Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

And to address the idea that nuclear is terrible for having "government assistance", one can always look to how much goes to renewable energy. This article is so over the top it is almost funny. It is about the costs in the Build Back Better legislation. Definitely unhinged but if one can be unhinged against nuclear, one can also be unhinged about renewables.

https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2021/1 ... er-agenda/

Tugg

It's simple, they want nuclear in rather than wind and solar. Doesn't take that much to figure out. It is known that republicans like projects that have long gestation times, the longer it takes, the better it is. And Nuclear the biggest of all, once you have it, returns for hundreds of years even if the nuclear plant itself is decommissioned and produces no energy at all. At the end it would be the taxpayer who would have to pay, not them so what's the harm, right.

And CleanTechnica is simple to, they want wind and solar in rather than nuclear. And they do not examine the deleterious impacts of wind and solar, from disposal of blades to mining operations for dangerous elements needed in batteries.

Tugg

You need to educate yourself more.

https://www.kochvsclean.com/electric-ca ... hs-metals/

Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

That report is actually decently balanced and looks into the issues confronting nuclear power but it does not say it is bad.

(By the way, I don't actually see the 398 page report in the link you provided. I had to find it separately.)

Tugg

It's on the same webpage, please. Anyways, even after 3 pages, I am forced to ask the same question, how you are going to have nuclear waste secured for 1000 to 100k years and who is going to foot the bill to do so. If it's the taxpayer then solar and wind are way cheaper.

You do not have to secure nuclear waste for the time frame you state. A good amount of waste material is able to be recycled into new fuel for use in continuing operations to generate power. In ground storage solutions along with further development of how to further use "waste" can address the issue even more. Most storage is currently occurring safely on site at all locations, with little to no risk to local populations (I live within 20 miles on one such location).

And just for you, here is the actual direct link for the report: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/ ... 021-lr.pdf

Tugg

So somehow you are right and IAEA is wrong as they said that even after decommissioning the no-go areas would be anywhere from 1k years to 100k years. Btw are you gonna live 1k years or 100k years, if not then you have no power and no idea what will happen after that? What if there is a spill after that. And you have not answered who is going to foot the bill to keep them secure, the taxpayer right ???

Doesn't make any economic sense from any angle.

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

It's on the same webpage, please. Anyways, even after 3 pages, I am forced to ask the same question, how you are going to have nuclear waste secured for 1000 to 100k years and who is going to foot the bill to do so. If it's the taxpayer then solar and wind are way cheaper.

You do not have to secure nuclear waste for the time frame you state. A good amount of waste material is able to be recycled into new fuel for use in continuing operations to generate power. In ground storage solutions along with further development of how to further use "waste" can address the issue even more. Most storage is currently occurring safely on site at all locations, with little to no risk to local populations (I live within 20 miles on one such location).

And just for you, here is the actual direct link for the report: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/ ... 021-lr.pdf

Tugg

So somehow you are right and IAEA is wrong as they said that even after decommissioning the no-go areas would be anywhere from 1k years to 100k years. Btw are you gonna live 1k years or 100k years, if not then you have no power and no idea what will happen after that? What if there is a spill after that. And you have not answered who is going to foot the bill to keep them secure, the taxpayer right ???

Doesn't make any economic sense from any angle.

Your question doesn’t make sense logically either as there is no evidence/guarantee that people will want to develop/occupy such no-go sites in 50k years.

This is quite different than, say, sea level rise that will require near term mitigation for large coastal population centers.

The cheapest has been wind and solar from past few years -

https://ieefa.org/bnef-unsubsidized-win ... n-sources/

In fact, you should look up the site, gives lot more input about what has been including the new floating sonar which India just signed up for.

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

You do not have to secure nuclear waste for the time frame you state. A good amount of waste material is able to be recycled into new fuel for use in continuing operations to generate power. In ground storage solutions along with further development of how to further use "waste" can address the issue even more. Most storage is currently occurring safely on site at all locations, with little to no risk to local populations (I live within 20 miles on one such location).

And just for you, here is the actual direct link for the report: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/ ... 021-lr.pdf

Tugg

So somehow you are right and IAEA is wrong as they said that even after decommissioning the no-go areas would be anywhere from 1k years to 100k years. Btw are you gonna live 1k years or 100k years, if not then you have no power and no idea what will happen after that? What if there is a spill after that. And you have not answered who is going to foot the bill to keep them secure, the taxpayer right ???

Doesn't make any economic sense from any angle.

Your question doesn’t make sense logically either as there is no evidence/guarantee that people will want to develop/occupy such no-go sites in 50k years.

This is quite different than, say, sea level rise that will require near term mitigation for large coastal population centers.

Actually, while that is a valid concern but it's also a trope, there would and could be other people to who need to move to different places. An example shared here. U.S. could have learn from Israel how to save water but somehow they think they know better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYvQNon4aLg

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

So somehow you are right and IAEA is wrong as they said that even after decommissioning the no-go areas would be anywhere from 1k years to 100k years. Btw are you gonna live 1k years or 100k years, if not then you have no power and no idea what will happen after that? What if there is a spill after that. And you have not answered who is going to foot the bill to keep them secure, the taxpayer right ???

Doesn't make any economic sense from any angle.

Your question doesn’t make sense logically either as there is no evidence/guarantee that people will want to develop/occupy such no-go sites in 50k years.

