Germany to lead the way - it will be of massive financial benefit

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 09:28

Germany's ruling coalition says it has agreed a date of 2022 for the shutdown of all of its nuclear power plants.

Environment Minister Norbert Rottgen made the announcement after a meeting of the ruling coalition that lasted into the early hours of Monday.

Chancellor Angela Merkel had set up an ethics panel to look into nuclear power following the disaster at the Fukushima plant in Japan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208

BBC News.

By returning to non-nuclear power generation Germany will finally put the lie to idea that nuclear is cheap and safe.... as neither claim has proven to be the case. In the process large employment opportunity will be created ending years of decline.

Tango1


Joined: 19/02/2011
Posts: 1151

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 09:31

But then its back to fossil fuels and all that entails isn't it? The basic problem in Japan was they had built the thing directly over a fault line, not a wise move in retrospect was it?



Tango1

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 09:44

Yes there are massive reserves of fossil fuels (coal). Britain sits on an estimated 200 years worth of coal. There is no need to mine it in the traditional manner. Although undoubtedly some mining will be done by men at the coal face, machines will be needed long-term and so making and servicing the machines will create employment too. Methods of reducing emissions are now better understood in terms of the requirement and costs. Things have moved on... nuclear is still and always will be a genie in a bottle.

Fossil fuels have been demonized by the pro-nuclear industry, as you'd expect. After all there is money to be made by risk taking. Risks which nobody wants done within reach of their family.

There are alternative technologies.

The development of alternative energy technologies will be driven much faster without the temptation to fall back on nuclear power.

It is broke... so let's fix it.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 09:46

@ msg 1, Groucho: The article (your link) gives some facts, but many questions remain unanswered.

But first a remark: Holland is on the same path as Germany, but many anti-nuclear power people there don't seem or don't want to realise that much of the needed electricity in Holland already comes from nuclear power plants in France (and Belgium, if I'm not mistaken). A disaster in France is as (un)likely as in Germany, Holland and other countries - so what's the point closing plants down in one or some countries?!

I'm not sure about other countries, but highly industrialised Germany needs the electricity - sun and wind there are not enough to replace nuclear power. So what's the alternative? Coal and oil (how long will they last?). Not exactly environmental friendly either.

Dozens of other questions, but this may be an important one: where are the German hospitals going to buy the (nuclear power) equipment to treat cancer patients and other diseases?

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 09:56

There's the thing DC... all the while nuclear is allowed to remain the impetus to find viable alternatives are not pursued with vigour.

This move by Germany, and I pray they stick to their guns, will allow them to become cutting-edge developers of alternative energy sources.

Energy does not have to be produced in the area of need... vast, largely uninhabited, expanses of the globe are ideally suited to energy production.

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 09:58

The extraction of fossil fuels has caused more harm to the environment than Nuclear energy will ever do. There is no real alternative to nuclear power when it comes to dollars/pounds cost in producing energy. Wind farms? Tidal generators? all of these are just pandering to the green lobby and will never amount to serious energy production.

proger1



Joined: 18/04/2009
Posts: 2919

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 10:03

Don't you just love it when someone decides to link to a publicised peice of information that others might find interesting and then gets questioned about the idea behind the publicised article.

So in essence Groucho, please be kind enough to answer all the questions you will recieve about the article just because you happened to paste the link, after all, you obviously ghost wrote the article.



I really thougt an ex-journalist would have realised that or perhaps you just wish to start another conflict by disguising your troublemaking as an intellectual debate.

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 10:07

Groucho,...Meanwhile France is extending its number of EPR's with the construction of plant3 at Flamanville,(right next door to the Channel Islands)at an estimated cost of 6.5 billion euros...and supposed to be operational by 2013........Perhaps the Germans will buy the supply,so that they can call themselves nuclear FREE...

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 10:43

Groucho: if you also find it ridiculous or offensive or whatever (msg 7) when someone joins a serious thread, just to seriously discuss the facts and your obvious opinion (msg 1) - just let us know here. It will mean a lot of one-post threads in the future.

@ msg 8: Exactly. Green hypocrisy in many countries. Or: "Not in my backyard".

proger1



Joined: 18/04/2009
Posts: 2919

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 10:59

I'm sorry Groucho for hijacking your thread and offending such an important poster, he obviously isn't trouble making as I surmised and therefore I should never make a comment on here based purely on my understanding being different to that of another poster, who would be audacious enough to do such a thing.



Hans, try not to get so defensive. It's not as if anyone would want to belittle you in revenge for small minded comments or anything.

newscoop


Joined: 23/12/2007
Posts: 2197

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 11:09

In a nutshell; when the lights go out all over Europe in the next twenty years because of the 'green' lobby we can all start praying for continual high winds across the continent to power the thousands of wind farms that will be dotted across our green and pleasant lands.



