@brianluce

First, I never said anything about "friend" and "world's #1 expert on waste disposal". So, this is your fantasies.
I said I know guys who know how nuclear waste disposal plant works from inside. If you keep thinking of this as hearsay, find some other place to talk about this.

>So where are you facts that fission reactor waste is a minimal expense and that atomic reactors are in fact efficient and economical?

I want to hear detailed answers with links and documents to my previous questions.
After this we'll move to economical efficiency of present nuclear plants and waste volumes.

@ To all:
I give a shit whether someone is black, white, yellow or pink, or a Pole, a Jew, a Russian, an Englishman, German, etc.. We are mainly men, we did not choose a place where we were born, and if humanity does not understand that we must all strive to unite, I wish humanity: fuck in ass.
So sorry for the future, because this forum is one of the few places where you can say what you want and how you want without fucking political correctness.
P.S. Do you know the "Polish jokes"? There are, unfortunately sometimes , true :-)

@ Chip: >>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.

This is a distortion of facts. In fact, the German government had announced an extension of their reactor licenses less than a year ago. Only the Japanese earthquake and resultant press focus on the Fukushima reactors forced Angela Merkel to do a complete 180 degree turn and set the 2022 date. Otherwise, the Merkel govt would have continued to push nuclear power, which generates 17 to 23% of German power (depending upon which newspaper/website you visit). Even the best estimates require Germany to institute some kind of energy conservation, even with the growth rates in renewable energy. How is the German economy supposed to grow?

Ultimately France and Russia will probably be selling electricity generated by nuclear power to Germany by 2022, when the renewable energy supplies turn out to be expensive and unreliable.

Also the growth rates you cited are meaningless, other than to indicate investment. I will remind you that during the dot-com boom, you could cite similar growth rates, but ultimately the bubble burst on those investments.

>>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.

Hilarious, as windmills (excuse me, "wind turbines") are clearly a technology of the past. Let me know how well solar and wind power do with powering submarines, space ships, and other modern devices.

There are clearly new designs for modern reactors (look up molten salt reactors, for example) that are safe and clean. With proper design, spent fuel can be re-processed and re-used, minimizing waste. I suggest you look that up. As for the power supply shortage issue, places that have installed windmills have discovered that they do not produce the power claimed, not reliably.

For example, take a look at this exchange about a wind turbine in the UK:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wind_turbine#incoming-163689

Over 12 months, it generated 209 kWh of electricity. That's the same as running a 100 watt light bulb for 3 months. Or 5 CFLs for 3 months. Basically, not enough to power a home reliably over a year. At today's rates, it'll take 50 to 100 years for that turbine to be economically viable, far more than the lifespan of the turbine. Factor in the lifespan and costs of maintenance and the turbine is economically inferior to just about every other common form of generating energy.

The only way "renewable" alternatives can replace nuclear is by using large amounts of land and sea, as I stated previously. Even then, reliability, cost of maintenance, and environmental damage will be huge issues. Germany is getting away from nuclear power, but it's essentially gambling that conservation coupled with alternative sources will work out. Utility customers in Germany should be prepared for much higher energy rates, as that is not a safe bet.

@LPowell

Again. Do not use emotions. It is not the place.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

@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.

>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.

>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.

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!