This is quite different than, say, sea level rise that will require near term mitigation for large coastal population centers.

Actually, while that is a valid concern but it's also a trope, there would and could be other people to who need to move to different places. An example shared here. U.S. could have learn from Israel how to save water but somehow they think they know better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYvQNon4aLg

Sorry but you're conflating things. I referred specifically to people wanting to occupy former nuclear plant sites. You're talking about migration needs in general. There is evidence for the latter, none for the former.

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Your question doesn’t make sense logically either as there is no evidence/guarantee that people will want to develop/occupy such no-go sites in 50k years.

This is quite different than, say, sea level rise that will require near term mitigation for large coastal population centers.

Actually, while that is a valid concern but it's also a trope, there would and could be other people to who need to move to different places. An example shared here. U.S. could have learn from Israel how to save water but somehow they think they know better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYvQNon4aLg

Sorry but you're conflating things. I referred specifically to people wanting to occupy former nuclear plant sites. You're talking about migration needs in general. There is evidence for the latter, none for the former.

Actually there is evidence of extinctions of civilizations due to loss of water. The most famous and nearet to me was the Harappan civilization. Once the river dried up, they moved but soon that whole civilization died. And while we think today would be better, you never know. If you had to migrate then perhaps you would know how hard it is.

pune wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

Ah good, so you are ok with large swathes of land being no-go between 10 to 100k years.

100% yes, absolutely. If the only cost for abundant, zero carbon electricity is setting aside a few hundred acres for a bunker in already-uninhabitable land…totally worth it to me to stave off climate change.

pune wrote:

Now that is your assumption and it is fine to have your own assumptions but did I ever say that?

It is the German position evidently, which is what this thread is about.

Tell me how are you going to have nuclear waste for 10 to 100k years, if we don't have the technology then you are just making problems for the future generation, why? Because some people can get rich without accountability to their sons and daughters. I have asked this so many times but no answer.

Sure, just as soon as you whip out your crystal ball to confirm that in 10,000 years it will even be a problem.

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

100% yes, absolutely. If the only cost for abundant, zero carbon electricity is setting aside a few hundred acres for a bunker in already-uninhabitable land…totally worth it to me to stave off climate change.


It is the German position evidently, which is what this thread is about.

Tell me how are you going to have nuclear waste for 10 to 100k years, if we don't have the technology then you are just making problems for the future generation, why? Because some people can get rich without accountability to their sons and daughters. I have asked this so many times but no answer.

Sure, just as soon as you whip out your crystal ball to confirm that in 10,000 years it will even be a problem.

actually answered that above.

pune wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

Tell me how are you going to have nuclear waste for 10 to 100k years, if we don't have the technology then you are just making problems for the future generation, why? Because some people can get rich without accountability to their sons and daughters. I have asked this so many times but no answer.

Sure, just as soon as you whip out your crystal ball to confirm that in 10,000 years it will even be a problem.

actually answered that above.

No, what you posted above was about water use.

See this, tells what is happening in China and elsewhere -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyEQ4jp1W54

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

Actually, while that is a valid concern but it's also a trope, there would and could be other people to who need to move to different places. An example shared here. U.S. could have learn from Israel how to save water but somehow they think they know better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYvQNon4aLg

Sorry but you're conflating things. I referred specifically to people wanting to occupy former nuclear plant sites. You're talking about migration needs in general. There is evidence for the latter, none for the former.

Actually there is evidence of extinctions of civilizations due to loss of water. The most famous and nearet to me was the Harappan civilization. Once the river dried up, they moved but soon that whole civilization died. And while we think today would be better, you never know. If you had to migrate then perhaps you would know how hard it is.

But that was not a civilization specifically impacted by a nuclear plant site. Nor do you have evidence that such sites will be desired for occupation in the future. Sorry, it really just seems at this point you are muddying the water with anything that'll stick.

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Sorry but you're conflating things. I referred specifically to people wanting to occupy former nuclear plant sites. You're talking about migration needs in general. There is evidence for the latter, none for the former.

Actually there is evidence of extinctions of civilizations due to loss of water. The most famous and nearet to me was the Harappan civilization. Once the river dried up, they moved but soon that whole civilization died. And while we think today would be better, you never know. If you had to migrate then perhaps you would know how hard it is.

But that was not a civilization specifically impacted by a nuclear plant site. Nor do you have evidence that such sites will be desired for occupation in the future. Sorry, it really just seems at this point you are muddying the water with anything that'll stick.

Is it so hard to understand how large-scale migrations have ended civilizations then can't help you. And I asked you who is going to be funding the security of nuclear waste for thousands of years, the solution of having more nuclear reactors does not work, First tell me how will that be funded. You do not have answer for that as has been seen. Only somebody foolish would say first use one nuclear reactor, then for the waste use another nuclear reactor and if that doesn't work then something else because there are no real answers. All to be kept for future generations

About water scarcity and what is gonna happen can be easily seen from this -

https://harvardnsj.org/2018/05/water-sc ... rity-risk/

pune wrote:

Is it so hard to understand how large-scale migrations have ended civilizations then can't help you.