Meanwhile the US, China, India, Russia and Brazil will be the only countries still viable.

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 11:49

Paul

If you are going to get involved on this board again then I suggest that you do not get wound up about other posters, you engage in debate about the thread topic and lastly you try not to wind other posters up.

So where were we, I am still waiting for some one to suggest what a viable alternative to nuclear power generation could or would be.

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 12:01

msg5 "Vast, largely uninhabited areas" .. That's the answer.!!...Stick em all in OZ no worries....

newscoop


Joined: 23/12/2007
Posts: 2197

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 12:01

There is no viable alternative to nuclear



We're all doomed I tell ye!

proger1



Joined: 18/04/2009
Posts: 2919

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 12:07

AJ, if you want to suggest something to me, why not e-mail me, it never stopped you before or are you just trying to look like the peacemaker by publicly telling me what I should do.

I have not actually gotten wound up as yet, I did engage in a debate with Hans about his motives for his post and I have not tried to wind him up, just merely a subtle warning to stop harassing me and I won't then need to deflect his purpose back.



Thanks however for setting the post back on to the tangent that I had allready apologised for to the original poster.

suehowlittle


Joined: 31/10/2010
Posts: 1202

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 12:40

Does anyone know anything about Fusion - I just keep hearing snippets about this energy form but not enough to have any comprehension.

proger1



Joined: 18/04/2009
Posts: 2919

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 12:44

I stand to be correcteded but fusion is actually a nuclear process and as such would come under the same non nuclear idea.

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 12:58

Fusion is the Fusing together of same charge atoms to form a larger nucleus,Fission is the Splitting of an atom...or at least that is how I understand it ....Both can be used to create energy..

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 14:16

Fusion is the process that happens in the sun. We have been trying to develop nuclear fusion reactors that mimic this process as a means of generating clean safe electirictiy for a long time now. The problem is 'containing' the plasma which reaches incredible temperatures. THe main system used to contain the plasma is magnetic fields, a kind of force field in a way.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 14:54

That's what I thought ...

suehowlittle


Joined: 31/10/2010
Posts: 1202

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 17:06

sounds very scary. thanks for the explanations.

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 17:22

So what conclusion are we all coming to?

Japan was warned many years ago that building Nuclear power plants on known earthquake fault lines would end up in disaster. But is it or will it be a serious disaster? It is already accepted that Chernobyl was not the great world disaster that everyone thought it was going to be. I still maintain that the continual extraction and usage of hydrocarbons has and will cause more damage to this planet.

Tango1


Joined: 19/02/2011
Posts: 1151

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 17:44

Msg 22 re Chenobyl. I always tend to swing away from fossil fuel to nuclear power. However, I would question that it wasn't the great world disaster. Maybe not for the world but it certainly is for tens of thousands of people living in a huge area around the power station and will continue to be so for hundreds of years to come. The problem in Russia was that they were incapable of running it safely. The state supplied insufficient funds or training and people are dying to this day of radiation and will continue to do so for generations, due to the fact that the soil is so badly infected. Scientists from around the world are endeavoring to solve the problem and at the moment they are containing it, but it won't last and it doesn't solve the problems permantly.



The trouble is when a N. P/station goes wrong it goes wrong in a big way. However, properly managed and run by people who know what they are doing and don't cut corners with safety issues, it is preferable.

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 17:55

AJ I think it puts us between the Devil and the Deep blue sea,,,Both Nuclear and the burning of fossil fuels have detrimental consequences for Mother nature and our environment...

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 18:13

I would suggest (I cannot prove it unless I spend a lot time doing research) that more people have died and others have seriously suffered through the extraction of hydrocarbons than the production of nuclear energy. That includes coal mining (deaths and serious diseases) Oil/Gas extraction (explosions, pollution and the ongoing pollution of the atmosphere) etc.

The first time I ever flew through a oil/gas field was at night and it was surreal, all of the platforms were burning off sour gas, what does that do to the planet?

Although it provided me with a living I seriously think that the extraction of fossil fuels should be stopped as soon as possible.

deputydawg


Joined: 30/03/2010
Posts: 1727

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 18:34

Lets hope that little Boy Scouts keep rubbing sticks together, but they should be denied any more badges until they come up with a safe, cheap, plentiful, alternative to current fuels. I for one would pay them a bob if they did the job ! Also hope that the locals have a different team of power experts if their ambitions take them from electricity to nuclear !

proger1



Joined: 18/04/2009
Posts: 2919

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 18:38

AJ, thats a bit unfair, those of us who are still making a living from it would ask for at least a couple of years to find real jobs

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 18:39

I agree AJ many Tens of thousands have died in the mines over the centuries ...And the pollution in UK cities alone since the industrial revolution until recently, should stand as a stark reminder of the dangers.



