Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1574
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 5:18 pm

Are the Chinese marketing those reactors to other nations? Would you like to have one built near you anytime soon?
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3568
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 5:30 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Are the Chinese marketing those reactors to other nations? Would you like to have one built near you anytime soon?

Wouldn’t be particularly enthused about a Chinese one, but one of American or European design? Absolutely wouldn’t have an issue having one built near me given their outstanding reliability, safety and zero emissions. Additionally, as a Nevada resident, would also be fine with Yucca Mountain being put to use. One of our greatest products is thousands of square miles of isolated, arid, uninhabitable land :bigthumbsup:
 
GDB
Posts: 15007
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 5:39 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Are the Chinese marketing those reactors to other nations? Would you like to have one built near you anytime soon?

Wouldn’t be particularly enthused about a Chinese one, but one of American or European design? Absolutely wouldn’t have an issue having one built near me given their outstanding reliability, safety and zero emissions. Additionally, as a Nevada resident, would also be fine with Yucca Mountain being put to use. One of our greatest products is thousands of square miles of isolated, arid, uninhabitable land :bigthumbsup:


I recall Robert Zubrin pointing out that fears of radiation on his proposed ‘Mars Direct’ mission should be considered against the crew being away from living and working in Houston and all the pollution and associated carcinogens from its petrochemical industries for the duration!
Last edited by GDB on Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 646
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 5:41 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Are the Chinese marketing those reactors to other nations? Would you like to have one built near you anytime soon?

Wouldn’t be particularly enthused about a Chinese one, but one of American or European design? Absolutely wouldn’t have an issue having one built near me given their outstanding reliability, safety and zero emissions. Additionally, as a Nevada resident, would also be fine with Yucca Mountain being put to use. One of our greatest products is thousands of square miles of isolated, arid, uninhabitable land :bigthumbsup:


And the fact that Yucca is surrounded by land we already contaminated from bomb testing.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11836
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

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

Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:47 pm

The opposition to nuclear power over other carbon based sources, is a great example of "Perfect is the enemy of good."

Nuclear power is safe and reliable. It has risks and costs but both can be managed and mitigated at least as much as carbon option can be. There have been three nuclear power catastrophes over the years, as compared to how may trillions of tons of carbon being pumped to the atmosphere and continuing? The biggest, and very real, all the nay-sayers are right to rail against such, problem and failure has been to develop risk averse systems for nuclear power. Of course now the nay-sayers are doing their best to stop any new progress on the nuclear power front.

I personally hope that the Diablo nuclear power station here in California can be extended and then expanded. Of course with the current political climate (and it is almost all political) that is highly unlikely but at least people are trying. Regulate it, enforce it. Here is better than elsewhere.

(It is like oil production here in California. My argument is that California should expand its production as California has very strict rules and regulations on it and therefore California increasing oil production here actually decreases the damage to the the environment. Good inverse thinking).

Tugg
 
pune
Posts: 1452
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 9:44 pm

The problem is in this 'pragnatism' there are no solutions, how do you kick a can down the road 24k years ??? I have asked and have got no answers, Some say x or y is a solution but again no papers, no nothing. It is as if we are supposed to just 'believe'. Each time I shared, I gave some sort of literature to back it up, and that is what I expect from other people as well. As far as the Chinese are concerned, they also have been doing tests on hypersonic missiles. In fact, after saying no-no on nuclear proliferation, the U.S. tried and failed, this is not even 24 hrs. The hypocrisy from the U.S. knows no bounds :(

https://www.foxnews.com/world/china-rus ... sile-tests
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 15339
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

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

Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:13 pm

Do insurers insure against global warming ?

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Are the Chinese marketing those reactors to other nations? Would you like to have one built near you anytime soon?


Hinkley Point C, currently being built in the UK with the powerful EPR reactors, will be 30% Chinese, on a French design.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 15339
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

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

Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:24 pm

pune wrote:
The problem is in this 'pragnatism' there are no solutions, how do you kick a can down the road 24k years ??? I have asked and have got no answers, Some say x or y is a solution but again no papers, no nothing. It is as if we are supposed to just 'believe'. Each time I shared, I gave some sort of literature to back it up, and that is what I expect from other people as well. As far as the Chinese are concerned, they also have been doing tests on hypersonic missiles. In fact, after saying no-no on nuclear proliferation, the U.S. tried and failed, this is not even 24 hrs. The hypocrisy from the U.S. knows no bounds :(

https://www.foxnews.com/world/china-rus ... sile-tests


Here is a link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_r ... _reduction
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:21 am

As shared it is theorotical, practically what has happened. Where is the data from the last 30 years on fast breeder reactors. And I did see that the whole paragraph was vagueish with would be, could be, if efficiency happened, that is sort of wishful thinking rather than sharing hard data. And that is the sad part, very much possible to use the waste for nuclear weapons and everybody knows it.

https://cnduk.org/resources/links-nucle ... r-weapons/
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 17847
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:24 am

Tugger wrote:
The opposition to nuclear power over other carbon based sources, is a great example of "Perfect is the enemy of good."

Nuclear power is safe and reliable. It has risks and costs but both can be managed and mitigated at least as much as carbon option can be. There have been three nuclear power catastrophes over the years, as compared to how may trillions of tons of carbon being pumped to the atmosphere and continuing? The biggest, and very real, all the nay-sayers are right to rail against such, problem and failure has been to develop risk averse systems for nuclear power. Of course now the nay-sayers are doing their best to stop any new progress on the nuclear power front.

I personally hope that the Diablo nuclear power station here in California can be extended and then expanded. Of course with the current political climate (and it is almost all political) that is highly unlikely but at least people are trying. Regulate it, enforce it. Here is better than elsewhere.

(It is like oil production here in California. My argument is that California should expand its production as California has very strict rules and regulations on it and therefore California increasing oil production here actually decreases the damage to the the environment. Good inverse thinking).

Tugg


This, all of this. The comparison of three accidents to the total impact of carbon and what it will cause in migration and sea level rise over the next 40-50 years is worth shouting about.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 17847
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:25 am

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

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?