I do understand it - it simply has no logical nexus to a nuclear site being no-go over wastewater.

pune wrote:

Only somebody foolish would say first use one nuclear reactor, then for the waste use another nuclear reactor and if that doesn't work then something else because there are no real answers

Again, this supposition is totally illogical because the technology and capability to recycle nuclear waste for plant use exists. 'If that doesn't work' presupposes it doesn't/won't.

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

Why nuclear, when wind and solar can already do the job. I don't see anything but problems with nuclear. When IAEA itself says that an area would be no-go between 10k to 100k years then that itself should settle the debate. Even on a cost basis, it is not economical at all. There is nothing on the table that nuclear brings that solar and wind already don't provide. And I say NOTHING. On the contrary, as has been described, it can get leaked into water or soil and in turn, contaminate us. I haven't seen one solid reason to have nuclear as an option apart from being a money-spinner (bribes) for people. Even the cleanup costs are tremendous as shared by multiple people above all from different backgrounds.

Germany's coal retirement date being set to 2036 indicate wind and solar aren't enough for the job at least not until 2036

Again assumptions. Germany would not want to put all its eggs in nuclear as you want to. I would suspect as more and more wind and solar come online and connected to grid that date would become irrelevant. Rather than Govt. giving handouts to nuclear where there are no plans as to how to keep nuclear safe for 1000's of years, solar and wind are doing it here and now. Of course, if Germany gives subsidy on it, then more such plants and whatnot will come to Germany. The Chinese would jump at this opportunity -

https://www.investopedia.com/10-biggest ... es-5077655

For battery, CATL, BYD, Tesla and LG Chem all well-known, well-established. The first two, number 1 and number 3 in the world (soon to be number 2.) battery makers in the world. For wind, you could have a mix of American and European companies starting from GE and Siemens and whatnot.

Having any nuclear plants in operation = "put all its eggs in nuclear"?
Do I need to explain what "all" mean?

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Germany's coal retirement date being set to 2036 indicate wind and solar aren't enough for the job at least not until 2036

Again assumptions. Germany would not want to put all its eggs in nuclear as you want to. I would suspect as more and more wind and solar come online and connected to grid that date would become irrelevant. Rather than Govt. giving handouts to nuclear where there are no plans as to how to keep nuclear safe for 1000's of years, solar and wind are doing it here and now. Of course, if Germany gives subsidy on it, then more such plants and whatnot will come to Germany. The Chinese would jump at this opportunity -

https://www.investopedia.com/10-biggest ... es-5077655

For battery, CATL, BYD, Tesla and LG Chem all well-known, well-established. The first two, number 1 and number 3 in the world (soon to be number 2.) battery makers in the world. For wind, you could have a mix of American and European companies starting from GE and Siemens and whatnot.

Having any nuclear plants in operation = "put all its eggs in nuclear"?
Do I need to explain what "all" mean?

Again, Germany's choice. And it is the most industrialized nation in the world. And in fact has been one of the most competitive.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/ ... e-economy/

So, I am sure they looked at all the pros and cons before deciding that nuclear was not for them.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodi ... 022-01-01/

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

Again assumptions. Germany would not want to put all its eggs in nuclear as you want to. I would suspect as more and more wind and solar come online and connected to grid that date would become irrelevant. Rather than Govt. giving handouts to nuclear where there are no plans as to how to keep nuclear safe for 1000's of years, solar and wind are doing it here and now. Of course, if Germany gives subsidy on it, then more such plants and whatnot will come to Germany. The Chinese would jump at this opportunity -

https://www.investopedia.com/10-biggest ... es-5077655

For battery, CATL, BYD, Tesla and LG Chem all well-known, well-established. The first two, number 1 and number 3 in the world (soon to be number 2.) battery makers in the world. For wind, you could have a mix of American and European companies starting from GE and Siemens and whatnot.

Having any nuclear plants in operation = "put all its eggs in nuclear"?
Do I need to explain what "all" mean?

Again, Germany's choice. And it is the most industrialized nation in the world. And in fact has been one of the most competitive.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/ ... e-economy/

So, I am sure they looked at all the pros and cons before deciding that nuclear was not for them.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodi ... 022-01-01/

Germany is "most competitive" so all choice they made are good and inmune from criticism? Including continued otherwise-avoidable coal usage? Including its opinion in a larger organization where they are just one of many participants?

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Having any nuclear plants in operation = "put all its eggs in nuclear"?
Do I need to explain what "all" mean?

Again, Germany's choice. And it is the most industrialized nation in the world. And in fact has been one of the most competitive.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/ ... e-economy/

So, I am sure they looked at all the pros and cons before deciding that nuclear was not for them.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodi ... 022-01-01/

Germany is "most competitive" so all choice they made are good and inmune from criticism? Including continued otherwise-avoidable coal usage? Including its opinion in a larger organization where they are just one of many participants?

Germany is a the founding member of EU and has made it one of the most powerful tading blocs in the world.

https://europa.eu/learning-corner/quiz/ ... stion_1_en

So, surely they must have discussed and taken things into account. From what little I know, Luxembourg, Malta, France and Germany are the most influential voices in EU. UK was before brexit and Netherlands used to side with them, but after they exited France has come up. So without these four countries engaging with each other no policy can be done in EU and for EU. Germany can decide its nuclear policy but if it's EU then these four have to be in consultation one way or the other and then only they can say something and get it passed in EU. Don't forget there are 26 odd countries so there will some sort of trading or some deal back and forth to get any legislation passed and that is expected.