However..How many tens of thousands would perish in just one Cataclysmic failure of a major Nuclear Power station?..As I said "Devil and Deep Blue" I guess it's a case of which environmental threat is best... I think I would go with Nuclear.........

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 18:43

Sorry Paul ,perhaps it's time to switch hats...

proger1



Joined: 18/04/2009
Posts: 2919

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 18:49

martin, when the governments decide they can profiteer from nuclear as much as they can from fossil fuels, then and only then would it be something that we might see in the future but alas that is not likely to be for quite some time me thinks. The structure and systems for fossil fuel to energy conversion is in place and so is the whole business unit behind it. A change to the regulations on fossil fuels would be fought tooth and nail and argued that the expenditure outweighs the need as although AJ and yourself make very good points about casualties of fossil fuels they are minimal compared to the potential from Nuclear.

As far as I believe, until Nuclear power can be controlled to the point of being almost zero tolerance for incident acceptance, it is not viable and that requires alot of money, money which governments don't have but the fossil fuel companies do and they won't spend it on Nuclear until the fossils start to run out.

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 18:56

Very good Paul,, try telling that to the French......With their "HUGE" nuclear power program..6.5billion for a nuclear station at Flamanville,and it's only one of many on French soil.... .

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 19:34

Paul

Unfortunately we are all mercenaries and will take from who ever will pay us the required amount to get out of bed in the morning. I am sure you are well aware of how dangerous the industry is and despite all of the safety reforms since Piper Alpha 'accidents' are still happening, lives are still being lost and communities seriously affected by pollution. I don't know whether you have ever been to Azerbaijan but if not then if you get to meet anyone that has then ask them about 'Black Valley'

On another note I once had a long chat with a geologist in an Aberdeen bar (ok so maybe the drink did cloud our judgement a bit) and what he told me about extracting oil and gas from the geology under the sea bed made me seriously afraid. I asked a couple of pertinent questions and in the end his reply was 'Dave, don't even go there, thankfully I will not be around when the s**t hits the fan' The whole attitude in the oil and gas industry is 'take it and run'

dippersgirl



Joined: 04/05/2010
Posts: 795

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 20:42

Germany will lead Europe in Green Energy. Almost all buildings have photovoltaic panels on their roofs and they invest in wind energy and research to find more ways. I know people say, we can never survive on that, but then we have not really tried. My brother in law has all his roof covered in panels, it took him 6 years to get his investment to pay for itself and now he is getting free electicity and gets paid for feeding the power into the grid.

If all countries did this, there would be a lot of energy.

I don't know how much the 'footprint of this technology is, but apparently less than fossil and not the unimaginable consequences of nuclear

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 21:06

dippersgirl

Unfortunately that is not solving the problem, there is still the national grid and there always will be. Industry needs more than a few photovoltaic panels on the roof to keep them running especially high energy users like smelting plants. The national grid still needs generation and the fuel required for generation will still be a requirement way past yours and mine expected life span. All it is achieving for the public consumer is smaller energy bills.

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 21:08

Presumably your brother in law had the funds to install the system in the first place??...6 years to get it back.! Doesn't sound to good to me....Given that more than half the World is living below the poverty line...

Middle Easter


Joined: 13/06/2007
Posts: 146

Message Posted:
30/05/2011 23:30

Good discussion. I have to say with AJ on this one.



The sheer amount of power required now & in the future dictates we puruse a nuclear programme.



To understand the argument you have to understand the megawatts required & the capabilities of each form of power in providing them. You also have to understand the sensitivity of location of plants & the losses in transmission to get power from A to B.



Too many people, too much industry dictates nuclear until a better solution comes along.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
31/05/2011 07:57

Well an awful lot of red-herrings in support of the status quo .i.e keeping Nuclear Power generation. Did I expect anything different from those involved in the industry either now or in the past? No.

The only reason alternative energy can't currently provide enough power is the lack of investment in appropriate schemes. The Nuclear lobby have made it seem a simple choice... between what they always touted as 'free' and 'clean' and dirty old fossil fuels...

Well, the costs associated with the 'safe' disposal of nuclear waste... its possible use in WMD and the awful nature of 'accidents' which even though it is 'safe' seem to happen with frightening regularity make me wonder how far into the sand we consumers are prepared to have our heads shoved?

The nuclear lobby have been incredibly clever at putting the case for their product.

Is it just me? Or does anybody else think the costs have already been too high?