Pointless as it was already said upthread.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3568
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:50 am

pune wrote:
The problem is in this 'pragnatism' there are no solutions, how do you kick a can down the road 24k years ??? I have asked and have got no answers

Because the question is a bit silly to be honest…how can we guarantee people 24,000 years from now won’t forget where we’ve buried nuclear waste or how to handle it? It’s like you’re asking to prove a negative. At 5-24,000 years out any hypothetical concern you can imagine could be easily countered with another equally or more likely hypothetical.
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:16 am

flyguy89 wrote:
pune wrote:
The problem is in this 'pragnatism' there are no solutions, how do you kick a can down the road 24k years ??? I have asked and have got no answers

Because the question is a bit silly to be honest…how can we guarantee people 24,000 years from now won’t forget where we’ve buried nuclear waste or how to handle it? It’s like you’re asking to prove a negative. At 5-24,000 years out any hypothetical concern, you can imagine could be easily countered with another equally or more likely hypothetical.


If it was silly then scientists wouldn't have bought in symbologists, language experts, etc. etc. to figure out how will the knowledge be passed. As I shared with examples and there are many, I just shared the bit about the Sumerians but there are so many civilizations who came and went in-between and we still have questions about who they were, how they were, etc. etc. Incas are another great example. This is not even 2 days old -

https://www.archaeology.org/news/10267- ... cchu-lidar

Just think and imagine, this is just a civilization not even 600 years old and so much of that knowledge has been lost. Even Macchu Picchu, the known and wonderous heritage site (one which I'm keen on seeing hopefully in few years), it is estimated that still 70% neds to be excavated, imagine 70% and this is when this was known to the world since 1976. Now if both hard structures and knowledge of just 600 years old can disappear and now will take decade or even centuries to fully recover, then how you are basing bets with something whose half-life is known to have such a long life. And then there are costs that nobody has even accounted for, the storage costs. And this I find both remarkable and sad. The game that everybody is playing is that some nuclear technology will come that will somehow solve all the problems. And if it doesn't, I will be long dead and buried or cremated so why care, that seems to be the attitude.
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:46 am

Another e.g. would be the Harappan civilization who is said to have sewage lines comparable to today or probably we mimicked that architecture. But then we find 15th-16th century France, Italy etc. supposed to be rennaisance of the world and the women have to wear high-heels so they are not in the muck. Now that tells us that somewhere in-between the knowledge was lost. How they understood that shit means bacteria or something not nice not known. Same is supposed to be in the UK.

Now if that knowledge would have survived, think how many people wouldn't have died and how much we would have progressed as societies (Potential progress).

The sad part is that things have not really progressed as far as human hygiene is concerned, even now when you have a full-blown pandemic, you have people, both from medical and non-medical backgrounds who think it is an affront to their freedom if they have a cloth across the mouth. The Jains (in India) have been practicing the same for so long. The Japanese too AFAIK.

While these are small examples but they are holding valuable lessons. And we don't seem to be learning from our previous mistakes sadly :(
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1574
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:06 pm

The residents of Maine have stopped a high capacity power line from Quebec Hydo because of it's impact. A new nuke?

We talk about safety. No country can build anything completely fail safe or operate it completely safe throughout its complete lifecycle.
We try - that's why US reactors are so expensive. The only new civilian reactor under construction in the States is passing $28 billion
How Georgia nuclear project’s big finish went so wrong.
https://www.ajc.com/news/business/how-g ... TVJK4W2NQ/

And new technology? Not so fast
Feds deny Oklo’s application to build an advanced nuclear reactor in Idaho
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/07/federal ... idaho.html
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6436
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:23 pm

pune 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.


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' .

Is a full cleanup necessary? Even the two towns closest to the nuclear plant is now starting to restore and allowing citizens to come back living there. Important highway and rail link that run right next to the plant have also been restored. It's mostly just area deep into the mountain that no one are going to spend money decontaminating them due to their lack of efficiency, and situation within the plant itself.

And these localized damages are much easier to clean up than increased CO2 level in the entire world's ocean
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:12 pm

c933103 wrote:
pune 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.


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' .

Is a full cleanup necessary? Even the two towns closest to the nuclear plant is now starting to restore and allowing citizens to come back living there. Important highway and rail link that run right next to the plant have also been restored. It's mostly just area deep into the mountain that no one are going to spend money decontaminating them due to their lack of efficiency, and situation within the plant itself.

And these localized damages are much easier to clean up than increased CO2 level in the entire world's ocean


Perhaps you didn't read it properly then, they are going to put that radiated water into the oceans which will harm one and all. And as far as Governments are concerned, at least in Japan time and again it has showed that it is ruthless to its own people. Can you tell of any other country in the world democratically elected where the population has been on the decrease for the past 3 decades and most experts agree if they don't trun it around soon enough, Japan itself would be off the map. So I am not at all surprised if they are letting people back in.

Part of it is to do with the Japanese mentality which is similar to the Indian and perhaps Asian mentality, If memory serves right, the only one in which the Japanese people showed a bit of spine was when the Amagasaki derailment happened but that was way back in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagasaki_derailment , After that they went back to being the same sheeple they were before.

You have a country that has had 30 years of stagllation and still continuing the same policies that haven't worked before and still the same people re-elected to the office. All of these are very telling comments about the Japanese and not in a good way :(
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6436
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 4:31 pm

pune wrote:
c933103 wrote:
pune wrote:

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' .

Is a full cleanup necessary? Even the two towns closest to the nuclear plant is now starting to restore and allowing citizens to come back living there. Important highway and rail link that run right next to the plant have also been restored. It's mostly just area deep into the mountain that no one are going to spend money decontaminating them due to their lack of efficiency, and situation within the plant itself.

And these localized damages are much easier to clean up than increased CO2 level in the entire world's ocean


Perhaps you didn't read it properly then, they are going to put that radiated water into the oceans which will harm one and all.

As far as I know, those "radiated water" only contain tritium, which have an half life of 12 years, and exists in nature, as the only radioactive substance there.
And as far as Governments are concerned, at least in Japan time and again it has showed that it is ruthless to its own people. Can you tell of any other country in the world democratically elected where the population has been on the decrease for the past 3 decades and most experts agree if they don't trun it around soon enough, Japan itself would be off the map.

Japan nowadays have low, but still the highest fertility rate in East Asia. The fertility rate now is something like 1.5 kids per couples, which isn't great, but far better than values less than 1 in countries like South Korea or Taiwan.
So I am not at all surprised if they are letting people back in.