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

Again, Germany's choice. And it is the most industrialized nation in the world. And in fact has been one of the most competitive.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/ ... e-economy/

So, I am sure they looked at all the pros and cons before deciding that nuclear was not for them.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodi ... 022-01-01/

Germany is "most competitive" so all choice they made are good and inmune from criticism? Including continued otherwise-avoidable coal usage? Including its opinion in a larger organization where they are just one of many participants?

Germany is a the founding member of EU and has made it one of the most powerful tading blocs in the world.

https://europa.eu/learning-corner/quiz/ ... stion_1_en

So, surely they must have discussed and taken things into account. From what little I know, Luxembourg, Malta, France and Germany are the most influential voices in EU. UK was before brexit and Netherlands used to side with them, but after they exited France has come up. So without these four countries engaging with each other no policy can be done in EU and for EU. Germany can decide its nuclear policy but if it's EU then these four have to be in consultation one way or the other and then only they can say something and get it passed in EU. Don't forget there are 26 odd countries so there will some sort of trading or some deal back and forth to get any legislation passed and that is expected.

So why is "Germany's choice" imnune from criticism when consultation and discussion with other members are needed?

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Germany is "most competitive" so all choice they made are good and inmune from criticism? Including continued otherwise-avoidable coal usage? Including its opinion in a larger organization where they are just one of many participants?

Germany is a the founding member of EU and has made it one of the most powerful tading blocs in the world.

https://europa.eu/learning-corner/quiz/ ... stion_1_en

So, surely they must have discussed and taken things into account. From what little I know, Luxembourg, Malta, France and Germany are the most influential voices in EU. UK was before brexit and Netherlands used to side with them, but after they exited France has come up. So without these four countries engaging with each other no policy can be done in EU and for EU. Germany can decide its nuclear policy but if it's EU then these four have to be in consultation one way or the other and then only they can say something and get it passed in EU. Don't forget there are 26 odd countries so there will some sort of trading or some deal back and forth to get any legislation passed and that is expected.

So why is "Germany's choice" imnune from criticism when consultation and discussion with other members are needed?

How do you know what backroom deals were taken place or not. If anybody from the EU members object and they have both the EU and the European Court of Justice where any of the members can say what they want. If they are not objecting, then who are you or me. We are just bystanders to whatever is happening. The whole idea of EU is they would do things by themselves and between themselves, and at times be acromonious as well but that's between those countries. Nothing to do with either you or me,Unless of course you are a diplomat from one of those 26 countries and have an opinion which that country is ok with. But then again, that needs to be voiced in EU or the European court of Justice. On this fora, it would hold no value. You can't change what EU decides from here

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

Germany is a the founding member of EU and has made it one of the most powerful tading blocs in the world.

https://europa.eu/learning-corner/quiz/ ... stion_1_en

So, surely they must have discussed and taken things into account. From what little I know, Luxembourg, Malta, France and Germany are the most influential voices in EU. UK was before brexit and Netherlands used to side with them, but after they exited France has come up. So without these four countries engaging with each other no policy can be done in EU and for EU. Germany can decide its nuclear policy but if it's EU then these four have to be in consultation one way or the other and then only they can say something and get it passed in EU. Don't forget there are 26 odd countries so there will some sort of trading or some deal back and forth to get any legislation passed and that is expected.

So why is "Germany's choice" imnune from criticism when consultation and discussion with other members are needed?

How do you know what backroom deals were taken place or not. If anybody from the EU members object and they have both the EU and the European Court of Justice where any of the members can say what they want. If they are not objecting, then who are you or me. We are just bystanders to whatever is happening. The whole idea of EU is they would do things by themselves and between themselves, and at times be acromonious as well but that's between those countries. Nothing to do with either you or me,Unless of course you are a diplomat from one of those 26 countries and have an opinion which that country is ok with. But then again, that needs to be voiced in EU or the European court of Justice. On this fora, it would hold no value. You can't change what EU decides from here

EU is immune from public? Is it something authoritarian?

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

So why is "Germany's choice" imnune from criticism when consultation and discussion with other members are needed?

How do you know what backroom deals were taken place or not. If anybody from the EU members object and they have both the EU and the European Court of Justice where any of the members can say what they want. If they are not objecting, then who are you or me. We are just bystanders to whatever is happening. The whole idea of EU is they would do things by themselves and between themselves, and at times be acromonious as well but that's between those countries. Nothing to do with either you or me,Unless of course you are a diplomat from one of those 26 countries and have an opinion which that country is ok with. But then again, that needs to be voiced in EU or the European court of Justice. On this fora, it would hold no value. You can't change what EU decides from here

EU is immune from public? Is it something authoritarian?

If you have a problem with Germany then take it in the EU court of justice or in EU policy, AFAIK, they always have policy meetings. The European Parliament is the best bet.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factshee ... principles

First see the work they have done there, I am sure you would find some data. In fact, if you look at the Renewables Energy part, then nuclear was never part of it even in 2009. So you need to read more, research more, look up what discussions and whatnot happened and then perhaps we would know more.