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
31/05/2011 08:38

Gavin,Over 75% of electricity in France is produced by nuclear Power stations..Think of the investment,..surely if the French powers that be(excuse the pun) could opt for a better solution they would have.....The western world needs power now,so how do you say,hang on, lets invest in something that may not work...

dippersgirl



Joined: 04/05/2010
Posts: 795

Message Posted:
31/05/2011 20:34

Well, then watch and see what Germany does. I agree with Groucho, if Nuclear wasn't an option we would have to find another way. My brother in law was lucky as his cousin lent him the money free as she also believes in this. He is not making money out of this as he is saving the profits for more and eventual replacement.

The nuclear waste problem is not solved and in the event of disaster the costs are not countable.

But never mind, let's just have as much power as we want any way possible, we'll be dead soon and somebody else will solve the problem.

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
31/05/2011 22:14

Now.. the german solar guy comes....

the programm, the shutdown of all of its nuclear power plants until 2021, had been introduced by the socialist/green party coalition in the year 2001!! It seems you all have been not aware.

Of course, in pre-Fukushima times... who cared about the fact that in Germany the „Greens“ were in a coalition with some socialists from 1998-2005 ?

After election october 2009, the right/liberal coalition terminated this programm in september 2010 and replaced it with a "2045 is also ok" programm. A 80 billion Euro present... what else to expect from a „right -liberal“ coalition? This new exit-law is just because of Fukushima and because the coalition is at 35%.... and the green party at 25%, socialists at 30%, lefts at 9%.



Nuclear power could be cheaper if the companies would not earn a fortune on it, and should be a 100 times more expensive if not all "follow up costs" would be "transferred" into the future.

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
31/05/2011 22:15

Even in 150.000 years our next generations have to educate students in „atomphysics of the 20th century“ to look after our rubbish

Cheap nuclear power is a big lie.

Involved nations in Nuclear power plant desasters: two times Russia, Japan. In nearly desasters: USA, Sweden, Germany and others. "IT" can happen anywhere, anytime.

Next one could be „Fessenheim“, France, its 33 years old. Maybe Benznau 1 and 2, Switzerland, more then 40 years old.... If eg germanys Biblis 1 will face a desaster as Fukushima, Majak or Tschernobyl... the insurances estimate the damage to 20 trillion (not billion) euro.

Enviromental pollution will cost the cost the worlds community 5-15% of its BIP yearly for the next 100 years and Uranium is finished 2050. So, maybe better to think about some investions in France soon? Cheaper and cleaner as Renewable energy you cant get it!

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
31/05/2011 22:16

But nuclear is an option ...

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
31/05/2011 22:16

Germany leads the world (not only europe) in green energy already. 30 years „green party“ and 10 years of an existing „nuclear power exit law“ did a good job. Germany opened up the way for cheaper solar power. Since 1999 the price for solar power dropped by 70% and a good part of the remaining price of a solar module is for glas, aluminium and silver (all recycable!!) and transportation. Germany opened up the way for cheaper wind energy...and so on...

And.. its not only „technology“... in many cases the chinese are sooo cheap... next month the biggest solar/Renewable energy fair in the world will start.. in germany of course... and 35% of the german companies are „system providers“ or consultants.

Got it?

Kind regards. Peter

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
31/05/2011 22:16

an option to die a bit quicker, yes

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
31/05/2011 22:19

msg41 ,..............In English please....

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
31/05/2011 22:30

ok. .... Nuclear and fossil power is s*** and expensive.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 09:04

Peter, I agree...

By turning their back on the Nuclear Option, they will not only continue to lead in developing safe renewable energy they will, by virtue of scale, lead in making it viable which is the clincher... leaving the rest to play catch-up.

All the time this process is going on, massive boosts in employment will ensue too. This will reinforce Germany's pre-eminent financial strength in Europe making it the envy of many.

Now, do we just watch this happen or does the UK join the leaders?

Plan to do away with what has been proven to be expensive, dangerous and unruly?

I hope so but fear not....

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 09:51

So, whilst Germany busily try to create a safe renewable energy ...their imports of (nuclear generated) electricity from France have doubled...(Economics Newspaper.com Mon 04 April 2011)

dippersgirl



Joined: 04/05/2010
Posts: 795

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 15:16

Just because Germany is relying on other enery now, does not mean it cannot go ahead with research to better ways, it's not doing research and falling back on the 'easy' dangerous option that's scary!!! Since when have the English been keen to follow France's example anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 15:38

A hoax, martinD.

Electricity flows to one country into another and back... this does change every second.

 Did "they" tell you that, same time of these "imports", Germany sold this power to eg Poland and switzerland? No, of course not...  Did they tell you that in germany, due to maintenance work, only 4 of the 17 nuclear PS worked?

The power -dealers buy for the cheapest price available to maximise their profits.

If, eg early in the morning, "cheap"  nuclear power is not available in germany, its up to them to buy eg in France and "cause a hoax".

