Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV Telegram channel! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Europe is going backwards, Germany abandon nuclear energy.
  • A new era began on Thursday (30/06/2011) of 9.00. Bipartisan agreement allowed the decision to abandon nuclear energy in Germany. Leading Member of the European Union back to ancient technologies - wind. Energy splitting of the atom is the foundation of any change in the universe. Everything else is secondary. Welcome to the world eco-motherfuckers. I think I begin to understand why germany lost the second world war - they simply are handicapped. In my country there is no atomic enerii for the same reason :-). Also we are stupid.
  • 31 Replies sorted by
  • What is even more stupid is that this decision is 100% purely the result of an Earthquake in an Earthquake zone 5000 miles away, on the coast of Japan. What that has to do with the German nuclear power plants I don't know. Maybe they are afraid that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil, the resulting tidal wave in the North Sea will come down into Bavaria and swamp their nuclear plans.

    A stupid political knee-jerk decision.

    Germany can do what it likes but if China also drop their plans for more nuclear plants, and go back to coal, the resulting pollution will kill millions more people than the number of people killed by nuclear power disasters throughout history.

    Nuclear is safe. Sort out the issue of waste, and it will be even safer.
  • >Energy splitting of the atom is the foundation of any change in the universe..
    Yes? Nuclear fusion may be... I'm happy for this decision in Germany, I hope that all country open your eyes on the future.
    >Nuclear is safe. Sort out the issue of waste, and it will be even safer.
    Yes, It is true. Until Chernobyl. Until Fukushima. Until next disaster...
    But I'm sure that you know only level 7 incident... A lot (thousand) of people dead for level 5 or 6 incident, but is better that nobody know this... search for Majak, Chalk River, Goiania, Windscale, Tallin .. and Three mile island (remember?).
    Two italians are working (seriusly) in Greece around a cold fusion power plant: this kind of research are the future, not nuclear fission: good only for bombs!
  • Closing of nuclear plans won't happen.
    Someone in Germany just needs to survive elections :-) Plus USA friends also advised them to go in "progressive way".
    Overall nuclear incidents are like terrorism. All are talking about them. But in the same time they ignore all real things, like car incidents, medical errors and just not helping, poverty, etc that are 10x more dangerous and more lethal.
  • Reduction in aids from developed countries since 2008 have killed more people in hunger than all casualties from recent wars & natural disasters & fukushima nuclear plants.

    Nuclear plants will expand as oil price climbs up.
  • >Nuclear plants will expand as oil price climbs up.

    Interesting aspect here is price for nuclear fuel rods.
    Low price during 90s and 0s had been maintained by Russia-US agreement.
    Russia dismanted and processed nuclear weapons warheads and sell them to US companies for tiny part of real cost. All else we sell with assembled rods on different plants.
    Right now uran sources are deplated and last converted uran from warheads will be sold until 2012 as I remember.
  • Nuclear technology has improved considerably; thorium reactors promise to be much safer than uranium-based water-cooled reactors, plus they can be optimized to be "breeder" reactors--producing more fuel than they use up.
  • I'm not sure at what point self-inflicted catastrophes became more devastating threats to human prosperity than natural disasters? The upside however is the abandoned sites of these toxic waste generation projects provide unspeakably authentic sets for post-apocalyptic film shoots.
    Corroded Bridge.jpg
    594 x 741 - 181K
  • i am from germany and extremely happy that this energy is abandoned, and im looking forward to nuclear fusion plants, as they are the real future!
  • Every year, according to the United Nations, in road accidents killed 1.2 million people a year, so do not fuck nonsense about the danger of nuclear energy. Cold fusion would be the best, but today is still a fantasy, not only for scientific reasons but also political. No government in the world does not want free energy.
    My uncle worked for the UN. After the Cold War, said that the U.S. will find itself another enemy if there is no longer the Soviet Union. And they found - terrorists. For centuries, the rulers rule the people through fear - hell, the Communists, imperial capitalism, nuclear energy. Of course, everything that I am simplifying, but if someone tries to talk to me that black is white, white - black I am pissed.
    Is nuclear energy safe? NO, but it is the safest and future-oriented form of obtaining energy in a world where energy is low. The man stopped to explore the cosmos, now they want to stop using the atom. What's next?
  • >For centuries, the rulers rule the people through fear

    You can't rule people through fear. Rulers rule because they provide simple and clear targets, real targets.
    And enemy is one of such things. One bad thing about enemies is that most of the time they are not result of political imagination, they are quite real and they want your resources and your territories for real, no jokes.
  • >You can't rule people through fear.
    Yes, you have got right. I've simplified it too much but sometimes this enemy is only imagination. P.E. -Catholic Church ruled in Europe for ages because they scare people hell. Of course, fear itself is not enough. There must be something in opposition to fear - SKY and redemption that could only be achieved by the Catholic Church.Do you think the hunt for "communists" in the U.S. in the 40's and 50's was always justified?
    Now we have the problem of nuclear energy and of course we also have a 'solution' - green energy.
  • >Now we have the problem of nuclear energy and of course we also have a 'solution' - green energy.