The latest I could find on the topic and this has signatures of all the memebers concerned.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 32018L2001

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

How do you know what backroom deals were taken place or not. If anybody from the EU members object and they have both the EU and the European Court of Justice where any of the members can say what they want. If they are not objecting, then who are you or me. We are just bystanders to whatever is happening. The whole idea of EU is they would do things by themselves and between themselves, and at times be acromonious as well but that's between those countries. Nothing to do with either you or me,Unless of course you are a diplomat from one of those 26 countries and have an opinion which that country is ok with. But then again, that needs to be voiced in EU or the European court of Justice. On this fora, it would hold no value. You can't change what EU decides from here

EU is immune from public? Is it something authoritarian?

If you have a problem with Germany then take it in the EU court of justice or in EU policy, AFAIK, they always have policy meetings. The European Parliament is the best bet.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factshee ... principles

First see the work they have done there, I am sure you would find some data. In fact, if you look at the Renewables Energy part, then nuclear was never part of it even in 2009. So you need to read more, research more, look up what discussions and whatnot happened and then perhaps we would know more.

The latest I could find on the topic and this has signatures of all the memebers concerned.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 32018L2001

are you saying politicians and political parties can only be criticized on court?

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

EU is immune from public? Is it something authoritarian?

If you have a problem with Germany then take it in the EU court of justice or in EU policy, AFAIK, they always have policy meetings. The European Parliament is the best bet.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factshee ... principles

First see the work they have done there, I am sure you would find some data. In fact, if you look at the Renewables Energy part, then nuclear was never part of it even in 2009. So you need to read more, research more, look up what discussions and whatnot happened and then perhaps we would know more.

The latest I could find on the topic and this has signatures of all the memebers concerned.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 32018L2001

are you saying politicians and political parties can only be criticized on court?

When 26 countries have signed up to a document regarding a policy then there is nothing left to debate. Not 1 or 2 but 26 Governments. And this is for their future, not yours or mine. If you are a European citizen, write to your MP, impress upon them how it is so important, share all those studies that you have, I am sure they will listen to you.

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

If you have a problem with Germany then take it in the EU court of justice or in EU policy, AFAIK, they always have policy meetings. The European Parliament is the best bet.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factshee ... principles

First see the work they have done there, I am sure you would find some data. In fact, if you look at the Renewables Energy part, then nuclear was never part of it even in 2009. So you need to read more, research more, look up what discussions and whatnot happened and then perhaps we would know more.

The latest I could find on the topic and this has signatures of all the memebers concerned.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 32018L2001

are you saying politicians and political parties can only be criticized on court?

When 26 countries have signed up to a document regarding a policy then there is nothing left to debate. Not 1 or 2 but 26 Governments. And this is for their future, not yours or mine. If you are a European citizen, write to your MP, impress upon them how it is so important, share all those studies that you have, I am sure they will listen to you.

There are no document being signed yet hence Germany is expressing their disagreement against to the proposal, according to my understanding.

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

are you saying politicians and political parties can only be criticized on court?

When 26 countries have signed up to a document regarding a policy then there is nothing left to debate. Not 1 or 2 but 26 Governments. And this is for their future, not yours or mine. If you are a European citizen, write to your MP, impress upon them how it is so important, share all those studies that you have, I am sure they will listen to you.

There are no document being signed yet hence Germany is expressing their disagreement against to the proposal, according to my understanding.

Seems you didn't even read the link I gave, this is what happens when you don't want to read. Both when the 2009 directive and the 2018 Directive, in both nuclear was mentioned nowhere. In fact, in the 2008/9 Directive that was repealed UK was also a signatory.

Now 26 countries and each country has at least 3-4 people at the very least who would be reading and researching about energy policy and somehow you think you know better than all of them. And this is when usually the politicians have at their tips the kind of information we would never have. That is called information asymmetry.

Of course, you can go on dreaming however you want to dream.

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

When 26 countries have signed up to a document regarding a policy then there is nothing left to debate. Not 1 or 2 but 26 Governments. And this is for their future, not yours or mine. If you are a European citizen, write to your MP, impress upon them how it is so important, share all those studies that you have, I am sure they will listen to you.

There are no document being signed yet hence Germany is expressing their disagreement against to the proposal, according to my understanding.

Seems you didn't even read the link I gave, this is what happens when you don't want to read. Both when the 2009 directive and the 2018 Directive, in both nuclear was mentioned nowhere. In fact, in the 2008/9 Directive that was repealed UK was also a signatory.

Now 26 countries and each country has at least 3-4 people at the very least who would be reading and researching about energy policy and somehow you think you know better than all of them. And this is when usually the politicians have at their tips the kind of information we would never have. That is called information asymmetry.

Of course, you can go on dreaming however you want to dream.

The EU recommendation now is also to label nuclear as green. It's Germany who's disagreeing.

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

There are no document being signed yet hence Germany is expressing their disagreement against to the proposal, according to my understanding.

Seems you didn't even read the link I gave, this is what happens when you don't want to read. Both when the 2009 directive and the 2018 Directive, in both nuclear was mentioned nowhere. In fact, in the 2008/9 Directive that was repealed UK was also a signatory.

Now 26 countries and each country has at least 3-4 people at the very least who would be reading and researching about energy policy and somehow you think you know better than all of them. And this is when usually the politicians have at their tips the kind of information we would never have. That is called information asymmetry.

Of course, you can go on dreaming however you want to dream.

The EU recommendation now is also to label nuclear as green. It's Germany who's disagreeing.