Most of those who would return are non-child-bearing elderlies sue to demograohy of those people in the first page, and urban area are just much more convenient to child rearing than those smaller towns, that I don't think allowing people to return is going.to make much.impact is this aspect.
And there are also no lack of people driving their cars around those area carrying radio measurement equipment with them on Youtube, unless you somehow believe all those youtubers are using tampered equipment and are doing so as part of government conspiracy.
Part of it is to do with the Japanese mentality which is similar to the Indian and perhaps Asian mentality, If memory serves right, the only one in which the Japanese people showed a bit of spine was when the Amagasaki derailment happened but that was way back in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagasaki_derailment , After that they went back to being the same sheeple they were before.

What do you mean by spine here?
You have a country that has had 30 years of stagllation and still continuing the same policies that haven't worked before and still the same people re-elected to the office. All of these are very telling comments about the Japanese and not in a good way :(

Japanese left, despite being opposition for long time, was elected into the office twice over the past 30 years.The first time collapsed in itself due to disagreement among different members of opposition coalition. Second time it also ended up.with members of coalition quitting as the socialists want to continue their idealism and cannot agree with making realpolitik decisions, and this second time it was also following the failure of handling the Fukushima nuclear incident with the most important part is failure to properly inform the public about what's happening there, as it was the left-leaning coalition who was ruling at the time.
In the latest Japanese election last year, the ruling party LDP have lost a few seats due to people's dissatisfaction of them handling the pandemic, but the traditionally left-leaning parties including the largest one have lost almost just as much seats too, and if counted by coalitions then the left leaning coalition lost even more seats than the number of seats lost by the ruling coalition. This simply explain how much failure the current left-leaning opposition are having, and if the current trend continues, then the most major opposition party in Japan will become a central right populist party instead of those left leaning parties who have been.holding the role by now.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3568
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:11 pm

pune wrote:
If it was silly then scientists wouldn't have bought in symbologists, language experts, etc. etc. to figure out how will the knowledge be passed. As I shared with examples and there are many, I just shared the bit about the Sumerians but there are so many civilizations who came and went in-between and we still have questions about who they were, how they were, etc. etc.

And like I mentioned, any hypothetical you’re dreaming up that far out has an equally or more likely counter hypothetical. And it’s a standard you seem to be selectively applying only to nuclear when, in fact, you could apply it to any number of human activities or technological innovations. Should we have not used electricity for fear that people 25,000 years from now would forget how to deal with the toxic by-products and impact of fossil fuel generation? Should we have never gone to space since 10,000 years from now societies may forget how to navigate or solve for the dangerous space junk we’re leaving in orbit? It’s an interesting subject of study, but it’s not a real argument against some countries using some nuclear power to go carbon zero.
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
pune wrote:
If it was silly then scientists wouldn't have bought in symbologists, language experts, etc. etc. to figure out how will the knowledge be passed. As I shared with examples and there are many, I just shared the bit about the Sumerians but there are so many civilizations who came and went in-between and we still have questions about who they were, how they were, etc. etc.

And like I mentioned, any hypothetical you’re dreaming up that far out has an equally or more likely counter hypothetical. And it’s a standard you seem to be selectively applying only to nuclear when, in fact, you could apply it to any number of human activities or technological innovations. Should we have not used electricity for fear that people 25,000 years from now would forget how to deal with the toxic by-products and impact of fossil fuel generation? Should we have never gone to space since 10,000 years from now societies may forget how to navigate or solve for the dangerous space junk we’re leaving in orbit? It’s an interesting subject of study, but it’s not a real argument against some countries using some nuclear power to go carbon zero.


Any 'junk' that we will leave in space will be taken by the sun as well our galaxy colliding with the Andromeda Galaxy but that is in the order of around 6 billion years. As responsible space citizens, we should never pollute the universe, but the possibility exists, that I admit. Especially our behavior on earth has more than enough examples. We haven't done reduce, reuse and refuse otherwise we wouldn't have landfills filled with junk. And this is something that not even nuclear power can solve.

When will that crash happen, nobody knows, will earth itself crash with some other planet, too early to comment. If we stop fossil fuels now and only use the alternatives I share, I believe many of the issues would be resolved but yes, it would require Governments to clean up their acts. Many politicians even today take money from fossil-fuel companies. Please share with me the toxic by-products of solar or wind ???

Another thing, that a poster was sharing from Japan, I don't know from where they got the number of 1.5. The latest which I know from a couple of years ago i.e. 2020 is 1.38 shared by the Japanese themselves. And that was before the pandemic hit Japan fully, I am sure the birth rate would have fallen off the cliff further than. They did think about having some immigrants but then they decided it was not worth it irrespective of the many problems they are having.

https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14365588
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 8:02 pm

Somehow examples and questions like these never come up in the forum :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcuzTliUnXw
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1574
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:12 pm

Thank you for posting. I wonder if they considered tankering fresh water to Morocco and then returning that vessel with green hydrogen to the UK. That has to be cheaper than the powerlines.

Anyhow in North America, the US Southwest and Mexico could be the sites of massive solar panels that could feed the entire of continent. But some enviro's hate the idea. ‘Is this really green?’ The fight over solar farms in the Mojave Desert"
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/st ... olar-power
 
Noray
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

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

Sat Jan 08, 2022 11:27 pm

c933103 wrote:
Noray wrote:
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?

Even within Germany, the power grid isn't efficient enough to supply southern Germany with sufficient electricity from northern German wind power. The expansion of the electricity grid is also proving to be problematic and is being slowed down by NIMBYs. In addition, the line losses are disadvantageous over long distances. And the producers of renewable energy may be somewhere outside of Europe.

c933103 wrote:
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

That does not mean that they are preventing other countries from pursuing sovereign energy policies. Conversely, they're not ready get something imposed on them that they perceive as a lie and contradicts their deepest convictions. Leaving toxic waste to future generations certainly is not a green idea, so please don't label it as green. It's a provocation.
 
Jetty
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:14 am

On an European level Germanys nuclear policies are quite pointless. They are closing viable nuclear reactors while neighboring countries are building new ones. The Netherlands i.e. just committed to 2 new reactors. And logically at least one ends up at the German border, just as Germany was building its biggest reactor (Kalkar) right across the Dutch border.
 
Noray
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:12 am

Jetty wrote:
On an European level Germanys nuclear policies are quite pointless. They are closing viable nuclear reactors while neighboring countries are building new ones. The Netherlands i.e. just committed to 2 new reactors. And logically at least one ends up at the German border, just as Germany was building its biggest reactor (Kalkar) right across the Dutch border.

... Kalkar, that was never put into operation, remained a ruin and is one of the symbols of the German anti-nuclear movement.

