5435
Yep, of course, I know that Johan was talking about overpopulation, his statement just sounded a bit strange.

And I just don't like the idea of any government telling people to have no children or just one (or, on the contrary, to have many), that's a decision for every person to make, not someone else - but of course I see the problem, we have already about 7 billions at the moment, as far as I know. It doesn't seem to be a problem of liberal democracies, of course there's a connection...

But this thread's about nuclear energy, sorry for the disgression.

Posted on: 2011/3/19 12:26
_________________
High until I washed it all away
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
The Jasmine Flower
Joined:
2005/1/3 18:45
From usa
Posts: 12545
Well, Johan was saying what people should do, not what governments should make people do, I think.

Posted on: 2011/3/19 16:06
_________________
Cass - they/them
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
Storm
Joined:
2005/10/14 13:03
From Konstanz, Germany
Posts: 5435
True - I had not intended to critize Johan, of course, if that made the impression, I apologize.

Posted on: 2011/3/20 12:18
_________________
High until I washed it all away
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
Wonderlust
Joined:
2005/2/28 17:11
From everywhere
Posts: 1068
We can make this very long, bottomline is - if we want that nuclear power will be obsolete, in such a way that we can only rely on natural non-fossil (emission neutral) energy sources we ALL should reduce our energy consumption.

And not just placing a few energy-saving bulbs... but seriously reduce our energy consumption, I mean seriously. That also means throwing out most of the electrical appliances, like your cool iPad (ironically such energy wasting i-tools are popular with the so-called progressive green minded people) And going way much beyond that. It means really stepping back in time when it comes to our dependence on amenities.

If we are not prepared to do that, then the rest is just hollow talk.

Posted on: 2011/4/19 10:13
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
The Jasmine Flower
Joined:
2005/1/3 18:45
From usa
Posts: 12545
I would also recommend a significant slice of global GDP aimed at research, especially solar power research and such.

Posted on: 2011/4/19 14:45
_________________
Cass - they/them
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Nuclear Energy
Wonderlust
Joined:
2005/2/28 17:11
From everywhere
Posts: 1068
Obviously.

Reducing the energy consumption per capita (in the so called developed world) should be the target though, as we are and will be facing an enormous hike in energy consumption in the lesser developed parts of the world, where the majority of the globe's population lives, due to their rapidly increasing welfare and use of electrical luxury goods.

Posted on: 2011/4/19 15:08
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer







[Advanced Search]


 The Heather Nova Network