Did you read the above link I shared as well as the 2008/9 Directive, if not I have nothing more to add.

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

Seems you didn't even read the link I gave, this is what happens when you don't want to read. Both when the 2009 directive and the 2018 Directive, in both nuclear was mentioned nowhere. In fact, in the 2008/9 Directive that was repealed UK was also a signatory.

Now 26 countries and each country has at least 3-4 people at the very least who would be reading and researching about energy policy and somehow you think you know better than all of them. And this is when usually the politicians have at their tips the kind of information we would never have. That is called information asymmetry.

Of course, you can go on dreaming however you want to dream.

The EU recommendation now is also to label nuclear as green. It's Germany who's disagreeing.

Did you read the above link I shared as well as the 2008/9 Directive, if not I have nothing more to add.

Like now they're putting up a new one

Usually in legislation they use the same things just update the dates and update it to sound more modern. For something truly path-breaking or whatever it is only done when you some kind of disaster, for e.g. when Brexit happened EU did emergency settings and I watched some of it, I read some of it and that was instructive as they wanted to protect the single market. And there again, all the countries were given time, almost 3-4 months, with documents even translated in the mother-tongues of the various countries and then they agreed. The Withdrawl agreement that was signed with all the countries onboard -

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/rela ... reement_en

This is for reference and that is how they conduct their business.

UK tried to play the countries in EU off one another but so far haven't been successful. Also lately, it seems the UK doesn't want to honor the agreement it agreed to. I don't understand why they agreed to something if they didn't understand it. And it isn't as if the UK is a new democracy or anything. In fact, it is one of the oldest, almost 200 years old so they should have been much prepared than the Europeans but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

pune wrote:

Usually in legislation they use the same things just update the dates and update it to sound more modern. For something truly path-breaking or whatever it is only done when you some kind of disaster, for e.g. when Brexit happened EU did emergency settings and I watched some of it, I read some of it and that was instructive as they wanted to protect the single market. And there again, all the countries were given time, almost 3-4 months, with documents even translated in the mother-tongues of the various countries and then they agreed. The Withdrawl agreement that was signed with all the countries onboard -

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/rela ... reement_en

This is for reference and that is how they conduct their business.

UK tried to play the countries in EU off one another but so far haven't been successful. Also lately, it seems the UK doesn't want to honor the agreement it agreed to. I don't understand why they agreed to something if they didn't understand it. And it isn't as if the UK is a new democracy or anything. In fact, it is one of the oldest, almost 200 years old so they should have been much prepared than the Europeans but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Can you explain how this post related to Germany's/EU's nuclear energy policy?

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

Usually in legislation they use the same things just update the dates and update it to sound more modern. For something truly path-breaking or whatever it is only done when you some kind of disaster, for e.g. when Brexit happened EU did emergency settings and I watched some of it, I read some of it and that was instructive as they wanted to protect the single market. And there again, all the countries were given time, almost 3-4 months, with documents even translated in the mother-tongues of the various countries and then they agreed. The Withdrawl agreement that was signed with all the countries onboard -

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/rela ... reement_en

This is for reference and that is how they conduct their business.

UK tried to play the countries in EU off one another but so far haven't been successful. Also lately, it seems the UK doesn't want to honor the agreement it agreed to. I don't understand why they agreed to something if they didn't understand it. And it isn't as if the UK is a new democracy or anything. In fact, it is one of the oldest, almost 200 years old so they should have been much prepared than the Europeans but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Can you explain how this post related to Germany's/EU's nuclear energy policy?

I explained to you how laws are made, as apparently, you have difficulty understanding how laws are made in the European parliament. That is actually why I shared the process. But if you still can't understand it, you perhaps need to find a better teacher

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

The pdf report I shared has 398 pages and multiple professors and people from various well-known Universities. Are you saying all of them are agenda-driven ???

https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The- ... COVID.html

That report is actually decently balanced and looks into the issues confronting nuclear power but it does not say it is bad.

(By the way, I don't actually see the 398 page report in the link you provided. I had to find it separately.)

Tugg

It's on the same webpage, please. Anyways, even after 3 pages, I am forced to ask the same question, how you are going to have nuclear waste secured for 1000 to 100k years and who is going to foot the bill to do so. If it's the taxpayer then solar and wind are way cheaper.

How much will climate change cost ? How many zeroes ?

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

Usually in legislation they use the same things just update the dates and update it to sound more modern. For something truly path-breaking or whatever it is only done when you some kind of disaster, for e.g. when Brexit happened EU did emergency settings and I watched some of it, I read some of it and that was instructive as they wanted to protect the single market. And there again, all the countries were given time, almost 3-4 months, with documents even translated in the mother-tongues of the various countries and then they agreed. The Withdrawl agreement that was signed with all the countries onboard -

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/rela ... reement_en

This is for reference and that is how they conduct their business.

UK tried to play the countries in EU off one another but so far haven't been successful. Also lately, it seems the UK doesn't want to honor the agreement it agreed to. I don't understand why they agreed to something if they didn't understand it. And it isn't as if the UK is a new democracy or anything. In fact, it is one of the oldest, almost 200 years old so they should have been much prepared than the Europeans but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Can you explain how this post related to Germany's/EU's nuclear energy policy?