BTW, given the prevailing westerly wind direction, it's not the same whether a nuclear power plant is on the western or eastern side of the border.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 17847
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:17 am

pune wrote:
c933103 wrote:
pune wrote:

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' .

Is a full cleanup necessary? Even the two towns closest to the nuclear plant is now starting to restore and allowing citizens to come back living there. Important highway and rail link that run right next to the plant have also been restored. It's mostly just area deep into the mountain that no one are going to spend money decontaminating them due to their lack of efficiency, and situation within the plant itself.

And these localized damages are much easier to clean up than increased CO2 level in the entire world's ocean


Perhaps you didn't read it properly then, they are going to put that radiated water into the oceans which will harm one and all. And as far as Governments are concerned, at least in Japan time and again it has showed that it is ruthless to its own people. Can you tell of any other country in the world democratically elected where the population has been on the decrease for the past 3 decades and most experts agree if they don't trun it around soon enough, Japan itself would be off the map. So I am not at all surprised if they are letting people back in.

Part of it is to do with the Japanese mentality which is similar to the Indian and perhaps Asian mentality, If memory serves right, the only one in which the Japanese people showed a bit of spine was when the Amagasaki derailment happened but that was way back in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagasaki_derailment , After that they went back to being the same sheeple they were before.

You have a country that has had 30 years of stagllation and still continuing the same policies that haven't worked before and still the same people re-elected to the office. All of these are very telling comments about the Japanese and not in a good way :(


I think you misread the Japanese situation a bit. The ruling party (LDP) has successfully pandered to rural and corporate interests for decades - mostly people over 50 vote for them. Perhaps it can be said younger Japanese don't have 'spine' in one sense, but in another they are just plain indifferent. All Japanese under 40 have seen on the news their entire lives is the economy is dying a gradual death and there won't be social security waiting for them in retirement age like their parents. This means many of them are looking out for number one, and trying to figure out how to secure a financial future. They are unlikely to vote or protest because they cynically understand only the voice of old men over 60 matters anyway. Japan is more complex than it appears to an outsider and you should approach the analysis with more nuance.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 17847
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:20 am

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Thank you for posting. I wonder if they considered tankering fresh water to Morocco and then returning that vessel with green hydrogen to the UK. That has to be cheaper than the powerlines.

Anyhow in North America, the US Southwest and Mexico could be the sites of massive solar panels that could feed the entire of continent. But some enviro's hate the idea. ‘Is this really green?’ The fight over solar farms in the Mojave Desert"
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/st ... olar-power


The dissonance between the 'writing teacher' and actual professional conservation policy analyst in that piece is staggering. I am so tired of people proclaiming themselves experts in things they are not. My first thought on seeing the writing teacher's comments against the solar plant was 'you're...not...an...ecologist!'.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1574
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 2:34 am

Everyone's opinion is equal even when some have no idea what they are talking about.

And their power to influence is magnified by the media's need to sell clickbait.

Biden should have the Department of Defense build massive solar farms on military reservations in the southwest and sell them to the public as national defense plants. Seriously.
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 11:09 am

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Everyone's opinion is equal even when some have no idea what they are talking about.

And their power to influence is magnified by the media's need to sell clickbait.

Biden should have the Department of Defense build massive solar farms on military reservations in the southwest and sell them to the public as national defense plants. Seriously.


From what little I know the U.S. military actually has plans to have every soldier have their own power. There was also thought of having micro-nuclear reactors but radiation and eventual liability costs (radiation and eventual cancer and death) but they are looking at all sorts of solutions for their next-gen soldiers. Although with the Chinese moving more into bots and AI and full-spectrum warfare, that is making the U.S. think more. I had shared about the hypersonic weapons test that the U.S. failed and others have reportedly succeeded (although don't remember if it's in this thread or another thread).

Solar and wind actually have lots of potentials and have a long way to go, just like battery technology, compared to the time frame that was spent on fossil fuels. There is a lot of money being poured as well as people seeing returns on the technology. I had shared a few above but there is so much happening in the space that's it is ridiculous to sort of keep a handle on.

One of the other interesting things that people haven't much commented about. In the nuclear space, the ones who sell the designs or even do the whole thing don't want to do anything with the liability. If one were to think, then it would be like a car manufacturer or any product retailer who makes something but then says anything happens I'm not at fault and you can't come to me for either damage or refund or both. This is and would be unheard of in any other industry. But in nuclear power, this is par for the course, unfortunately.
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 11:18 am

This is what's been happening in EU markets and this is when the Chinese have not even entered in -

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/01/08/ge ... -december/

There are 200+ companies in China who are into EV and probably a similar number that is not registered. The technology has been disseminated far and wide within China. In fact, was reading an article in Forbes a few months back where it was shared how the technology has reached grass-roots. There some manufacturers operate very locally, for small towns or villages, no national footprint and they small BEV between $100-$200 and they are highly popular. Most of them are in form of scooters and whatnot. And all the mechanics know how to fix them in case something goes wrong. These manufacturers are able to make new designs and manufacture them within 4-6 weeks including testing. Now for unknown reasons, in the west, this knowledge has not been so widely disseminated :(
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6436
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 11:26 am

Aaron747 wrote:
I think you misread the Japanese situation a bit. The ruling party (LDP) has successfully pandered to rural and corporate interests for decades - mostly people over 50 vote for them. Perhaps it can be said younger Japanese don't have 'spine' in one sense, but in another they are just plain indifferent. All Japanese under 40 have seen on the news their entire lives is the economy is dying a gradual death and there won't be social security waiting for them in retirement age like their parents. This means many of them are looking out for number one, and trying to figure out how to secure a financial future. They are unlikely to vote or protest because they cynically understand only the voice of old men over 60 matters anyway. Japan is more complex than it appears to an outsider and you should approach the analysis with more nuance.

