Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6006
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:04 pm

https://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/20220104-g ... lear-power

I think they should check out CO2 emission figures of each energy generation technology?

https://www.euronews.com/2021/12/31/ger ... wer-plants

And they want to close all nuclear power in Germany by 2022 yet letting coal power plants survive until year 2038.
Last edited by atcsundevil on Wed Jan 05, 2022 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Germany, with Green Party in ruling coalition, welcome gas as green energy but reject labelling nuclear as green

Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:47 pm

Well, I guess the jury is not out on that one.

The German government on Saturday slammed plans by the European Commission to include nuclear energy and natural gas in its long-awaited green labeling system for investments in the energy sector.

Economy and Climate Protection Minister Robert Habeck and Environment Minister Steffi Lemke, both from the Green party, sharply criticized the Commission initiative, and Habeck — who is also German vice-chancellor — said Berlin could not back the proposed scheme.


link

And as we have been talking about, the financial industry isn't supporting the proposal as well.
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6006
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Germany, with Green Party in ruling coalition, welcome gas as green energy but reject labelling nuclear as green

Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:19 pm

Dutchy wrote:
And as we have been talking about, the financial industry isn't supporting the proposal as well.

As opposed to the fossil fuel centric discussion over the other thread, here I would like to discuss how some countries and political factions,especially those who claim to be for the peotection of environment, decided to deprioritize nuclear below gas, or even coal, despite the greatest common threat being green house gas emission, and data is clear on which would produce less.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3501
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Germany, with Green Party in ruling coalition, welcome gas as green energy but reject labelling nuclear as green

Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:27 pm

c933103 wrote:
here I would like to discuss how some countries and political factions,especially those who claim to be for the peotection of environment, decided to deprioritize nuclear below gas, or even coal, despite the greatest common threat being green house gas emission, and data is clear on which would produce less.

It’s very simple…if the energy source doesn’t help in the pursuit of the destruction of capitalism or reduction in living standards, then it is disfavored. Even if it actually does help the environment more. IMO they’re either irrationally phobic of said power source, or the environment is secondary to their social objectives.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24170
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Germany, with Green Party in ruling coalition, welcome gas as green energy but reject labelling nuclear as green

Wed Jan 05, 2022 1:51 am

Science is very close to CO2 recycling. What can be made with spent fuel rods and the water used to cool the rods?
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3501
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Germany, with Green Party in ruling coalition, welcome gas as green energy but reject labelling nuclear as green

Wed Jan 05, 2022 3:04 am

seb146 wrote:
Science is very close to CO2 recycling. What can be made with spent fuel rods and the water used to cool the rods?

The same thing we currently do with the 67% of toxic coal ash that can't be recycled...safely store it, but with nuclear there are no CO2 emissions. And the cooling water can actually be safely treated/filtered and re-released.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8943
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Germany, with Green Party in ruling coalition, welcome gas as green energy but reject labelling nuclear as green

Wed Jan 05, 2022 5:44 am

seb146 wrote:
Science is very close to CO2 recycling.

Is it? I know it is very much possible (trivial) to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, but I was under the impression it was still VERY energy intensive and counter productive.

Is there a new tech out there?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14946
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Germany, with Green Party in ruling coalition, welcome gas as green energy but reject labelling nuclear as green

Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:30 am

CO2 recycling is already being done, it has received federal funding in the US. It is captured in some power plants, then used for "enhanced recovery" of oil and gas. An environmental nightmare...
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15917
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Germany, with Green Party in ruling coalition, welcome gas as green energy but reject labelling nuclear as green

Wed Jan 05, 2022 1:19 pm

From their initial creation 'Green Parties' have been openly anti-Nuclear power as part of anti-Nuclear bomb beliefs. Nuclear power is not benign as to CO2 or emissions either. There is the operational risks as we have seen in Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. There are issues as to the storage of wastes, contamination and return of heated coolest water with its environmental issues. In the USA, although about 20% of electricity production is from nuclear facilities, it is in decline as plants 'age out', are too close to populated areas, environmental, financial and other costs to store or process wastes. The acceptance of Natural Gas seems to Green Parties as a lesser of 2 evils, to move away from coal totally, a transitional source of energy to provide electricity to another of their goals of pushing EV's to replace ICE vehicles and reduce overall pollution.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Germany labels some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Wed Jan 05, 2022 4:50 pm

The thread title has been updated, as it was deemed to be flamebait/clickbait. It has been changed accordingly as referenced from the articles.

Yes, the Greens are part of the governing ampelkoalition, but referencing them in relation to the government deeming "some" natural gas projects to be green energy is a gross oversimplification of the dynamics of coalition governance. Therefore, it's flamebait. Please avoid that sort of political flamebait and just discuss the topic.

✈️ atcsundevil
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6006
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Germany labels some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Wed Jan 05, 2022 5:06 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
The thread title has been updated, as it was deemed to be flamebait/clickbait. It has been changed accordingly as referenced from the articles.

Yes, the Greens are part of the governing ampelkoalition, but referencing them in relation to the government deeming "some" natural gas projects to be green energy is a gross oversimplification of the dynamics of coalition governance. Therefore, it's flamebait. Please avoid that sort of political flamebait and just discuss the topic.

✈️ atcsundevil

Apology for my original title failed to take into account the coalition nature of Germany government.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Germany labels some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Wed Jan 05, 2022 5:22 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
The thread title has been updated, as it was deemed to be flamebait/clickbait. It has been changed accordingly as referenced from the articles.

Yes, the Greens are part of the governing ampelkoalition, but referencing them in relation to the government deeming "some" natural gas projects to be green energy is a gross oversimplification of the dynamics of coalition governance. Therefore, it's flamebait. Please avoid that sort of political flamebait and just discuss the topic.

✈️ atcsundevil


It's the EU commission proposal, not the German government ;-). It is a financial instrument, foremost. It doesn't change the general goal of reducing greenhouse gasses. But indeed it is quite a complex proposal.
 
Noray
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Germany labels some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Wed Jan 05, 2022 6:19 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
The thread title has been updated, as it was deemed to be flamebait/clickbait. It has been changed accordingly as referenced from the articles.

Yes, the Greens are part of the governing ampelkoalition, but referencing them in relation to the government deeming "some" natural gas projects to be green energy is a gross oversimplification of the dynamics of coalition governance. Therefore, it's flamebait. Please avoid that sort of political flamebait and just discuss the topic.

✈️ atcsundevil

Thanks for taking action, but sorry, that's not what these articles say. So I don't think that the new title is an improvement.

To begin with, as Dutchy wrote, it's not a German, but a EU proposal under the new French leadership, and Germany is critical of some aspects.

Secondly, the EU proposal is to declare some investments in nuclear and gas power as environment friendly.