I explained to you how laws are made, as apparently, you have difficulty understanding how laws are made in the European parliament. That is actually why I shared the process. But if you still can't understand it, you perhaps need to find a better teacher

Pretty sure the proposed labelling aren't law yet?

Aesma wrote:

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

That report is actually decently balanced and looks into the issues confronting nuclear power but it does not say it is bad.

(By the way, I don't actually see the 398 page report in the link you provided. I had to find it separately.)

Tugg

It's on the same webpage, please. Anyways, even after 3 pages, I am forced to ask the same question, how you are going to have nuclear waste secured for 1000 to 100k years and who is going to foot the bill to do so. If it's the taxpayer then solar and wind are way cheaper.

How much will climate change cost ? How many zeroes?

Are you saying we can't avert climate change without nuclear, please share me some peer-reviewed documents that show that? Would be glad to look at it.

Here's another one, this time by UK.

https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/files/energy_ ... -paper.pdf

As can be seen there are five technologies much butter than nuclear that are available to solve the climate change issues.

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Can you explain how this post related to Germany's/EU's nuclear energy policy?

I explained to you how laws are made, as apparently, you have difficulty understanding how laws are made in the European parliament. That is actually why I shared the process. But if you still can't understand it, you perhaps need to find a better teacher

Pretty sure the proposed labelling aren't law yet?

When you don't read laws, this is what happens.

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

I explained to you how laws are made, as apparently, you have difficulty understanding how laws are made in the European parliament. That is actually why I shared the process. But if you still can't understand it, you perhaps need to find a better teacher

Pretty sure the proposed labelling aren't law yet?

When you don't read laws, this is what happens.

????

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Pretty sure the proposed labelling aren't law yet?

When you don't read laws, this is what happens.

????

The ones I shared with you were all laws, but then if you can't get it, can't help you, sorry.

pune wrote:

Aesma wrote:

pune wrote:

It's on the same webpage, please. Anyways, even after 3 pages, I am forced to ask the same question, how you are going to have nuclear waste secured for 1000 to 100k years and who is going to foot the bill to do so. If it's the taxpayer then solar and wind are way cheaper.

How much will climate change cost ? How many zeroes?

Are you saying we can't avert climate change without nuclear, please share me some peer-reviewed documents that show that? Would be glad to look at it.

Here's another one, this time by UK.

https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/files/energy_ ... -paper.pdf

As can be seen there are five technologies much butter than nuclear that are available to solve the climate change issues.

What you shared is not a peer-reviewed document, but a working paper.

And to quote from it: Given the relatively low cost of gas, it could be possible to achieve cheaper scenarios by using gas in place of P2X fuels in some applications, but these of course would not be zero-emissions systems.

That is exactly what is happening with Germany and exactly what we’re discussing with regard to nuclear energy.

Manchin Just Gave Biden a Path for His Green Goals: ‘I’m Big on Nuclear’
"Manchin, the powerful Democrat from coal- and natural gas-rich West Virginia, backs the credit for nuclear plants that is tucked inside Biden’s Build Back Better legislation. Under the version passed by the House, a credit of as much as $15 per megawatt-hour could be claimed for the next six years. Manchin, whose support is necessary for Senate Democrats to pass the legislation on a party-line vote, wants the tax credit to last 10 years instead, according to three people familiar with the matter."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/manchin- ... 00687.html

pune wrote:

Aesma wrote:

pune wrote:

It's on the same webpage, please. Anyways, even after 3 pages, I am forced to ask the same question, how you are going to have nuclear waste secured for 1000 to 100k years and who is going to foot the bill to do so. If it's the taxpayer then solar and wind are way cheaper.

How much will climate change cost ? How many zeroes?

Are you saying we can't avert climate change without nuclear, please share me some peer-reviewed documents that show that? Would be glad to look at it.

Here's another one, this time by UK.

https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/files/energy_ ... -paper.pdf

As can be seen there are five technologies much butter than nuclear that are available to solve the climate change issues.

There is no need for "documents", and if they existed they wouldn't be peer-reviewed, this isn't science it's politics. To avoid or rather limit climate change, we should be reducing our CO2 output, towards 0. Everyone agrees in principle. What does Germany do ? Increase its output by shutting down nuclear plants.

It's of course possible to go 100% with one technology or another, the question is rather feasibility, cost, social acceptability, availability of resources, etc. For example wind turbines are more and more unpopular in France, despite being far less developed than elsewhere. We have now presidential candidates who promise to stop building them, while others promise to rip up existing ones.

Your paper looks interesting, I'll read it in detail when I have more time, I see storage is taken into account, and producing fuel for transportation, too. Is the CO2 production of building solar PV in China taken into account ? I'm surprised solar would figure as prominently if we're talking about production in the UK...

I personally quite like wind turbines, however I discovered recently that they require gigantic amounts of concrete compared to their electricity production and lifespans, concrete that needs to be removed after 20-25 years for a ridiculous amount of money. And so far their GFRP wings are buried in landfills because there is no recycling method for them.

Aesma wrote:

pune wrote:

Aesma wrote:

How much will climate change cost ? How many zeroes?

Are you saying we can't avert climate change without nuclear, please share me some peer-reviewed documents that show that? Would be glad to look at it.

Here's another one, this time by UK.

https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/files/energy_ ... -paper.pdf

As can be seen there are five technologies much butter than nuclear that are available to solve the climate change issues.