    Biggest advantage of green energy is that they never go to boring calculations considering economic efficiency.

    Some time ago I had talk with one of the guys who installed "green energy" sites. He assured me that huge number of methods exists to make this looks like real business not like throwing money in the toilet. Like falsify service periods, pump average wind speeds for region, providing price drop projections that looks like complete fantasy. But biggest thing is, of course, goverment money and grants. Without it can't happen for most part.
  • @Vitaliy
    Your answer explain everything :-).
  • @LPowell: The laws of thermodynamics cannot be escaped. Nuclear power produces huge amounts of energy in a small area; to get the same level of energy from solar, wind, or wave power would require use of a huge amount of land/sea area along with the resulting damage to the environment (i.e. dead birds/animals, disturbed habitats, etc.) So basically it's a choice: make energy through use of a relatively small plant that generates lots of energy or a lot of land/sea area to get the same amount of energy from low-energy density sources. Add in that wind or sunshine is not predictable/reliable and the choices are not so clear-cut, unless you enjoy having your power suddenly disappear without any warning.
  • @MrAnthony

    Good comment.
    Some people in our country made calculations for solar energy required to replace current plants.
    It had been huge amount of land.
    Also solar plants requires constant cleaning of panels (otherwise efficiency drops sharply).
    Other aspect mentioned - such methods require fantastic amount of batteries (not good for nature).
    One of the proposed solutions - build huge sites that'll pump water upon heigh as some kind of bettery :-)
    All this stuff will cost trillions and trillions.
    So, overall it'll look like this: inflated food price, inflated water price, much higher energy price, salaries cut in half to build such things, and no electricity for 2-3 days in a week. And all this for about two generations. After this - goto strat, as all your infrastructure is broken already.
  • Vitaliy said: "But biggest thing is, of course, goverment money and grants. Without it can't happen for most part."

    That's the story of nuclear power in a nutshell - a huge government-subsidized toxic waste generation project. Characterized by centralized bureaucratic control, chronic engineering failures due to incompetent worst-case analysis, and blatant disregard for long-term environmental consequences. If the hazardous waste disposal costs had ever been seriously factored into the entire proposition, it would have been obvious what a self-destructive quagmire it would become.

    There are several abandoned military installations in my vicinity that remain unfit for human habitation. These sites are prohibited of course, but security is minimal and easily bypassed by a small film crew using compact equipment. No Hollywood backlot can simulate this kind of authenticity. More haunted scenes from Chernobyl.

    2274071892_f633ec5077_o.jpg
    1500 x 1000 - 305K
    2274360259_577825100a_o.jpg
    1500 x 1000 - 724K
    2280716313_22af80c94b_o.jpg
    1500 x 1000 - 495K
    2281509444_f78bf76126_o.jpg
    1500 x 1000 - 654K
  • @LPowell

    First. We are talking about facts here. Not emotions.
    If you want posting such photos and go emotional way - find some other place to talk at this level.

    "That's the story of nuclear power in a nutshell - a huge government-subsidized toxic waste generation project. Characterized by centralized bureaucratic control, chronic engineering failures due to incompetent worst-case analysis, and blatant disregard for long-term environmental consequences."

    I am sorry, but that's a lie.
    Please back up your words by numbers and facts.
    End let it be not something from Greenpeace idiots.
    Btw, centralized bureaucratic control is always used for any large plant. From planning to operation.
    Just because it is best method.

    "If the hazardous waste disposal costs had ever been seriously factored into the entire proposition, it would have been obvious what a self-destructive quagmire it would become."