For the (formally) nuclear power producers its good PR, isnt it?   ".. you see... we NEED nuclear power... our independency is in danger...DO NOT switch off, we all will be in the dark.. " all bulls*** .

the truth is: Germany was an "power export nation". this changed a bit, but there is no no "power gap" in sight. Last week the installed PV power produced, between 10am and 3pm, as much power as 10 nuclear power stations.

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 15:39

Actually nobody knows how much the electricity price is in reality, eg because of the nuclear rubbish and/ or environmental damages caused also by fossil PS and /or payed substitutions.

Substitutions payed in Germany:

To the nuclear-industry since 1970: 190 billion euro (6,5 billion per anno).

To the fossil energy industry (mainly coal) since 1961: 150 billion (3 billion)

For Solar power since 1996: 28 billion euro (1,8 billion)

The costs for each "4 pax household" to switch off  all nuclear-PS is estimated at 10 euro per month. but… some people say it will be less then 2 euros, some people say we even gain money as we do not need to find an expensive permanent repository site for another 1500 tons...

Last thing: the much less dangerous nuclear fusion option:

The only fusion- reactor in process of construction is the Wendelstein 7-X, designed, constructed and mainly payed (67%, 33% EU) from ...Germany

newscoop


Joined: 23/12/2007
Posts: 2197

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 17:25

As I said;



the last one out put the lights out,



Because the tree huggers are in the ascendancy.

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 18:27

msg49......."Since when have the English been keen to follow France's example anyway !!!!!!!"



The answer to that is they haven't...



eg;; England no longer have a Railway System that works !



UK public transport in general is a shambles!



Health care in the UK (NHS) is on it's knees! None of these "examples" apply to France ..

Zoots


Joined: 05/02/2011
Posts: 669

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 18:38

Groucho msg 5: "This move by Germany, and I pray they stick to their guns, will allow them to become cutting-edge developers of alternative energy sources."

But if Eck is right (and he is a smarter than most) that parfticular crown will go to Scotland.

>>The Scottish Government is already committed to generating the equivalent of 100% of Scotland’s own electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020.

Energy Minister Fergus Ewing said Germany’s decision, which follows Switzerland’s announcement last week of its intention to be nuclear-free by 2034, added to the growing international realisation of difficulties associated with nuclear power.<<

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/snp-s-green-vision-boosted-by-german-nuclear-exit-1.1104376?localLinksEnabled=false

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 18:47

Zoots

Is this the same Scotland that derives most of its income from oil and gas in the North Sea?

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 18:58

Bit of a difference in size...Scotland and Germany..........so not really comparable?I still say France has got it right.



As AJ pointed out, the needs in terms of energy needed to fuel Germany's Industrial might ..In my opinion can only come from Fossil fuel or Nuclear reaction possesses..nothing else comes close............

mikelapta



Joined: 20/11/2008
Posts: 2186

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 19:17

Wow,I loved reading all these threads...accurate,absorbing.

Obviously the World must change after the recent disaster in Japan.

Please,learned contributers,there must be an answer to all those stupid wind farms

blotting the landscape of my ex-homeland,Wales.Every mountain seems to "grow"

windmills.I was told that the cost of creating this energy was greater than the energy it produced !!!

But,Britain especially,has terrific tidal forces,there was meant to be a Severn barrage to harness this.

Why do GB and Europe do more to use the natural forces i.e tides to produce power?

dippersgirl



Joined: 04/05/2010
Posts: 795

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 19:25

mess 53 what has that got to do with this topic????

Zoots


Joined: 05/02/2011
Posts: 669

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 19:28

Msg 55,

Correct - and it's also likely to become a world leader in renewables (think coastlines, tides, waves and wind). And building all the hardware, equipment and turbines could also be a god-send in a place where labour-intensive industries declined recently enough to offer a skilled and willing workforce.

Geejay


Joined: 18/04/2009
Posts: 475

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 19:35

Groucho...."it will be of massive financial benefit". And your evidence for this is what ?? ....Just statements/opinions from those who would benefit from sun, wind, sea so called alternatives.

As someone has already pointed out, the decision by Germany is a political one, taking "scientific" evidence only from one side of opinions.



The real answer is that we need ALL power sources including nuclear power. Because........the sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't always blow, the sea is sometimes calm. But nuclear power can be generated when you want it. And how do you otherwise store the electricity for later use. There is NO ONE simple answer to our growing power requirements we need to manage them all efficiently and safely. Now and in the future.



One sided solutions do not work and are not the answer!