Thirdly, both energy sources are controversial in Germany. Rejection of nuclear energy is stronger in Germany than rejection of gas-fired power plants. But that doesn't mean that gas-fired power plants are generally considered as green energy. Gas is seen as a bridge technology that helps to reduce the even more environment unfriendly coal-based power generation. The reason we still burn lots of coal is that this is what is locally available.

Fourthly, the discussion distracts from the actually more environmentally friendly renewable energy sources.

c933103 wrote:
As opposed to the fossil fuel centric discussion over the other thread, here I would like to discuss how some countries and political factions,especially those who claim to be for the peotection of environment, decided to deprioritize nuclear below gas, or even coal, despite the greatest common threat being green house gas emission, and data is clear on which would produce less.

As you can read in French train stations: "Un Train peut en cacher un autre". There may lurk another danger behind the one you're currently focusing on. We shouldn't look at green house gas alone and forget the dangers we leave behind to future generations with nuclear power.

Another reason why gas-fired power plants can be seen as environment friendly, on the long term, is that one day they can be converted from natural gas to hydrogen.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Germany labels some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Wed Jan 05, 2022 6:53 pm

Noray wrote:
atcsundevil wrote:
The thread title has been updated, as it was deemed to be flamebait/clickbait. It has been changed accordingly as referenced from the articles.

Yes, the Greens are part of the governing ampelkoalition, but referencing them in relation to the government deeming "some" natural gas projects to be green energy is a gross oversimplification of the dynamics of coalition governance. Therefore, it's flamebait. Please avoid that sort of political flamebait and just discuss the topic.

✈️ atcsundevil

Thanks for taking action, but sorry, that's not what these articles say. So I don't think that the new title is an improvement.

To begin with, as Dutchy wrote, it's not a German, but a EU proposal under the new French leadership, and Germany is critical of some aspects.

Secondly, the EU proposal is to declare some investments in nuclear and gas power as environment friendly.

Thirdly, both energy sources are controversial in Germany. Rejection of nuclear energy is stronger in Germany than rejection of gas-fired power plants. But that doesn't mean that gas-fired power plants are generally considered as green energy. Gas is seen as a bridge technology that helps to reduce the even more environment unfriendly coal-based power generation. The reason we still burn lots of coal is that this is what is locally available.

Fourthly, the discussion distracts from the actually more environmentally friendly renewable energy sources.

c933103 wrote:
As opposed to the fossil fuel centric discussion over the other thread, here I would like to discuss how some countries and political factions,especially those who claim to be for the peotection of environment, decided to deprioritize nuclear below gas, or even coal, despite the greatest common threat being green house gas emission, and data is clear on which would produce less.

As you can read in French train stations: "Un Train peut en cacher un autre". There may lurk another danger behind the one you're currently focusing on. We shouldn't look at green house gas alone and forget the dangers we leave behind to future generations with nuclear power.

Another reason why gas-fired power plants can be seen as environment friendly, on the long term, is that one day they can be converted from natural gas to hydrogen.

My point wasn't to debate semantics, it was to prevent political flamebait. In any case, I changed the title again, but it won't be updated.

✈️ atcsundevil
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14946
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Germany labels some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Thu Jan 06, 2022 8:00 am

atcsundevil wrote:
The thread title has been updated, as it was deemed to be flamebait/clickbait. It has been changed accordingly as referenced from the articles.

Yes, the Greens are part of the governing ampelkoalition, but referencing them in relation to the government deeming "some" natural gas projects to be green energy is a gross oversimplification of the dynamics of coalition governance. Therefore, it's flamebait. Please avoid that sort of political flamebait and just discuss the topic.

✈️ atcsundevil


It's also a coalition government that killed nuclear in Germany, I still blame Merkel, she should have said Nein !
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6006
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Germany labels some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Thu Jan 06, 2022 8:03 am

Noray wrote:
c933103 wrote:
As opposed to the fossil fuel centric discussion over the other thread, here I would like to discuss how some countries and political factions,especially those who claim to be for the peotection of environment, decided to deprioritize nuclear below gas, or even coal, despite the greatest common threat being green house gas emission, and data is clear on which would produce less.

As you can read in French train stations: "Un Train peut en cacher un autre". There may lurk another danger behind the one you're currently focusing on. We shouldn't look at green house gas alone and forget the dangers we leave behind to future generations with nuclear power.

Another reason why gas-fired power plants can be seen as environment friendly, on the long term, is that one day they can be converted from natural gas to hydrogen.

At least those radioactive matters in nuclear plants even if exploded in worse possible way wouldn't go up to atmosphere and then stay in the atmosphere surrounding the entire world for centuries.
Of the three cases of most significant radioactive disasters, only Chernobyl have significant wide area impact, and that's due to the use of graphite in the nuclear plant, which is something comparable to using hydrogen in airship. Three Mile Island is only localized to the plant itself, and Fukushima after 10 years is reopening most of the area previously closed for high radiation, leaving only part of the two nearest towns closed as well as area deep inside mountain that haven't cleaned up yet. Looking back its damage and its danger on life from the plant itself was definitely only a minor share of consequence of the earthquake and tsunami back then, which killed tens of thousands, and have cities entirely washed away having to rebuilt further away from coast with whoever who survived.

Using hydrogran in power plant doesn't seems to make sense, as hydrogen need to be generated using power, which make it a possible candidate for mobile fuel, but what's the point of generating hydrogen using power and then burning those hydrogen back at fixed location?

Also, what's the justification of closing coals decade later than nuclear? Even when local impact is concerned, coal is consistently bad even if they're working "properly", unlike nuclear
Last edited by c933103 on Thu Jan 06, 2022 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14946
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Thu Jan 06, 2022 8:04 am

As for the waste, France is building an underground facility to store it (other countries, too). It's like a coal mine, basically. One mine. To store all nuclear waste for 100 years of production. It doesn't even register.

Meanwhile Germany is polluting the atmosphere of the whole planet (not alone of course), with immediate consequences. Irreversible consequences. And on top of it, becoming Putin's puppets in the process !
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3501
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Thu Jan 06, 2022 8:37 am

Aesma wrote:
As for the waste, France is building an underground facility to store it (other countries, too). It's like a coal mine, basically. One mine. To store all nuclear waste for 100 years of production. It doesn't even register.

Meanwhile Germany is polluting the atmosphere of the whole planet (not alone of course), with immediate consequences. Irreversible consequences. And on top of it, becoming Putin's puppets in the process !

All while France continues merrily along at a much quicker pace toward decarbonization with nearly half the CO2 emissions per capita as Germany, and with much cheaper energy costs to boot.
 