Young people in Japan vote LDP more than any other generations at least in the 2021 election, among people who did vote. And even among those who didn't vote for LDP, the traditional left-leaning opposition parties are also not as popular among those voters compared to other generations. Japan Communist Party, Social Democrat Party, and CDP, are the ones who see most support among elderlies in the latest election.
And they're the one qho include in their manifesto that all nuclear and coal plants in Japan need to be closed by 2030 with 50% renewable energy, aka another 50% for natural gas, despite multiple parts of Japan is now facing power supply only barely able to cover demand and measures like deferring nuclear plant maintenance and restarting closed old coal plants are necessary to enaire short term energy supply being sufficient
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6436
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 11:34 am

pune wrote:
This is what's been happening in EU markets and this is when the Chinese have not even entered in -

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/01/08/ge ... -december/

There are 200+ companies in China who are into EV and probably a similar number that is not registered. The technology has been disseminated far and wide within China. In fact, was reading an article in Forbes a few months back where it was shared how the technology has reached grass-roots. There some manufacturers operate very locally, for small towns or villages, no national footprint and they small BEV between $100-$200 and they are highly popular. Most of them are in form of scooters and whatnot. And all the mechanics know how to fix them in case something goes wrong. These manufacturers are able to make new designs and manufacture them within 4-6 weeks including testing. Now for unknown reasons, in the west, this knowledge has not been so widely disseminated :(

Those cheap Chinese EV are microcars, does not require license to operate, have low speed limit and low range, most don't even feature e.g. seat belts, but they work for people like elderlies who's daily routine is to buy foods from neighboring market, send their kids to schools, and meet friends at restaurants.
But I am not sure whether this is a good phenomenon, since most of those buyers are first time car driver who switched from other mode of transportation to cars. Which mean extra energy demand, and coal still have a significant place in China's energy network.
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 11:37 am

Aaron747 wrote:
pune wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Is a full cleanup necessary? Even the two towns closest to the nuclear plant is now starting to restore and allowing citizens to come back living there. Important highway and rail link that run right next to the plant have also been restored. It's mostly just area deep into the mountain that no one are going to spend money decontaminating them due to their lack of efficiency, and situation within the plant itself.

And these localized damages are much easier to clean up than increased CO2 level in the entire world's ocean


Perhaps you didn't read it properly then, they are going to put that radiated water into the oceans which will harm one and all. And as far as Governments are concerned, at least in Japan time and again it has showed that it is ruthless to its own people. Can you tell of any other country in the world democratically elected where the population has been on the decrease for the past 3 decades and most experts agree if they don't trun it around soon enough, Japan itself would be off the map. So I am not at all surprised if they are letting people back in.

Part of it is to do with the Japanese mentality which is similar to the Indian and perhaps Asian mentality, If memory serves right, the only one in which the Japanese people showed a bit of spine was when the Amagasaki derailment happened but that was way back in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagasaki_derailment , After that they went back to being the same sheeple they were before.

You have a country that has had 30 years of stagllation and still continuing the same policies that haven't worked before and still the same people re-elected to the office. All of these are very telling comments about the Japanese and not in a good way :(


I think you misread the Japanese situation a bit. The ruling party (LDP) has successfully pandered to rural and corporate interests for decades - mostly people over 50 vote for them. Perhaps it can be said younger Japanese don't have 'spine' in one sense, but in another they are just plain indifferent. All Japanese under 40 have seen on the news their entire lives is the economy is dying a gradual death and there won't be social security waiting for them in retirement age like their parents. This means many of them are looking out for number one, and trying to figure out how to secure a financial future. They are unlikely to vote or protest because they cynically understand only the voice of old men over 60 matters anyway. Japan is more complex than it appears to an outsider and you should approach the analysis with more nuance.


Actually, Japan could and should have ahead if not for the Plaza accord.

https://kendawg.medium.com/how-the-plaz ... b24c20a9af

The above tells the whole story, Ironically, because of the accord, the Japanese went down and the Chinese came up. Now the U.S. is trying all kinds of ways and tricks to destabilize China but don't think they will win so easily this time :|
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6436
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 11:48 am

pune wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
pune wrote:

Perhaps you didn't read it properly then, they are going to put that radiated water into the oceans which will harm one and all. And as far as Governments are concerned, at least in Japan time and again it has showed that it is ruthless to its own people. Can you tell of any other country in the world democratically elected where the population has been on the decrease for the past 3 decades and most experts agree if they don't trun it around soon enough, Japan itself would be off the map. So I am not at all surprised if they are letting people back in.

Part of it is to do with the Japanese mentality which is similar to the Indian and perhaps Asian mentality, If memory serves right, the only one in which the Japanese people showed a bit of spine was when the Amagasaki derailment happened but that was way back in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagasaki_derailment , After that they went back to being the same sheeple they were before.

You have a country that has had 30 years of stagllation and still continuing the same policies that haven't worked before and still the same people re-elected to the office. All of these are very telling comments about the Japanese and not in a good way :(


I think you misread the Japanese situation a bit. The ruling party (LDP) has successfully pandered to rural and corporate interests for decades - mostly people over 50 vote for them. Perhaps it can be said younger Japanese don't have 'spine' in one sense, but in another they are just plain indifferent. All Japanese under 40 have seen on the news their entire lives is the economy is dying a gradual death and there won't be social security waiting for them in retirement age like their parents. This means many of them are looking out for number one, and trying to figure out how to secure a financial future. They are unlikely to vote or protest because they cynically understand only the voice of old men over 60 matters anyway. Japan is more complex than it appears to an outsider and you should approach the analysis with more nuance.


Actually, Japan could and should have ahead if not for the Plaza accord.

https://kendawg.medium.com/how-the-plaz ... b24c20a9af

The above tells the whole story, Ironically, because of the accord, the Japanese went down and the Chinese came up. Now the U.S. is trying all kinds of ways and tricks to destabilize China but don't think they will win so easily this time :|

I am not sure what form of "ahead" are you trying to suggest, nuclear energy deployment? All the Plaza Accord did was simply strengthening Japanese Yen against USD, which resulted in further asset bubble in an already somewhat overheated economy, and the bubble bursted about half a decade after that. After then Japanese economy become a more matured one with lower grow rate, and many fancy projects from before the time were abandoned due to the lack of economic value without such bubble level growth.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 17847
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:10 pm

c933103 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
I think you misread the Japanese situation a bit. The ruling party (LDP) has successfully pandered to rural and corporate interests for decades - mostly people over 50 vote for them. Perhaps it can be said younger Japanese don't have 'spine' in one sense, but in another they are just plain indifferent. All Japanese under 40 have seen on the news their entire lives is the economy is dying a gradual death and there won't be social security waiting for them in retirement age like their parents. This means many of them are looking out for number one, and trying to figure out how to secure a financial future. They are unlikely to vote or protest because they cynically understand only the voice of old men over 60 matters anyway. Japan is more complex than it appears to an outsider and you should approach the analysis with more nuance.