There is no need for "documents", and if they existed they wouldn't be peer-reviewed, this isn't science it's politics. To avoid or rather limit climate change, we should be reducing our CO2 output, towards 0. Everyone agrees in principle. What does Germany do ? Increase its output by shutting down nuclear plants.

It's of course possible to go 100% with one technology or another, the question is rather feasibility, cost, social acceptability, availability of resources, etc. For example wind turbines are more and more unpopular in France, despite being far less developed than elsewhere. We have now presidential candidates who promise to stop building them, while others promise to rip up existing ones.

Your paper looks interesting, I'll read it in detail when I have more time, I see storage is taken into account, and producing fuel for transportation, too. Is the CO2 production of building solar PV in China taken into account ? I'm surprised solar would figure as prominently if we're talking about production in the UK...

I personally quite like wind turbines, however I discovered recently that they require gigantic amounts of concrete compared to their electricity production and lifespans, concrete that needs to be removed after 20-25 years for a ridiculous amount of money. And so far their GFRP wings are buried in landfills because there is no recycling method for them.

Actually, not true. There are recyling methods and more recylining methods which are coming online. On top of that, there is lot of R&D to make new turbines that would be far easier to recyle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE0cGugRe1w

Now if you look at the video and Ms. Rosie shared another one just a month ago on the same topic as well as winglets and whatnot. I knew about pyrolsis before but this new method is/was not known to me. This is sort of FUD which is also done for batteries even though there is Tesla co-founder Mr. Straubel who is making redwood materials to recycle and reclaim most. Going forward, lithium is not gonna be a thing, it probably will be more sodium. I just read couple of papers where people see that the density of energy is much higher than lithium. And sodium is plentily available everywhere. So however you might try to justify, nuclear is always gonna be no-go when other options are better and much more easily available. As somebody had shared in another article, no terrorist can use a discarded wind turbine blade to make a 'dirty bomb; which can potentially kill thousands to millions, unlike spent nuclear fuel.

Well, as long as India and Pakistan have nuclear power plants (and they're building new ones, so that will be a long time) I would worry about such abuse over there first.

pune wrote:

So however you might try to justify, nuclear is always gonna be no-go when other options are better and much more easily available.

It’s amusing you keep claiming this despite the reality that China, India, France, Korea, the UAE etc are all “going there” in a big way.

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

So however you might try to justify, nuclear is always gonna be no-go when other options are better and much more easily available.

It’s amusing you keep claiming this despite the reality that China, India, France, Korea, the UAE etc are all “going there” in a big way.

Most of the countries you have quoted including India are also very big on nuclear weapons either for offensive or defensive purposes. Again, the issue oc nuclear waste disposal is left hanging. In the South where they wanted to install . Also as I shared the cost of energy from renewables is half than from nuclear.

https://thediplomat.com/2020/09/indias- ... n-its-way/

In South India where the latest nuclear reactor is supposed to come, there were massive protests but as RW BJP doesn't care as it disbelieves the idea that the natives of the land were from South India and all the rest are and were occupiers it didn't care and went on ahead. Wherever you see the lireature, it tells how rewable energy is far cheaper and much more easier to install and at lower cost both to people and environment. Only those who work for the nuclear industry would take any other view.

pune wrote:

Only those who work for the nuclear industry would take any other view.

This is untrue. I do not work for the nuclear industry and I "take the other view". I find nuclear to be a safe a reliable method to produce electricity with little to no C)2 output over its lifetime (concrete in the construction being the largest contributor). It has risks and its spent fuel must be dealt with but neither problem is insurmountable and are manageable compared to to alternative that can provide steady state electricity production.

Done with appropriate care and precautions (not zero risk) I am "big" on nuclear as one part of our current electrical generation plans.

Tugg

And India is not alone in such protests, something latest -

https://english.radio.cz/hundreds-demon ... ia-8738693

What politicians have learned who want to earn fat comissions by nuclear power is to do it in hinterland i.e. rural areas in the hopes that it's less noticeable and even if they protest, they can be quickly put down by police abuse of power and that has happened quite a few times.

Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

Only those who work for the nuclear industry would take any other view.

This is untrue. I do not work for the nuclear industry and I "take the other view". I find nuclear to be a safe a reliable method to produce electricity with little to no C)2 output over its lifetime (concrete in the construction being the largest contributor). It has risks and its spent fuel must be dealt with but neither problem is insurmountable and are manageable compared to to alternative that can provide steady state electricity production.

Done with appropriate care and precautions (not zero risk) I am "big" on nuclear as one part of our current electrical generation plans.

Tugg

If I were a betting person I would say by the end of the decade, there would be less than half the nuclear plants and going forward even lesser as more and more renewables take over. Especially as more and more money and R&D is done on solar and wind and other renewable power energy projects. E.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AktehETXUVA

pune wrote:

If I were a betting person I would say by the end of the decade, there would be less than half the nuclear plants and going forward even lesser as more and more renewables take over. Especially as more and more money and R&D is done on solar and wind and other renewable power energy projects. E.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AktehETXUVA

Why not make that bet if you feel so strongly?

Also how do you see solar and wind and other renewable energy systems solving the need for steady state and instant power? Especially knowing how damaging battery storage is.

Tugg