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 20:37

msg 54: the crown goes to Norway.. they are on 100% renewables already.

msg 55:yes, it is the same Norway that derives most of its income from oil and gas in the North Sea

msg 56: you are not right, you just need to work together with other regions/nations in Europe.

and..what are you doing when the Uranium is finished?

msg 57: wind energy is the best and most efficient way to produce clean energy. you rather take the danger that your beautiful wales ist evacuated like in Tschernobyl and Fukushima? or completely polluted like Manchester? The tidal subject is a speciality of the scots... but unfortunately there are not soo many places for an efficient energy production.

msg 60: true,

there is no simple answer.. but we do not NEED nuclear power. The evidence for Grouchos statement is published a hundred times, eg the financial benefits you have by NOT polluting the environment...

newscoop


Joined: 23/12/2007
Posts: 2197

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 20:54

Wind energy is a gigantic con trick



They produce nothing when the wind doesn't blow, they have to be shut down when the wind gets above a certain relatively low strength. They contribute a miniscule amount of actual usable energy and need to be backed up by old fashioned means.



The Germans are already saying they will rely on Franch and Dutch nuclear power stations to keep the country going.



Wind farms are an abomination and eyesore and are usually put in the wrong places. IE Stirling.

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 21:26

msg58..It was a response to your rather anti French comment..And I still think France is forward thinking as regards (nuclear) energy production which is more than can be said for England.

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 21:42

massive financial benefit: to russia

...who supply much gas to germany and europe,

operate with the germans as a "gazprom" subsidiary,

and are well on the way to finishing a vast new

pipeline to eastern germany called "nordstream"



anyway, 2022 is some way off and decisions may

eventually be taken to let the reactors run a bit longer,

er...like the japanese did with fukushima last year!

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 23:19

msg 62:

30% of all new installed electric capacity in the US ! is windenergy. a con trick?

i told you that the germans make a lot of money with "consultancy and systems". if there is no wind, then often it is sunny, if there is no wind in one area, usually there is some in another area. just some sort of knowledge and organisation is needed. Wind energy is at 9 % of all electricity needs already, 30% are planned. a con trick, i know. and nuclear power stations are beautiful. i know.



"The Germans are already saying they will rely on Franch and Dutch nuclear power stations to keep the country going"

where do you have this nonsense from?

msg 63: i think it is certainly anti-french to convince (by applauding) them to stick to nuclear (fission) power. because one day, it only a question of statistics, one of ther NPS will go mad...

msg 64: 2022 is NOT some way off. in terms of energy supply it is actually tomorrow.

deputydawg


Joined: 30/03/2010
Posts: 1727

Message Posted:
01/06/2011 23:31

Ironic that Germany has taken the lead. Their speciality used to be ovens.

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
02/06/2011 01:12

Germany still is... the temperature needed for a nuclear fusion in Wendelstein 7-X is 10-20 million degrees.

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
02/06/2011 02:43

message 67:



I think sustainables have a growing role as does greater energy efficiency



...but there is huge pressure on politicians to promise more and more

carbon cutbacks, that can sometimes themselves be expensive and wasteful:



think gordon brown's premature carbon capture hokum, and scientists

promising the earth over fusion experiments that have still to demonstrate that the

technology will ever do anything more than attract huge research budgets,

as they say, "money torks"

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
02/06/2011 14:28

Better energy efficiency, energy saving ....the door to success!

fusion.... many say that the only thing stable is that they promise us that we will have something commercial available in 40 years. but... as mankind, there are subjects we have to follow As it seems that only german welders can manage with the plasma chamber, germany had been choosen to build the Wendelstein 7-X , even involved scientists call them "artists”. So, in ? years it will be commercial, who can build 50, 100, or 1000 fusion reactors in a short time? It will take many decades until "fusion" is ready to serve us all. That is the reason why we have to "bridge" with sustainables. And if we manage this, we might realise that we do not need fusion any more… or.. we do not like it… as this would be a drawback to “centralised power supply”, the current situation.

All big “producers” and power suppliers run huge PR against the sustainables to retain their power…

BP, Exxon, Rio Tinto, GdF Suez, Tepco, E-on..

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
02/06/2011 14:32

Trillions turnover a year…. and now millions of us shall be energy producer and suppliers by having a PV installation or run our own “village windmill” ? no!no!no!

Much better is to devastate hundred of thousands of squaremiles to dig for Uranium, coal, oil and gas. Better is to run 40 years old nuclear power stations, which are originally designed for 30 years, for another 10 or 20 years, as an advantage to their shareholders.

“Rubbish” is not the nuclear waste they do not need to look after, it’s the idea that we could manage without nuclear fission or without polluting our environment.

The nuclear industry “emotionalized” the phase out discussuion : “the lights will go off”, meanwhile the “greens” rationalized this discussion, by finding solutions.

The original (better) nuclear phase out in Germany was a year long discussion and finally signed in 2001 by all parties concerned. A con trick? No, sustainable!