    I personally know guys who know all about disposal. I think no one in the world know it better :-)
    So, it is also blatant lie. Costs are known and managable.
    As for big amount of waste. It is much smaller then you think.
    Try to read something about coal operated electric plants and number of deaths in China, for example, due to them.
  • 1. Nuclear power plants in Germany will all be shut down until 2022 and no new ones will be built.
    2. This decision has been made years ago! What they settled now is just a new date, 2022.
    3. Renewable energies (solar, wind, bio, water, geothermic) are growing twice as fast as prognosed in Germany, going from 3,8% in 1990 to 16,9% in 2010. In Denmark it went from 2.6% to 28,7% in the same time. Austria is Europe's leader with over 60%, mainly water energy. China invested 34,6 billion dollar in renewable energy technology in 2009, world's leading investor, USA being second. All of these countries accept and name renewable energies as the energy solution and technologies of the future. For Germany, studies name 2050 as a realistic date for the whole country being powered by 100% renewable energies.
    4. The number of smaller company renewable energy suppliers affect the price of energy, making it cheaper. This effect can be seen in Germany already, slowly taking away the price monopole the 4 largest energy suppliers shared for decades.
    5. Nuclear power is a technology of the past, not the future, it is neither safe nor clean and can be replaced over time without power supply shortages.
    6. Vitaliy, nuclear incidents are not like terrorism. When an uncontrolled meltdown happens, like it happened quite often for a 'safe' technology, then the damage lasts for hundreds of years, directly affecting future generations. There is no nuclear power plant in Germany that has an insurance for the case of an uncontrolled melt down. The costs of the damage it would do in a country with such a population density are just too high, there simply is no insurance agency that's willing to take the risk. Ironically, we are willing to take the risk.

    There are great great alternatives to nuclear power with positive effects for nature, people and economy, and there should really be no reason to keep supporting nuclear power in such discussions.
  • One more thing:
    Mihuel, I'm German, please don't call me handicapped.
  • >2. This decision has been made years ago! What they settled now is just a new date, 2022.

    Link that proves this fact. I mean "decision has been made years ago".

    >Renewable energies (solar, wind, bio, water, geothermic) are growing twice as fast as prognosed in Germany, going from 3,8% in 1990 to 16,9% in 2010. In Denmark it went from 2.6% to 28,7% in the same time. Austria is Europe's leader with over 60%, mainly water energy.

    Links to documents, please.
    With data that break with numbers to wind, hydro, etc. I'll even help you - two mentioned account for very big amount in the total number.

    >The number of smaller company renewable energy suppliers affect the price of energy, making it cheaper.

    How so? Any calculations? Prove?
    I just see things that prove otherwise. Decentralisation of electricity systems always cause price hikes.

    >Nuclear power is a technology of the past, not the future, it is neither safe nor clean and can be replaced over time without power supply shortages

    Again. Links.

    > The costs of the damage it would do in a country with such a population density are just too high, there simply is no insurance agency that's willing to take the risk.

    It looks like you belong to such fucking group that always want some insurance and no risks.
    Nature do not work that way. Bigger risks - better life. Want no risks - life will suck.
    Have you considered risks that one of hydro power plants dams collapses causing enourmous flood?
    Or that volcanic eruption happens and your solar panels become ineffective for a month.
    Never come to your mind?

    >There are great great alternatives to nuclear power with positive effects for nature, people and economy, and there should really be no reason to keep supporting nuclear power in such discussions.

    I fucking hate talks on this level.
    See better alternative? Show it. Provide calculations of cost, service, energy required for all this, calculate how much will be cost of your "new energy" and how stable it's supply will be.
  • You can find proof, calculations, statistics, expertises and whatnot on every statement I made if you are willing to invest some time like I did the past months, please understand that I don't really like continuing this thread after being insulted by you.
  • Vitaliy, to my eyes those photos are beautiful. The reality is that these toxic waste sites will never again be habitable in our lifetimes, and there is nothing more poignant than self-inflicted ruin. You and I won't be here to pay for it of course, but the costs are truly incalculable. Fukushima will likely become one of the most enduring of human monoliths, estimated to require entombed containment for centuries, and will remain lethally contaminated with Plutonium for well over a hundred thousand years.
  • >I don't really like continuing this thread after being insulted by you

    It is sad. As no one here insulted you.
    Talks here can be tough and not very dimplomatic.
    But this is fucking talks, not actions.
    They are such only because it saves time :-)
    I had many talks with green adepts. And upon first, not detailed, examination arguments look really dandy.
  • @LPowell

    Again. Do not use emotions. It is not the place.
  • Vitaliy, you're one of most passionate posters I know, and without your fervent dedication, we'd all have much less to show for our efforts. In any case, I'm not here to rail emotionally against nuclear power, my interest is in the cinematic potential of its aftermath.