Young people in Japan vote LDP more than any other generations at least in the 2021 election, among people who did vote. And even among those who didn't vote for LDP, the traditional left-leaning opposition parties are also not as popular among those voters compared to other generations. Japan Communist Party, Social Democrat Party, and CDP, are the ones who see most support among elderlies in the latest election.
And they're the one qho include in their manifesto that all nuclear and coal plants in Japan need to be closed by 2030 with 50% renewable energy, aka another 50% for natural gas, despite multiple parts of Japan is now facing power supply only barely able to cover demand and measures like deferring nuclear plant maintenance and restarting closed old coal plants are necessary to enaire short term energy supply being sufficient


I didn't say young people don't vote LDP - I said young people don't trust policymakers and are not very interested in voting.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Japan- ... ging-Japan
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 15339
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:27 pm

@pune. I'm not in favor of nuclear waste disposal that isn't reversible. I don't think it's a huge deal however, if a future generation stumbles upon it with knowledge lost in between, what is the worst that can happen ? Maybe some people will die, I don't think it would become a major disaster. It's not like there is an obvious low tech use to the waste that would make people crave it before realizing it's dangerous.

Furthermore, we're not showing any care for future generations by letting climate change go unchecked.
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:23 pm

Aesma wrote:
@pune. I'm not in favor of nuclear waste disposal that isn't reversible. I don't think it's a huge deal however, if a future generation stumbles upon it with knowledge lost in between, what is the worst that can happen? Maybe some people will die, I don't think it would become a major disaster. It's not like there is an obvious low tech use to the waste that would make people crave it before realizing it's dangerous.

Furthermore, we're not showing any care for future generations by letting climate change go unchecked.


The problems are getting addicted to it as people have been addicted to oil. The other problem is it will seep into water and sand, heard about forever chemicals. That is precisely the reason why I had shared this -

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/maga ... tmare.html

Interestingly, except for that gentleman, nobody else bothered to take Dupont head-on and say it's not a done thing. And now everybody including you and me has those chemicals and all those who come after us. Of course, somebody could name people being radioactive, dying of cancer, or passing on cancer from birth as 'evolution'. I do admit I have become a bit cynical but that is after seeing how major corporations take the public for a ride each and every time.

Interestingly, I noticed that nobody tried to argue that designers, manufacturers, and sellers of nuclear reactors don't make agreements that makes sure that no liability passes to them that I had shared above. If they are so unsure about their own products then why should the public believe them ???
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:32 pm

c933103 wrote:
pune wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

I think you misread the Japanese situation a bit. The ruling party (LDP) has successfully pandered to rural and corporate interests for decades - mostly people over 50 vote for them. Perhaps it can be said younger Japanese don't have 'spine' in one sense, but in another they are just plain indifferent. All Japanese under 40 have seen on the news their entire lives is the economy is dying a gradual death and there won't be social security waiting for them in retirement age like their parents. This means many of them are looking out for number one, and trying to figure out how to secure a financial future. They are unlikely to vote or protest because they cynically understand only the voice of old men over 60 matters anyway. Japan is more complex than it appears to an outsider and you should approach the analysis with more nuance.


Actually, Japan could and should have ahead if not for the Plaza accord.

https://kendawg.medium.com/how-the-plaz ... b24c20a9af

The above tells the whole story, Ironically, because of the accord, the Japanese went down and the Chinese came up. Now the U.S. is trying all kinds of ways and tricks to destabilize China but doesn't think they will win so easily this time :|

I am not sure what form of "ahead" are you trying to suggest, nuclear energy deployment? All the Plaza Accord did was simply strengthen the Japanese Yen against the USD, which resulted in a further asset bubble in an already somewhat overheated economy, and the bubble burst about half a decade after that. After the Japanese economy become a more mature one with a lower growth rate, and many fancy projects from before the time were abandoned due to the lack of economic value without such bubble level growth.


This is precisely the kind of spin the Americans have been saying, especially those on right. The reason why the U.S. needs and needed to have all those bases in Japan. I saw you were silent on that part, this is precisely how bullies bully. They didn't let the Japanese even build a navy till the Chinese began to threaten them or do nuclear weapons stuff. Both those changes have happened recently only, last few years. How much in the interim they took from Japan god only knows. And all the excuses are written for the U.S. People forget that this is the same country that bombed Japan's twin cities and then came to the country not to treat people but give the people placebos and instead do all kinds of testing to find out and profit from the destruction. Again, all of which is there in the public domain.
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6436
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:26 pm

pune wrote:
This is precisely the kind of spin the Americans have been saying, especially those on right. The reason why the U.S. needs and needed to have all those bases in Japan. I saw you were silent on that part, this is precisely how bullies bully. They didn't let the Japanese even build a navy till the Chinese began to threaten them or do nuclear weapons stuff. Both those changes have happened recently only, last few years. How much in the interim they took from Japan god only knows. And all the excuses are written for the U.S. People forget that this is the same country that bombed Japan's twin cities and then came to the country not to treat people but give the people placebos and instead do all kinds of testing to find out and profit from the destruction. Again, all of which is there in the public domain.

American bases are needed in Japan because Japan do not have its own official military, only SDF. Similarly is the situation of South Korea, which have its own military but is not capable enough to defend itself as proven in Korean War. This is the consequence of America defeating Japanese Empire in WWII and a duty that need to be fulfilled by them to protect the demilitarized Japan and the newly established South Korea. It's okay that America left, but only if Japan and Korea are allowed to further develop their military capabilities against other major power in the region, which for sure will turn into a regional arm race, not just Japan/South Korea/Taiwan against North Korea/China/Pacific Russia but also between Japan and Korea, and could ultimately turn into an Asian centric WW3 if anyone misstepped in between.

But I fail to see how such comment have anything to do with previous comments in the thread, no matter on the topic of nuclear energy usage and carbon emission and.climate change, or on the topic of Japanese economy development.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding, and actually you want to say the Fukushima incident is caused by American militarily forcing Japan using nuclear power with reactor design fron America, as a way for the US to economically exploit Japan? I don't think there are any evidents that this is the case?
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:43 pm

c933103 wrote:
pune wrote:
This is precisely the kind of spin the Americans have been saying, especially those on right. The reason why the U.S. needs and needed to have all those bases in Japan. I saw you were silent on that part, this is precisely how bullies bully. They didn't let the Japanese even build a navy till the Chinese began to threaten them or do nuclear weapons stuff. Both those changes have happened recently only, last few years. How much in the interim they took from Japan god only knows. And all the excuses are written for the U.S. People forget that this is the same country that bombed Japan's twin cities and then came to the country not to treat people but give the people placebos and instead do all kinds of testing to find out and profit from the destruction. Again, all of which is there in the public domain.