Noray
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Germany labels some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Thu Jan 06, 2022 4:16 pm

c933103 wrote:
Noray wrote:
c933103 wrote:
As opposed to the fossil fuel centric discussion over the other thread, here I would like to discuss how some countries and political factions,especially those who claim to be for the peotection of environment, decided to deprioritize nuclear below gas, or even coal, despite the greatest common threat being green house gas emission, and data is clear on which would produce less.

As you can read in French train stations: "Un Train peut en cacher un autre". There may lurk another danger behind the one you're currently focusing on. We shouldn't look at green house gas alone and forget the dangers we leave behind to future generations with nuclear power.

Another reason why gas-fired power plants can be seen as environment friendly, on the long term, is that one day they can be converted from natural gas to hydrogen.

At least those radioactive matters in nuclear plants even if exploded in worse possible way wouldn't go up to atmosphere and then stay in the atmosphere surrounding the entire world for centuries.
Of the three cases of most significant radioactive disasters, only Chernobyl have significant wide area impact, and that's due to the use of graphite in the nuclear plant, which is something comparable to using hydrogen in airship. Three Mile Island is only localized to the plant itself, and Fukushima after 10 years is reopening most of the area previously closed for high radiation, leaving only part of the two nearest towns closed as well as area deep inside mountain that haven't cleaned up yet. Looking back its damage and its danger on life from the plant itself was definitely only a minor share of consequence of the earthquake and tsunami back then, which killed tens of thousands, and have cities entirely washed away having to rebuilt further away from coast with whoever who survived.

Using hydrogran in power plant doesn't seems to make sense, as hydrogen need to be generated using power, which make it a possible candidate for mobile fuel, but what's the point of generating hydrogen using power and then burning those hydrogen back at fixed location?

Also, what's the justification of closing coals decade later than nuclear? Even when local impact is concerned, coal is consistently bad even if they're working "properly", unlike nuclear

Hydrogen can be created from renewable energy sources where/when these are plentyful and then transported to the place of consumption that doesn't (constantly) have renewable energy available.

The search for a nuclear repository in Germany is a never-ending story. The Gorleben salt dome once intended for this turned out to be unsafe. There is no complete guarantee for future security. Even the head of the industry-friendly FDP rejects nuclear power for Germany because it can only be covered by state liability and not with market-based means, since nobody wants to take responsibility for the risks.

Coal in Germany is a story in itself. On the one hand, coal is a locally available crisis reserve that prevents complete dependence on exporters such as Russia (Aesma, trying not to become Putin's puppet). On the other hand, the German coal regions are politically very influential and it is difficult to make politics against them. This certainly applies not only to Germany, but also to other coal-rich countries such as Poland.
 
pune
Posts: 990
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Thu Jan 06, 2022 8:03 pm

Aesma wrote:
As for the waste, France is building an underground facility to store it (other countries, too). It's like a coal mine, basically. One mine. To store all nuclear waste for 100 years of production. It doesn't even register.

Meanwhile Germany is polluting the atmosphere of the whole planet (not alone of course), with immediate consequences. Irreversible consequences. And on top of it, becoming Putin's puppets in the process !


The problem is that the decay chain would be longer than 100 years, if it was just 100 years then it wouldn't be the nightmare nuclear is. From what little I know both Uranium-235 and Plutonium have a half life of 4 billion years and 24000 years respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

So 100 years is a joke. I was seeing a documentary few years back where the scientists themselves have no idea how to convey processing of nuclear waste for future generations.

Just to take an example of that time-scale, think of the time of Sumerian Kings, all that is lost and is now just guess-work -

https://www.gaia.com/article/sumerian-kings-list

So the idea that information like above would test the time for thousands of years is a fantasy. At the most, it comes to as shared in one another thread, I will be long dead whenever a nuclear catastrophe strikes, so how do I care ???
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Thu Jan 06, 2022 8:49 pm

I understood that nuclear waste is dangerous for 250.000years. And that is mind-boggling. 250.000years ago we modern humans sapiens just started out and Neanderthals still had 220.000years to live before going extinct.
So the only real thing you can do is bury it deep in a stable layer in the ground and hope it will not cause any problem in 50.000years.
 
pune
Posts: 990
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:09 pm

Dutchy wrote:
I understood that nuclear waste is dangerous for 250.000years. And that is mind-boggling. 250.000years ago we modern humans sapiens just started out and Neanderthals still had 220.000years to live before going extinct.
So the only real thing you can do is bury it deep in a stable layer in the ground and hope it will not cause any problem in 50.000years.


But that is a song and a prayer. What happens in an earthquake or a volcano or anything like that. What if it mixes in our earth and water. And the other thing how do you remember and make others remember to take care of it, that is another question. I don't think we have the technology to have sensors that would live for even a thousand years, forget 250k years. AFAIK, the best sensors that are made are those which are made for studying marine ecosystems and space. And again in both the places (hostile environments) hence the best you can think for is 10-20 years and even in that they need regular maintenance. And this is considering that people who are doing this are not selfish.

Although evidence shows most companies are selfish.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/maga ... tmare.html
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3501
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:31 pm

Dutchy wrote:
I understood that nuclear waste is dangerous for 250.000years. And that is mind-boggling. 250.000years ago we modern humans sapiens just started out and Neanderthals still had 220.000years to live before going extinct.
So the only real thing you can do is bury it deep in a stable layer in the ground and hope it will not cause any problem in 50.000years.

Approximately just 10% of nuclear waste has a half life greater than 30 years. We’re talking about a small amount of waste for a substantial amount of zero carbon energy. Again, climate change is an existential threat, nuclear waste is not and an eminently solvable problem. I recall reading somewhere that the amount of nuclear waste generated to cover a lifetime’s worth energy consumption for the average American would be the size of a soda can…and you can cut that at least in half when you factor in other renewable energy sources.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... =125740818
 
pune
Posts: 990
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:42 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
I understood that nuclear waste is dangerous for 250.000years. And that is mind-boggling. 250.000years ago we modern humans sapiens just started out and Neanderthals still had 220.000years to live before going extinct.
So the only real thing you can do is bury it deep in a stable layer in the ground and hope it will not cause any problem in 50.000years.

Approximately just 10% of nuclear waste has a half life greater than 30 years. We’re talking about a small amount of waste for a substantial amount of zero carbon energy. Again, climate change is an existential threat, nuclear waste is not and an eminently solvable problem. I recall reading somewhere that the amount of nuclear waste generated to cover a lifetime’s worth energy consumption for the average American would be the size of a soda can…and you can cut that at least in half when you factor in other renewable energy sources.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... =125740818


Thank you for that link. But as shared in the article there are still many questions left. The problem is just like everything else, it becomes a very divisive topic. And anyway, it has yet to be demonstrated by numbers and everything how it will all work out. The whole thing has been told vaguely without any definite timelines. Maybe it is in the experimental stage or whatever, I have no clue. For e.g., if the nuclear waste is safe or would be safe then the risk could be quantified by insurance although from what I have read and seen insurance companies want to minimize liability especially in nuclear as much as possible.