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
02/06/2011 14:38

Many are only worried that they have to pay 10 kurus more per kW/h for their electrical heated swimmingpool or their massive aircons as they opted to build large and cheap. They may have to pay 100 STG more for a three day trip to New York.

As a society we have to decide where we would like to go

It is a political decision to do so or not.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
02/06/2011 15:17

Some very informative stuff on here.



It would seem a smart move by Germany to become the world leader in green energies. Obviously the german public will have to bear a large amount of the research costs, but there economy is motoring at the moment. Mind you, having nucleur sites all around them (France/Poland) phasing out their own plants doesnt make the Germans any safer. At present more people in Germany have died from e-coli than from a nucleur acccident.



I see that China and the US are investing in Thorium technology in building their nucleur plants. Thorium is readily available in the earths crust and it produces 10-10,000 less long lived radioactive waste comapred to Uranium. What is critical is that thorium cannot sustan a nucleur chain reaction without priming.



I see that in Lancashire they have found an extremely sizeable shale gas site. Excavation of the site has aready caused two minor earth tremors of 2.9 magnitude.

gusanova


Joined: 23/11/2010
Posts: 187

Message Posted:
02/06/2011 15:20

Its a way forward but lets hope that our greedy Unions do not try to think they are bigger than the Elected Government and basically F231 up another golden chance for mining.

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
02/06/2011 15:33

greedy unions? at least in germany the real earnings stagnate at the level of 1992.

Could it be that, with your election system, you might need strong Unions?

Clarissa2


Joined: 12/06/2009
Posts: 1476

Message Posted:
03/06/2011 12:20

Re : Msg 1,

I think it is quite achievable.

Atomic power represents only 23% of Germany's electricity production, and, as Angela Merkel stated, it is planned to double power output from clean fuel sources to 35% by 2020.

Great news for wind turbine makers and solar-cell manufactures.

If the price of coal, gas and oil keeps rising then Germany will indeed lead the way with the popularity of renewable energy spreading worldwide.

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
03/06/2011 12:22

msg 72

your argumentation is incorrect in substance. If the NPS Krümmel blows up like Tschernobyl experts expect half of the population ( 1 million ) dead or "half dead" in the town of Hamburg within a week. Worth would be eg "Biblis, where up to 10 million people could be involved.

If the NPS Fessenheim, France, blows up, the town of Freiburg, 200.000 people, would be affected.



IT IS a difference whether you get shot in the leg or in your heart.

a fact which was not mentioned here is: germany already closed down seven of its 17 nuclear power stations... still the light is on...the nuclear industry did not complaint because the light will go off, they complained because they can not sell excess electricity any more...

It is the common opinion of the public that you "we do not want to produce nuclear electricity to supply others" .. shut down are the oldest and unsafest reactors, of which some also close to heavy populated areas..

Clarissa2


Joined: 12/06/2009
Posts: 1476

Message Posted:
03/06/2011 12:27

Re : Msg 76,



I think Germany closed eight sites.

And all 17 of its nuclear reactors will be phased out 2022.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
03/06/2011 13:25

msge 76



'IT IS a difference whether you get shot in the leg or in your heart'



Yes I guess it does make a difference

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
05/06/2011 11:12

Here's the thing... We live in Esentepe, if the Teknicek Power Station was a nuclear one... we would not live in Cyprus let alone Esentepe....

Ask yourself this question and see what answer you, hand on heart, would give.

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
05/06/2011 13:43

kibs and groucho,



try as I might I cannot feel much affection for teknicek



oh no, I'm not suggesting relacing it with a leaky fast breeder reactor

among the turtle nests in the karpaz (well, I don't think I am anyway)

...and the ice-making qualities of an electric fridge are convenient



but there is no easy way out of the energy conundrum



I'd agree with you guys that to do nothing at all puts us totally at the

mercy of the fossil fuel combines



if we can get by using half the energy, and surely that is possible,

some of the other half can come from alternatives but they

must prove their net worth and you need a fairly high-tech society

to particpate against the grim backdrop of "common-sense"

sometimes just an alibi for outdated myths and philosophies



...also the world's population is too big and growing far too fast



maybe germany has the right attitude, and they recycle like crazy



but who won the bloody war anyway?

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
05/06/2011 21:21

The allies won the war.... Germany won the peace.

For countries rich in solar energy it seems solar power is the way to supplement other systems. Seeing the array running at Sinya providing all his day time electricity it is easy to see that it is a workable solution here. OK they don't use batteries to store so it requires traditional source at night but that not an insurmountable problem. Battery technologies have improved with exponential acceleration in spite of the worlds super-power dragging their feet... now with the new impetus to be provided by a renewed interest in alternatives who knows how quickly economies of scale can be brought to bear.