American bases are needed in Japan because Japan do not have its own official military, only SDF. Similarly is the situation of South Korea, which have its own military but is not capable enough to defend itself as proven in Korean War. This is the consequence of America defeating Japanese Empire in WWII and a duty that need to be fulfilled by them to protect the demilitarized Japan and the newly established South Korea. It's okay that America left, but only if Japan and Korea are allowed to further develop their military capabilities against other major power in the region, which for sure will turn into a regional arm race, not just Japan/South Korea/Taiwan against North Korea/China/Pacific Russia but also between Japan and Korea, and could ultimately turn into an Asian centric WW3 if anyone misstepped in between.

But I fail to see how such comment have anything to do with previous comments in the thread, no matter on the topic of nuclear energy usage and carbon emission and.climate change, or on the topic of Japanese economy development.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding, and actually you want to say the Fukushima incident is caused by American militarily forcing Japan using nuclear power with reactor design fron America, as a way for the US to economically exploit Japan? I don't think there are any evidents that this is the case?


Those were the terms of the 'surrender' and I did see you kept quiet on what American doctors did when they reached Japan. This means you approve of all the underhand methods that the U.S. used and continues to use. I don't have to say anything more, you yourself have said it. Do you know of any other countries that have their bases around other countries for 'security purposes', please let me know?
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 7:04 pm

What I had been referring to in this entire thread neatly summed up -

fhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsPmJdlrBiI
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6436
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:37 pm

pune wrote:
c933103 wrote:
pune wrote:
This is precisely the kind of spin the Americans have been saying, especially those on right. The reason why the U.S. needs and needed to have all those bases in Japan. I saw you were silent on that part, this is precisely how bullies bully. They didn't let the Japanese even build a navy till the Chinese began to threaten them or do nuclear weapons stuff. Both those changes have happened recently only, last few years. How much in the interim they took from Japan god only knows. And all the excuses are written for the U.S. People forget that this is the same country that bombed Japan's twin cities and then came to the country not to treat people but give the people placebos and instead do all kinds of testing to find out and profit from the destruction. Again, all of which is there in the public domain.

American bases are needed in Japan because Japan do not have its own official military, only SDF. Similarly is the situation of South Korea, which have its own military but is not capable enough to defend itself as proven in Korean War. This is the consequence of America defeating Japanese Empire in WWII and a duty that need to be fulfilled by them to protect the demilitarized Japan and the newly established South Korea. It's okay that America left, but only if Japan and Korea are allowed to further develop their military capabilities against other major power in the region, which for sure will turn into a regional arm race, not just Japan/South Korea/Taiwan against North Korea/China/Pacific Russia but also between Japan and Korea, and could ultimately turn into an Asian centric WW3 if anyone misstepped in between.

But I fail to see how such comment have anything to do with previous comments in the thread, no matter on the topic of nuclear energy usage and carbon emission and.climate change, or on the topic of Japanese economy development.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding, and actually you want to say the Fukushima incident is caused by American militarily forcing Japan using nuclear power with reactor design fron America, as a way for the US to economically exploit Japan? I don't think there are any evidents that this is the case?


Those were the terms of the 'surrender' and I did see you kept quiet on what American doctors did when they reached Japan.

what American doctors did when they reached Japan? Just to be clear, this thread is about nuclear energy not nuclear warheads
This means you approve of all the underhand methods that the U.S. used and continues to use. I don't have to say anything more, you yourself have said it. Do you know of any other countries that have their bases around other countries for 'security purposes', please let me know?

Are you somehow missing the like of Russian bases in Syria or Chinese bases in Djibouti or British base in Cyprus or French base in Senegal?
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:27 pm

c933103 wrote:
pune wrote:
c933103 wrote:
American bases are needed in Japan because Japan do not have its own official military, only SDF. Similarly is the situation of South Korea, which have its own military but is not capable enough to defend itself as proven in Korean War. This is the consequence of America defeating Japanese Empire in WWII and a duty that need to be fulfilled by them to protect the demilitarized Japan and the newly established South Korea. It's okay that America left, but only if Japan and Korea are allowed to further develop their military capabilities against other major power in the region, which for sure will turn into a regional arm race, not just Japan/South Korea/Taiwan against North Korea/China/Pacific Russia but also between Japan and Korea, and could ultimately turn into an Asian centric WW3 if anyone misstepped in between.

But I fail to see how such comment have anything to do with previous comments in the thread, no matter on the topic of nuclear energy usage and carbon emission and.climate change, or on the topic of Japanese economy development.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding, and actually you want to say the Fukushima incident is caused by American militarily forcing Japan using nuclear power with reactor design fron America, as a way for the US to economically exploit Japan? I don't think there are any evidents that this is the case?


Those were the terms of the 'surrender' and I did see you kept quiet on what American doctors did when they reached Japan.

what American doctors did when they reached Japan? Just to be clear, this thread is about nuclear energy not nuclear warheads
This means you approve of all the underhand methods that the U.S. used and continues to use. I don't have to say anything more, you yourself have said it. Do you know of any other countries that have their bases around other countries for 'security purposes', please let me know?

Are you somehow missing the like of Russian bases in Syria or Chinese bases in Djibouti or British base in Cyprus or French base in Senegal?


I would suggest you read accounts of few of the Atomic survivors called Hibakusha that would tell you all.

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

That is your homework for now :)
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6436
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

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

Mon Jan 10, 2022 1:52 am

pune wrote:
c933103 wrote:
pune wrote:

Those were the terms of the 'surrender' and I did see you kept quiet on what American doctors did when they reached Japan.

what American doctors did when they reached Japan? Just to be clear, this thread is about nuclear energy not nuclear warheads
This means you approve of all the underhand methods that the U.S. used and continues to use. I don't have to say anything more, you yourself have said it. Do you know of any other countries that have their bases around other countries for 'security purposes', please let me know?

Are you somehow missing the like of Russian bases in Syria or Chinese bases in Djibouti or British base in Cyprus or French base in Senegal?


I would suggest you read accounts of few of the Atomic survivors called Hibakusha that would tell you all.