My suggestion would be something like this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65rlHr6ey4I
 
pune
Posts: 990
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:44 pm

Interestingly, VW in UK courts are in a fix over dieselgate that causes cancer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Y-JL1hHME
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14946
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:08 pm

pune wrote:
Aesma wrote:
As for the waste, France is building an underground facility to store it (other countries, too). It's like a coal mine, basically. One mine. To store all nuclear waste for 100 years of production. It doesn't even register.

Meanwhile Germany is polluting the atmosphere of the whole planet (not alone of course), with immediate consequences. Irreversible consequences. And on top of it, becoming Putin's puppets in the process !


The problem is that the decay chain would be longer than 100 years, if it was just 100 years then it wouldn't be the nightmare nuclear is. From what little I know both Uranium-235 and Plutonium have a half life of 4 billion years and 24000 years respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

So 100 years is a joke. I was seeing a documentary few years back where the scientists themselves have no idea how to convey processing of nuclear waste for future generations.

Just to take an example of that time-scale, think of the time of Sumerian Kings, all that is lost and is now just guess-work -

https://www.gaia.com/article/sumerian-kings-list

So the idea that information like above would test the time for thousands of years is a fantasy. At the most, it comes to as shared in one another thread, I will be long dead whenever a nuclear catastrophe strikes, so how do I care ???


The site in France is built in geologically very stable ground, but it's not supposed to last forever, instead the waste will stay retrievable. It's a burden for future generations, yes, but compared to global warming, a small one.

It's also possible, if there is a will to do it, to recycle such waste in fast reactors, eliminating long living isotopes.
 
pune
Posts: 990
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:50 am

That has been debated above but that idea seems to have not too many takers. While lot of people put the events around Fukushima as drama, for the workers of the Daichi Nuclear Plant, their woes are and have been unending, especially the Fukushima 50.

This shares a bit of it https://apjjf.org/2012/10/10/David-McNe ... ticle.html

While this docu-drama that tells the story of Fukushima 50, the ones who risked their all -

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9318772/

Sadly, quite a few died from exposure to radiation, similar happened in 3-mile island, the rescuers or those who tried their best so the nuclear fallout could be contained.

As far as Fukushima is concerned, none of the other workers could get any other job anywhere else as they are thought to be colluding actors rather than heroes who tried to save. The last I heard/read was that it has been more than a decade and they are still fighting in courts for compensation due to them :(

That sadly is the nature of the things :(
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6006
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Germany labels some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 2:30 am

Noray wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Noray wrote:

As you can read in French train stations: "Un Train peut en cacher un autre". There may lurk another danger behind the one you're currently focusing on. We shouldn't look at green house gas alone and forget the dangers we leave behind to future generations with nuclear power.

Another reason why gas-fired power plants can be seen as environment friendly, on the long term, is that one day they can be converted from natural gas to hydrogen.

At least those radioactive matters in nuclear plants even if exploded in worse possible way wouldn't go up to atmosphere and then stay in the atmosphere surrounding the entire world for centuries.
Of the three cases of most significant radioactive disasters, only Chernobyl have significant wide area impact, and that's due to the use of graphite in the nuclear plant, which is something comparable to using hydrogen in airship. Three Mile Island is only localized to the plant itself, and Fukushima after 10 years is reopening most of the area previously closed for high radiation, leaving only part of the two nearest towns closed as well as area deep inside mountain that haven't cleaned up yet. Looking back its damage and its danger on life from the plant itself was definitely only a minor share of consequence of the earthquake and tsunami back then, which killed tens of thousands, and have cities entirely washed away having to rebuilt further away from coast with whoever who survived.

Using hydrogran in power plant doesn't seems to make sense, as hydrogen need to be generated using power, which make it a possible candidate for mobile fuel, but what's the point of generating hydrogen using power and then burning those hydrogen back at fixed location?

Also, what's the justification of closing coals decade later than nuclear? Even when local impact is concerned, coal is consistently bad even if they're working "properly", unlike nuclear

Hydrogen can be created from renewable energy sources where/when these are plentyful and then transported to the place of consumption that doesn't (constantly) have renewable energy available.

Shouldn't pan-European electric grid do the job? Since we're talking about power plant
The search for a nuclear repository in Germany is a never-ending story. The Gorleben salt dome once intended for this turned out to be unsafe. There is no complete guarantee for future security. Even the head of the industry-friendly FDP rejects nuclear power for Germany because it can only be covered by state liability and not with market-based means, since nobody wants to take responsibility for the risks.

But they're talking about energy policy of the entire EU not just within Germany when they're against the green labelling of nuclear
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3501
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 8:38 am

pune wrote:
it has yet to be demonstrated by numbers and everything how it will all work out. The whole thing has been told vaguely without any definite timelines.

I guess I’m not clear what you mean exactly because it in fact has been demonstrated. Right now. Large scale nuclear power has been operating continually in a number of countries safely for many decades, with far less environmental and human toll than fossil fuel generated power. The numbers are in and the difference in safety profile between nuclear and fossil fuels couldn’t be more stark…99.7% fewer deaths compared to coal, 97.5% fewer deaths compared to gas.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

As Aesma pointed out, nuclear waste is a concern and consideration, but an incredibly small and solvable one compared to climate change. It’s hard to take seriously any group like the German Greens who professes the existential threat of climate change yet preferences increased reliance on fossil fuels vs. nuclear despite the latter’s zero carbon footprint and incredibly strong safety profile. If that’s the route Germany wants to go that’s fine, but shouldn’t be forcing those preferences on the other EU countries.
 
pune
Posts: 990
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:26 am

flyguy89 wrote:
pune wrote:
it has yet to be demonstrated by numbers and everything how it will all work out. The whole thing has been told vaguely without any definite timelines.

I guess I’m not clear what you mean exactly because it in fact has been demonstrated. Right now. Large scale nuclear power has been operating continually in a number of countries safely for many decades, with far less environmental and human toll than fossil fuel generated power. The numbers are in and the difference in safety profile between nuclear and fossil fuels couldn’t be more stark…99.7% fewer deaths compared to coal, 97.5% fewer deaths compared to gas.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

As Aesma pointed out, nuclear waste is a concern and consideration, but an incredibly small and solvable one compared to climate change. It’s hard to take seriously any group like the German Greens who professes the existential threat of climate change yet preferences increased reliance on fossil fuels vs. nuclear despite the latter’s zero carbon footprint and incredibly strong safety profile. If that’s the route Germany wants to go that’s fine, but shouldn’t be forcing those preferences on the other EU countries.