My point about Teknicek was that nobody really wants to live near a power station... nobody x10 wants to live near a nuclear power station and given the choice... I'd put the beauty contest in this order:-



cont....

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
05/06/2011 21:28

1. Solar arrays, noise and pollution free

2. Wind farm, pollution free, some noise but liveable

3. Hydroelectric, pollution free, some noise but liveable

4. Wave power... never really worked or robust enough

5. Traditional power - oil, coal, gas, polluting and with dangers

6. Nuclear power - I just don't trust humans to control it



I'd rather live with the top two/three than any of the others... and that's the thing. What do we want?

Do we let those with vested interests determine which form power generation will take place... or do we as consumers have or want to have, some say?

Clarissa2


Joined: 12/06/2009
Posts: 1476

Message Posted:
05/06/2011 22:53

Re: Msg 82,



Many economists agree on the fact that now it's time to back solar energy, and say that it is the most credible solution to the energy problems.



Relying mainly on government subsidies, it almost collapsed after the financial crisis and stock prises dived.

But now costs have been slashed: a solar panel costs half of what it did in 2008, efficiency has improved vastly too.

In some areas solar energy achieved 'grid parity' : as cheap as conventional grid power.

As solar prices are falling, whilst oil prices rising, economists say that by the end of the decade replacing coal with solar are justifiable on economic grounds.

Now some of the world's top companies are getting into the solar energy industry.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
05/06/2011 23:03

Solar energy to split hydrogen from water, small hydrogen storage units and hydrogen power generators. This doesnt require battries, which are no solution. Still a way off yet before this is a complete cost effective system suitable for home use, but it may be a way forward in some time from now.

newscoop


Joined: 23/12/2007
Posts: 2197

Message Posted:
05/06/2011 23:58

Mess 82;



"vested interests"



the tree huggers have made a lot of people fabulously wealthy while peddling hugely inefficient turbines that can't be used in windy conditions, and that require massive amounts of generated electricity as back up.



The chemicals used in building those same turbines are full of highly toxic pollutants which cannot easily be cleaned up, those same turbines are produced in the far East. But hey, it's only China why should we care about their environment?

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
06/06/2011 07:54

Newscoop.

The major manufacturer of wind turbines used in Europe are the Scandinavians... The pollutants from Nuclear plants are worse and they continually produced. Nuclear waste that nobody wants in large quantities... the costs of disposal (often to poor countries detriment) is massive.

Wind turbines work well in Denmark and produce 20% of their power already. They can be used in windy conditions and part of a tool box of possible methods that can be utilised. But they don't have to be the big wind farms variety only. If future housing was planned around the need for some form of power generation on-site... solar and wind, householders would be able to produce 80% of their own power needs - some even selling back to the grid. It needs joined-up thinking.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
06/06/2011 07:57

Erolz, batteries are a solution of sorts with regard to the need for smooth delivery of power at night... but on a larger scale pumping water up hill to drive turbines at night is also a way of storing power.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
06/06/2011 09:08

Battaries are problematic environment wise. Hence using the solar generated electricity to split hydrogen out of water (electrolysis) and store it. Hydrogen is the 'purest / cleanest' fuel, like hydrcocarbon without the carbon. You then use the hydrogen to drive a hydrogen generator to provide power on demand when sun shines and when it does not. Large scale pumping is 'large scale'. The idea of such a system is to do away with grid and have self sufficency on a per unit basis.

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
06/06/2011 21:01

Pls do not mix up the systems, we have two main systems.

the grid tie systems where no batteries are required and you sell directly to the grid.

Wind, solar, wave, water, also bio-methan power stations.. available from a small 3-5 kW system to a couple of MW. Storage will be done as in msg 87.

As you need to have the grid as a "buffer to stabilise your system", you cant use these systems to run your house directly and only. Meaning: no grid (power cut) = no electricity.

(the system at Sinya is illegally connected to the grid. it is somehow working, but totally inefficient).

Then we have "off grid" systems. If Kibtek wants thousands from you to be connected (or require a title deed) then this is a cost effective solution. This requires batteries.

Also Solar pumping systems are offgrid systems, they work without batteries.

Grid-tie and off-grid systems can be combined to serve your needs eg in case of power cuts.

kibsolar


Joined: 14/09/2008
Posts: 552

Message Posted:
06/06/2011 21:27

update. Germany is a federation, so.. some things need time, but now also the "countrys" agreed to:



the eight closed NPS remain closed.

2015 Grafenrheinfeld , 2017 Gundremmingen B, 2019 Philippsburg 2, 2021 Grohnde, Brokdorf, Gundremmingen C , 2022 Isar 2, Neckarwestheim II and Emsland will be shut down.

35% renewables till 2020, whatever it will cost.. (more or less)..