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

That is your homework for now :)

Again, how is that related to the topic of nuclear energy we are discussing now? Do you believe all the power plants are bomb?
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 17847
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

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

Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:19 am

pune wrote:
c933103 wrote:
pune wrote:

Those were the terms of the 'surrender' and I did see you kept quiet on what American doctors did when they reached Japan.

what American doctors did when they reached Japan? Just to be clear, this thread is about nuclear energy not nuclear warheads
This means you approve of all the underhand methods that the U.S. used and continues to use. I don't have to say anything more, you yourself have said it. Do you know of any other countries that have their bases around other countries for 'security purposes', please let me know?

Are you somehow missing the like of Russian bases in Syria or Chinese bases in Djibouti or British base in Cyprus or French base in Senegal?


I would suggest you read accounts of few of the Atomic survivors called Hibakusha that would tell you all.

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

That is your homework for now :)


Hibakusha do not determine energy policy in Japan. No idea where you have gone with this.
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:53 am

c933103 wrote:
pune wrote:
c933103 wrote:
what American doctors did when they reached Japan? Just to be clear, this thread is about nuclear energy not nuclear warheads

Are you somehow missing the like of Russian bases in Syria or Chinese bases in Djibouti or British base in Cyprus or French base in Senegal?


I would suggest you read accounts of few of the Atomic survivors called Hibakusha that would tell you all.

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

That is your homework for now :)

Again, how is that related to the topic of nuclear energy we are discussing now? Do you believe all the power plants are bomb?


Japan has a history of earthquakes, hell it is the only place where children are told daily what to do in case of an earthquake,

https://www.christianmonson.com/article ... ng-of-fire

So heaven forbid, if tomorrow or some other day something like the above happens, I am sure you and other posters will be quick to blame Japan rather than the nuclear reactors. But then what else can be expected from you. Especially from those who are blind to the obvious disadvantages.
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:56 am

Aaron747 wrote:
pune wrote:
c933103 wrote:
what American doctors did when they reached Japan? Just to be clear, this thread is about nuclear energy not nuclear warheads

Are you somehow missing the like of Russian bases in Syria or Chinese bases in Djibouti or British base in Cyprus or French base in Senegal?


I would suggest you read accounts of few of the Atomic survivors called Hibakusha that would tell you all.

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

That is your homework for now :)


Hibakusha do not determine energy policy in Japan. No idea where you have gone with this.


And isn't that a pity? Of course, when you have greed as a motivator then you would do whatever gives you more money irrespective of people's safety.
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6436
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

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

Mon Jan 10, 2022 12:11 pm

pune wrote:
c933103 wrote:
pune wrote:

I would suggest you read accounts of few of the Atomic survivors called Hibakusha that would tell you all.

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

That is your homework for now :)

Again, how is that related to the topic of nuclear energy we are discussing now? Do you believe all the power plants are bomb?


Japan has a history of earthquakes, hell it is the only place where children are told daily what to do in case of an earthquake,

https://www.christianmonson.com/article ... ng-of-fire

So heaven forbid, if tomorrow or some other day something like the above happens, I am sure you and other posters will be quick to blame Japan rather than the nuclear reactors. But then what else can be expected from you. Especially from those who are blind to the obvious disadvantages.

The earthquake 11 years ago was M9.0, almost the largest scale one you could get, yet none failed in such situation. Only one plant get destroyed by Tsunami, and even then the number of people killed by the plant in itself, or even by dustant relation like mental stress due to taking shelter from it, are nowhere near as much as the number of people killed by the tsunami itself.
 
pune
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

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

Mon Jan 10, 2022 1:03 pm

c933103 wrote:
pune wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Again, how is that related to the topic of nuclear energy we are discussing now? Do you believe all the power plants are bomb?


Japan has a history of earthquakes, hell it is the only place where children are told daily what to do in case of an earthquake,

https://www.christianmonson.com/article ... ng-of-fire

So heaven forbid, if tomorrow or some other day something like the above happens, I am sure you and other posters will be quick to blame Japan rather than the nuclear reactors. But then what else can be expected from you. Especially from those who are blind to the obvious disadvantages.

The earthquake 11 years ago was M9.0, almost the largest scale one you could get, yet none failed in such situation. Only one plant get destroyed by Tsunami, and even then the number of people killed by the plant in itself, or even by dustant relation like mental stress due to taking shelter from it, are nowhere near as much as the number of people killed by the tsunami itself.


My question hinges on what happens when it comes to say M11.0. Then what ??? The same thing happened with the Tsunami, it was unprecedented. Then what excuse would be given, that is what I am asking. And we know that the press in Japan is not as critical as it is in the west. That has been shown multiple times, but that is an aside. IPCC has told a number of times that you will see unprecedented climate catastrophes and that has been increasing. Whether it is wildfires in California or anything else. Something that was said to occur once a century, then once a decade and now a yearly thing :(
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 6436
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

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

Mon Jan 10, 2022 1:39 pm

pune wrote:
c933103 wrote:
pune wrote:

Japan has a history of earthquakes, hell it is the only place where children are told daily what to do in case of an earthquake,

https://www.christianmonson.com/article ... ng-of-fire

So heaven forbid, if tomorrow or some other day something like the above happens, I am sure you and other posters will be quick to blame Japan rather than the nuclear reactors. But then what else can be expected from you. Especially from those who are blind to the obvious disadvantages.

The earthquake 11 years ago was M9.0, almost the largest scale one you could get, yet none failed in such situation. Only one plant get destroyed by Tsunami, and even then the number of people killed by the plant in itself, or even by dustant relation like mental stress due to taking shelter from it, are nowhere near as much as the number of people killed by the tsunami itself.


My question hinges on what happens when it comes to say M11.0. Then what ??? The same thing happened with the Tsunami, it was unprecedented. Then what excuse would be given, that is what I am asking. And we know that the press in Japan is not as critical as it is in the west. That has been shown multiple times, but that is an aside. IPCC has told a number of times that you will see unprecedented climate catastrophes and that has been increasing. Whether it is wildfires in California or anything else. Something that was said to occur once a century, then once a decade and now a yearly thing :(

M11.0 earthquake, if it is even possible, have the power equivalent to an asteroid hitting the earth, with size being equal to the asteroid that wiped out dinosaurs.
At such time, safety of a nuclear plant is the least thing we need to be concerned about

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aesma, davidjohnson6, L0VE2FLY, Vintage and 31 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