No, the way forward is wind, solar and such kind of initiatives. Fossil fuels are on the way out as they should be. I have asked multiple times on this thread itself as to why China and say Europe are going en-masse to EV. In China, almost all EV manufacturers showing 200+ growth while ICE vehicles are way down. The same trend is happening in Europe.

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/30/15 ... -november/

And this is when the Chinese have not even entered the markets as of yet, once they do, the numbers will be vastly different and it will take more share from both EV as well as ICE vehicles who are on their last legs anyway.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:47 am

Two questions -
1) we've had nuclear waste in large amounts since the early 1940s. Nobody has figured away to safely store it permanently or render it harmless including the guy with unlimited pockets - the US. Why does anyone think the solution is just around the corner?
2) Private insurers (at least in the US) won't touch a nuclear power plant with a ten foot pole.The have a pretty good reason to study risk. Have they been wrong all these years?
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16780
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:24 am

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Two questions -
1) we've had nuclear waste in large amounts since the early 1940s. Nobody has figured away to safely store it permanently or render it harmless including the guy with unlimited pockets - the US. Why does anyone think the solution is just around the corner?
2) Private insurers (at least in the US) won't touch a nuclear power plant with a ten foot pole.The have a pretty good reason to study risk. Have they been wrong all these years?


I really don't see much of a distinction between #2 and both construction and aviation. Both are fields many laypersons consider to be very dangerous, but they are actually quite safe in normal operation when people are paying attention to what they do, have proper training, and management doesn't cut corners. With those conditions met, insurers cover those activities. Nuclear power generation is exactly like this, except accidents potentially affect a wider area than just the plant workers or airline passengers. If the necessary human factors are addressed, plant safety should not be an issue. Both Fukushima and Chernobyl presented clear examples of letting all the holes in the Swiss cheese line up - it's a bit presumptuous for an insurer to assume all ops will be run in the same fashion.
 
GDB
Posts: 14472
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:26 am

Aaron747 wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Two questions -
1) we've had nuclear waste in large amounts since the early 1940s. Nobody has figured away to safely store it permanently or render it harmless including the guy with unlimited pockets - the US. Why does anyone think the solution is just around the corner?
2) Private insurers (at least in the US) won't touch a nuclear power plant with a ten foot pole.The have a pretty good reason to study risk. Have they been wrong all these years?


I really don't see much of a distinction between #2 and both construction and aviation. Both are fields many laypersons consider to be very dangerous, but they are actually quite safe in normal operation when people are paying attention to what they do, have proper training, and management doesn't cut corners. With those conditions met, insurers cover those activities. Nuclear power generation is exactly like this, except accidents potentially affect a wider area than just the plant workers or airline passengers. If the necessary human factors are addressed, plant safety should not be an issue. Both Fukushima and Chernobyl presented clear examples of letting all the holes in the Swiss cheese line up - it's a bit presumptuous for an insurer to assume all ops will be run in the same fashion.


I do get fed up when the blurt of ‘but...Chernobyl’, what about it? A reactor design rejected by the UK and almost certainly the US in the late 1940’s, when the earliest planning for the first power stations were being considered, as too unsafe, used shitty fuel, uniquely no containment, cheap and nasty, quick and dirty, run under a decaying, corrupt system. We don’t ground Western aircraft if a Russian one crashes due to design and/or maintenance errors after all.

As for Fukushima, what a place to build, vulnerable to events like Earthquakes and associated Tsunami and with especially inadequate defenses against the latter.

Three Mile Island, not to brush it off but how many died? How severe was the radiation discharge? Did it remotely compare with the two above?

Many Greens in the UK have accepted, some advocated even, for nuclear power to be a part of cleaner energy, it does seem a German Green obsession, maybe it’s DNA are the influence of some of the original founders, some of their wacky ideas.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:07 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
I understood that nuclear waste is dangerous for 250.000years. And that is mind-boggling. 250.000years ago we modern humans sapiens just started out and Neanderthals still had 220.000years to live before going extinct.
So the only real thing you can do is bury it deep in a stable layer in the ground and hope it will not cause any problem in 50.000years.

Approximately just 10% of nuclear waste has a half life greater than 30 years. We’re talking about a small amount of waste for a substantial amount of zero carbon energy. Again, climate change is an existential threat, nuclear waste is not and an eminently solvable problem. I recall reading somewhere that the amount of nuclear waste generated to cover a lifetime’s worth energy consumption for the average American would be the size of a soda can…and you can cut that at least in half when you factor in other renewable energy sources.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... =125740818


Spent nuclear fuel can also be reprocessed and used again is other reactors. I am still looking into the specifics, but I think this is done in most countries outside of the US. Reactors can also be designed for other fuels, such as Thorium (Th). Th has a lot of advantages over Pu and U. The reason the US wanted Pu and U over Th reactors was for weapons proliferation. Nuclear has some challenges, just like any other source of energy, but nothing that can't be worked out.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:11 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Two questions -
1) we've had nuclear waste in large amounts since the early 1940s. Nobody has figured away to safely store it permanently or render it harmless including the guy with unlimited pockets - the US. Why does anyone think the solution is just around the corner?
2) Private insurers (at least in the US) won't touch a nuclear power plant with a ten foot pole.The have a pretty good reason to study risk. Have they been wrong all these years?


The US has Yucca Mountain to store spent fuel. Harry Ried stopped the transportation of the fuel through his state because NIMBY.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16780
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:23 pm

GDB wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Two questions -
1) we've had nuclear waste in large amounts since the early 1940s. Nobody has figured away to safely store it permanently or render it harmless including the guy with unlimited pockets - the US. Why does anyone think the solution is just around the corner?
2) Private insurers (at least in the US) won't touch a nuclear power plant with a ten foot pole.The have a pretty good reason to study risk. Have they been wrong all these years?


I really don't see much of a distinction between #2 and both construction and aviation. Both are fields many laypersons consider to be very dangerous, but they are actually quite safe in normal operation when people are paying attention to what they do, have proper training, and management doesn't cut corners. With those conditions met, insurers cover those activities. Nuclear power generation is exactly like this, except accidents potentially affect a wider area than just the plant workers or airline passengers. If the necessary human factors are addressed, plant safety should not be an issue. Both Fukushima and Chernobyl presented clear examples of letting all the holes in the Swiss cheese line up - it's a bit presumptuous for an insurer to assume all ops will be run in the same fashion.


I do get fed up when the blurt of ‘but...Chernobyl’, what about it? A reactor design rejected by the UK and almost certainly the US in the late 1940’s, when the earliest planning for the first power stations were being considered, as too unsafe, used shitty fuel, uniquely no containment, cheap and nasty, quick and dirty, run under a decaying, corrupt system. We don’t ground Western aircraft if a Russian one crashes due to design and/or maintenance errors after all.

As for Fukushima, what a place to build, vulnerable to events like Earthquakes and associated Tsunami and with especially inadequate defenses against the latter.

Three Mile Island, not to brush it off but how many died? How severe was the radiation discharge? Did it remotely compare with the two above?

Many Greens in the UK have accepted, some advocated even, for nuclear power to be a part of cleaner energy, it does seem a German Green obsession, maybe it’s DNA are the influence of some of the original founders, some of their wacky ideas.


Yes, regardless of the details, Chernobyl still resulted from hubris and a string of very human failures. In Fukushima's limited defense, at the time TEPCO had GE help them construct the plant, the knowledge of size and extent of past tsunami in the Sanriku coast was nowhere near what it is today. IMO Japanese tsunami research has expanded leaps and bounds precisely because the pre-2011 assumptions were all proven horribly wrong. They probably honestly thought an event over 10m on the flat part of the coast was totally improbable.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:42 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
I understood that nuclear waste is dangerous for 250.000years. And that is mind-boggling. 250.000years ago we modern humans sapiens just started out and Neanderthals still had 220.000years to live before going extinct.
So the only real thing you can do is bury it deep in a stable layer in the ground and hope it will not cause any problem in 50.000years.

Approximately just 10% of nuclear waste has a half life greater than 30 years. We’re talking about a small amount of waste for a substantial amount of zero carbon energy. Again, climate change is an existential threat, nuclear waste is not and an eminently solvable problem. I recall reading somewhere that the amount of nuclear waste generated to cover a lifetime’s worth energy consumption for the average American would be the size of a soda can…and you can cut that at least in half when you factor in other renewable energy sources.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... =125740818


Spent nuclear fuel can also be reprocessed and used again is other reactors. I am still looking into the specifics, but I think this is done in most countries outside of the US. Reactors can also be designed for other fuels, such as Thorium (Th). Th has a lot of advantages over Pu and U. The reason the US wanted Pu and U over Th reactors was for weapons proliferation. Nuclear has some challenges, just like any other source of energy, but nothing that can't be worked out.


Thorium reactors aren't operational, as far as I know. China seems to be the one who is the closest. So yeah, it might work to keep nuclear waste more manageable, and keep it 'only' dangerous for a few hundred years.
 
pune
Posts: 990
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 2:59 pm

GDB wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Two questions -
1) we've had nuclear waste in large amounts since the early 1940s. Nobody has figured away to safely store it permanently or render it harmless including the guy with unlimited pockets - the US. Why does anyone think the solution is just around the corner?
2) Private insurers (at least in the US) won't touch a nuclear power plant with a ten foot pole.The have a pretty good reason to study risk. Have they been wrong all these years?


I really don't see much of a distinction between #2 and both construction and aviation. Both are fields many laypersons consider to be very dangerous, but they are actually quite safe in normal operation when people are paying attention to what they do, have proper training, and management doesn't cut corners. With those conditions met, insurers cover those activities. Nuclear power generation is exactly like this, except accidents potentially affect a wider area than just the plant workers or airline passengers. If the necessary human factors are addressed, plant safety should not be an issue. Both Fukushima and Chernobyl presented clear examples of letting all the holes in the Swiss cheese line up - it's a bit presumptuous for an insurer to assume all ops will be run in the same fashion.


I do get fed up when the blurt of ‘but...Chernobyl’, what about it? A reactor design rejected by the UK and almost certainly the US in the late 1940’s, when the earliest planning for the first power stations were being considered, as too unsafe, used shitty fuel, uniquely no containment, cheap and nasty, quick and dirty, run under a decaying, corrupt system. We don’t ground Western aircraft if a Russian one crashes due to design and/or maintenance errors after all.

As for Fukushima, what a place to build, vulnerable to events like Earthquakes and associated Tsunami and with especially inadequate defenses against the latter.

Three Mile Island, not to brush it off but how many died? How severe was the radiation discharge? Did it remotely compare with the two above?

Many Greens in the UK have accepted, some advocated even, for nuclear power to be a part of cleaner energy, it does seem a German Green obsession, maybe it’s DNA are the influence of some of the original founders, some of their wacky ideas.


For Fukushima, apart from the vulnerable site where it was put up, ironically if you had seen the documentary/docu-drama shared by me, the reactor which gave the Japanese the most problems was not Russian but the ones made by America. That was commented multiple times in that, and it was the first reactor to go. Of course all the blame was put on the Japanese, nothing on IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/) that actually has to approve each and every thing and is supposed to have an overarching interest in safe operations of nuclear reactors.

The problem is and was in most incidents, there is and was cover-up and still is because if truly the questions are asked, it would open up a pandora's box. I am sure people would disregard this as they have done to other posts when questions of accountability have been asked.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:06 pm

Dutchy wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Approximately just 10% of nuclear waste has a half life greater than 30 years. We’re talking about a small amount of waste for a substantial amount of zero carbon energy. Again, climate change is an existential threat, nuclear waste is not and an eminently solvable problem. I recall reading somewhere that the amount of nuclear waste generated to cover a lifetime’s worth energy consumption for the average American would be the size of a soda can…and you can cut that at least in half when you factor in other renewable energy sources.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... =125740818


Spent nuclear fuel can also be reprocessed and used again is other reactors. I am still looking into the specifics, but I think this is done in most countries outside of the US. Reactors can also be designed for other fuels, such as Thorium (Th). Th has a lot of advantages over Pu and U. The reason the US wanted Pu and U over Th reactors was for weapons proliferation. Nuclear has some challenges, just like any other source of energy, but nothing that can't be worked out.


Thorium reactors aren't operational, as far as I know. China seems to be the one who is the closest. So yeah, it might work to keep nuclear waste more manageable, and keep it 'only' dangerous for a few hundred years.


There have been thorium reactors, just not large scale for commercial energy. Again, the focus was on Pu and U for the fissile material as a by-product. The science is not insurmountable, humanity just has to have the will to do it.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:09 pm

pune wrote:
GDB wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

I really don't see much of a distinction between #2 and both construction and aviation. Both are fields many laypersons consider to be very dangerous, but they are actually quite safe in normal operation when people are paying attention to what they do, have proper training, and management doesn't cut corners. With those conditions met, insurers cover those activities. Nuclear power generation is exactly like this, except accidents potentially affect a wider area than just the plant workers or airline passengers. If the necessary human factors are addressed, plant safety should not be an issue. Both Fukushima and Chernobyl presented clear examples of letting all the holes in the Swiss cheese line up - it's a bit presumptuous for an insurer to assume all ops will be run in the same fashion.


I do get fed up when the blurt of ‘but...Chernobyl’, what about it? A reactor design rejected by the UK and almost certainly the US in the late 1940’s, when the earliest planning for the first power stations were being considered, as too unsafe, used shitty fuel, uniquely no containment, cheap and nasty, quick and dirty, run under a decaying, corrupt system. We don’t ground Western aircraft if a Russian one crashes due to design and/or maintenance errors after all.

As for Fukushima, what a place to build, vulnerable to events like Earthquakes and associated Tsunami and with especially inadequate defenses against the latter.

Three Mile Island, not to brush it off but how many died? How severe was the radiation discharge? Did it remotely compare with the two above?

Many Greens in the UK have accepted, some advocated even, for nuclear power to be a part of cleaner energy, it does seem a German Green obsession, maybe it’s DNA are the influence of some of the original founders, some of their wacky ideas.


For Fukushima, apart from the vulnerable site where it was put up, ironically if you had seen the documentary/docu-drama shared by me, the reactor which gave the Japanese the most problems was not Russian but the ones made by America. That was commented multiple times in that, and it was the first reactor to go. Of course all the blame was put on the Japanese, nothing on IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/) that actually has to approve each and every thing and is supposed to have an overarching interest in safe operations of nuclear reactors.

The problem is and was in most incidents, there is and was cover-up and still is because if truly the questions are asked, it would open up a pandora's box. I am sure people would disregard this as they have done to other posts when questions of accountability have been asked.


Simply put, Fukushima was caused by a dumb design which is now glaringly obviously a bad design. Diesel back-up generators and fuel tanks in the basement of an area that was likely to be hit by a tsunami.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16780
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:16 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
pune wrote:
GDB wrote:

I do get fed up when the blurt of ‘but...Chernobyl’, what about it? A reactor design rejected by the UK and almost certainly the US in the late 1940’s, when the earliest planning for the first power stations were being considered, as too unsafe, used shitty fuel, uniquely no containment, cheap and nasty, quick and dirty, run under a decaying, corrupt system. We don’t ground Western aircraft if a Russian one crashes due to design and/or maintenance errors after all.

As for Fukushima, what a place to build, vulnerable to events like Earthquakes and associated Tsunami and with especially inadequate defenses against the latter.

Three Mile Island, not to brush it off but how many died? How severe was the radiation discharge? Did it remotely compare with the two above?

Many Greens in the UK have accepted, some advocated even, for nuclear power to be a part of cleaner energy, it does seem a German Green obsession, maybe it’s DNA are the influence of some of the original founders, some of their wacky ideas.


For Fukushima, apart from the vulnerable site where it was put up, ironically if you had seen the documentary/docu-drama shared by me, the reactor which gave the Japanese the most problems was not Russian but the ones made by America. That was commented multiple times in that, and it was the first reactor to go. Of course all the blame was put on the Japanese, nothing on IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/) that actually has to approve each and every thing and is supposed to have an overarching interest in safe operations of nuclear reactors.

The problem is and was in most incidents, there is and was cover-up and still is because if truly the questions are asked, it would open up a pandora's box. I am sure people would disregard this as they have done to other posts when questions of accountability have been asked.


Simply put, Fukushima was caused by a dumb design which is now glaringly obviously a bad design. Diesel back-up generators and fuel tanks in the basement of an area that was likely to be hit by a tsunami.


As posted above, based on the seismic data and tsunami historical record the Japanese had in the 1960s, they thought 15m seawall protection would be sufficient.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:18 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
pune wrote:

For Fukushima, apart from the vulnerable site where it was put up, ironically if you had seen the documentary/docu-drama shared by me, the reactor which gave the Japanese the most problems was not Russian but the ones made by America. That was commented multiple times in that, and it was the first reactor to go. Of course all the blame was put on the Japanese, nothing on IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/) that actually has to approve each and every thing and is supposed to have an overarching interest in safe operations of nuclear reactors.

The problem is and was in most incidents, there is and was cover-up and still is because if truly the questions are asked, it would open up a pandora's box. I am sure people would disregard this as they have done to other posts when questions of accountability have been asked.


Simply put, Fukushima was caused by a dumb design which is now glaringly obviously a bad design. Diesel back-up generators and fuel tanks in the basement of an area that was likely to be hit by a tsunami.


As posted above, based on the seismic data and tsunami historical record the Japanese had in the 1960s, they thought 15m seawall protection would be sufficient.


They still put the back-up generator that provides power to cool the spent fuel in the basement.
 
pune
Posts: 990
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:31 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
pune wrote:

For Fukushima, apart from the vulnerable site where it was put up, ironically if you had seen the documentary/docu-drama shared by me, the reactor which gave the Japanese the most problems was not Russian but the ones made by America. That was commented multiple times in that, and it was the first reactor to go. Of course all the blame was put on the Japanese, nothing on IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/) that actually has to approve each and every thing and is supposed to have an overarching interest in safe operations of nuclear reactors.

The problem is and was in most incidents, there is and was cover-up and still is because if truly the questions are asked, it would open up a pandora's box. I am sure people would disregard this as they have done to other posts when questions of accountability have been asked.


Simply put, Fukushima was caused by a dumb design which is now glaringly obviously a bad design. Diesel back-up generators and fuel tanks in the basement of an area that was likely to be hit by a tsunami.


As posted above, based on the seismic data and tsunami historical record the Japanese had in the 1960s, they thought 15m seawall protection would be sufficient.


In Japan, as things are, the clean-up is gonna take up at least a hundred years if not more. That is why the not-in-my-backyard scenario.

https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14270075

And this is the crux of things, if something goes wrong, it goes so wrong that it can take hundreds of years to clean up. The same thing is in Russia. I did see a poster claiming all is good, the sad fact is that even that region is gonna be radioactive for hundreds of years. What they have done is just like Japan, stop-gap solutions as there is no 'ultimate solution' sadly :( Interestingly, the U.S. didn't offer any help or 'expertise' when it comes to cleaning up because either they don't know or they don't want to get into the mess, so much for 'friendship' .
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:25 pm

Again - after 80 years of work by many countries, that there is no way to safely (now or in the near future) to safely remediate nuclear waste? Is it some great conspiracy?
The German Greens get it. I get it. We have no right to leave a deadly toxin (and its the most deadly toxin on earth) for people 100 years from now to deal with.

And the comment "Interestingly, the U.S. didn't offer any help or 'expertise' when it comes to cleaning up because either they don't know or they don't want to get into the mess, so much for 'friendship". I suggest you research that a bit because no country helped Japan more than the US

In fact, had the US Navy not provided tons of cooling water, the disaster would have been even worse.
"Under the name Operation Tomodachi (Friend), all branches of the United States armed services in Japan were involved in rescue and relief activities. At the peak of operations, 20 U.S. ships, 160 aircraft, and more than 20 000 personnel were involved. Mississippi and Alabama National Guard forces joined those from Kentucky and Guam to assist with Operation Tomodachi. 500,000 gallons of fresh water has been provided from the US Navy to support cooling efforts at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16780
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:38 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

Simply put, Fukushima was caused by a dumb design which is now glaringly obviously a bad design. Diesel back-up generators and fuel tanks in the basement of an area that was likely to be hit by a tsunami.


As posted above, based on the seismic data and tsunami historical record the Japanese had in the 1960s, they thought 15m seawall protection would be sufficient.


They still put the back-up generator that provides power to cool the spent fuel in the basement.


Um yes, based on the belief there would be no flooding of the basement due to the seawall protection being sufficient. Connect the dots.
 
pune
Posts: 990
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:51 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Again - after 80 years of work by many countries, that there is no way to safely (now or in the near future) to safely remediate nuclear waste? Is it some great conspiracy?
The German Greens get it. I get it. We have no right to leave a deadly toxin (and its the most deadly toxin on earth) for people 100 years from now to deal with.

And the comment "Interestingly, the U.S. didn't offer any help or 'expertise' when it comes to cleaning up because either they don't know or they don't want to get into the mess, so much for 'friendship". I suggest you research that a bit because no country helped Japan more than the US

In fact, had the US Navy not provided tons of cooling water, the disaster would have been even worse.
"Under the name Operation Tomodachi (Friend), all branches of the United States armed services in Japan were involved in rescue and relief activities. At the peak of operations, 20 U.S. ships, 160 aircraft, and more than 20 000 personnel were involved. Mississippi and Alabama National Guard forces joined those from Kentucky and Guam to assist with Operation Tomodachi. 500,000 gallons of fresh water has been provided from the US Navy to support cooling efforts at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.


My point is in many ways as same as yours. There are simply no safe-nuclear reactors. From -

https://apjjf.org/2011/9/13/Yuki-Tanaka ... ticle.html

"Despite many accidents since, their seriousness was covered up by altering data records and falsifying reports to the Government."

As I shared above companies would do what they want in their own interest with 0 accountability.

There are just so many examples of this in various industries -

Boeing 737 Max, didn't even say sorry and compensation was as much as what it would cost a new Aircraft. And the same they already recovered/recieved from the Govt. as grants and loans for the pandemic.

Volkswagen - don't have to say much as already have shared in the link above.

Tepco, sadly the same thing :(
 
bpatus297
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:54 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

As posted above, based on the seismic data and tsunami historical record the Japanese had in the 1960s, they thought 15m seawall protection would be sufficient.


They still put the back-up generator that provides power to cool the spent fuel in the basement.


Um yes, based on the belief there would be no flooding of the basement due to the seawall protection being sufficient. Connect the dots.


And like I said, with hindsight, that was a horrible design. What is it so hard to admit that?
 
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3501
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:07 pm

pune wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
pune wrote:
it has yet to be demonstrated by numbers and everything how it will all work out. The whole thing has been told vaguely without rany definite timelines.

I guess I’m not clear what you mean exactly because it in fact has been demonstrated. Right now. Large scale nuclear power has been operating continually in a number of countries safely for many decades, with far less environmental and human toll than fossil fuel generated power. The numbers are in and the difference in safety profile between nuclear and fossil fuels couldn’t be more stark…99.7% fewer deaths compared to coal, 97.5% fewer deaths compared to gas.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

As Aesma pointed out, nuclear waste is a concern and consideration, but an incredibly small and solvable one compared to climate change. It’s hard to take seriously any group like the German Greens who professes the existential threat of climate change yet preferences increased reliance on fossil fuels vs. nuclear despite the latter’s zero carbon footprint and incredibly strong safety profile. If that’s the route Germany wants to go that’s fine, but shouldn’t be forcing those preferences on the other EU countries.


No, the way forward is wind, solar and such kind of initiatives. Fossil fuels are on the way out as they should be. I have asked multiple times on this thread itself as to why China and say Europe are going en-masse to EV. In China, almost all EV manufacturers showing 200+ growth while ICE vehicles are way down. The same trend is happening in Europe.

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/30/15 ... -november/

And this is when the Chinese have not even entered the markets as of yet, once they do, the numbers will be vastly different and it will take more share from both EV as well as ICE vehicles who are on their last legs anyway.

The Chinese also have about 13 new nuclear power plants under construction with advanced research into the next gen Molten Salt Reactors which produce no net waste. At their rate they may go carbon zero before even Germany.

Wind and solar certainly have a crucial and growing role to play as well, no one said otherwise. But again, climate change being an existential threat…kind of hard to ignore this extant, incredibly safe, zero-carbon power source that many countries are looking to leverage in tandem with other renewables to move *quickly* toward carbon zero and energy independence.
 
GDB
Posts: 14472
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Germany debates labeling some natural gas energy projects as green investments, reject nuclear as green

Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:16 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
pune wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
I guess I’m not clear what you mean exactly because it in fact has been demonstrated. Right now. Large scale nuclear power has been operating continually in a number of countries safely for many decades, with far less environmental and human toll than fossil fuel generated power. The numbers are in and the difference in safety profile between nuclear and fossil fuels couldn’t be more stark…99.7% fewer deaths compared to coal, 97.5% fewer deaths compared to gas.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

As Aesma pointed out, nuclear waste is a concern and consideration, but an incredibly small and solvable one compared to climate change. It’s hard to take seriously any group like the German Greens who professes the existential threat of climate change yet preferences increased reliance on fossil fuels vs. nuclear despite the latter’s zero carbon footprint and incredibly strong safety profile. If that’s the route Germany wants to go that’s fine, but shouldn’t be forcing those preferences on the other EU countries.


No, the way forward is wind, solar and such kind of initiatives. Fossil fuels are on the way out as they should be. I have asked multiple times on this thread itself as to why China and say Europe are going en-masse to EV. In China, almost all EV manufacturers showing 200+ growth while ICE vehicles are way down. The same trend is happening in Europe.

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/30/15 ... -november/

And this is when the Chinese have not even entered the markets as of yet, once they do, the numbers will be vastly different and it will take more share from both EV as well as ICE vehicles who are on their last legs anyway.

The Chinese also have about 13 new nuclear power plants under construction with advanced research into the next gen Molten Salt Reactors which produce no net waste. At their rate they may go carbon zero before even Germany.

Wind and solar certainly have a crucial and growing role to play as well, no one said otherwise. But again, climate change being an existential threat…kind of hard to ignore this extant, incredibly safe, zero-carbon power source that many countries are looking to leverage in tandem with other renewables to move *quickly* toward carbon zero and energy independence.


A classic case of 'pragmatism versus purity'.
Never good outcomes from that way of thinking.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], flyguy89, NIKV69, Toenga and 19 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos