Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
The German government on Saturday slammed plans by the European Commission to include nuclear energy and natural gas in its long-awaited green labeling system for investments in the energy sector.
Economy and Climate Protection Minister Robert Habeck and Environment Minister Steffi Lemke, both from the Green party, sharply criticized the Commission initiative, and Habeck — who is also German vice-chancellor — said Berlin could not back the proposed scheme.
Dutchy wrote:And as we have been talking about, the financial industry isn't supporting the proposal as well.
c933103 wrote:here I would like to discuss how some countries and political factions,especially those who claim to be for the peotection of environment, decided to deprioritize nuclear below gas, or even coal, despite the greatest common threat being green house gas emission, and data is clear on which would produce less.
seb146 wrote:Science is very close to CO2 recycling. What can be made with spent fuel rods and the water used to cool the rods?
seb146 wrote:Science is very close to CO2 recycling.
atcsundevil wrote:The thread title has been updated, as it was deemed to be flamebait/clickbait. It has been changed accordingly as referenced from the articles.
Yes, the Greens are part of the governing ampelkoalition, but referencing them in relation to the government deeming "some" natural gas projects to be green energy is a gross oversimplification of the dynamics of coalition governance. Therefore, it's flamebait. Please avoid that sort of political flamebait and just discuss the topic.
✈️ atcsundevil
atcsundevil wrote:The thread title has been updated, as it was deemed to be flamebait/clickbait. It has been changed accordingly as referenced from the articles.
Yes, the Greens are part of the governing ampelkoalition, but referencing them in relation to the government deeming "some" natural gas projects to be green energy is a gross oversimplification of the dynamics of coalition governance. Therefore, it's flamebait. Please avoid that sort of political flamebait and just discuss the topic.
✈️ atcsundevil
atcsundevil wrote:The thread title has been updated, as it was deemed to be flamebait/clickbait. It has been changed accordingly as referenced from the articles.
Yes, the Greens are part of the governing ampelkoalition, but referencing them in relation to the government deeming "some" natural gas projects to be green energy is a gross oversimplification of the dynamics of coalition governance. Therefore, it's flamebait. Please avoid that sort of political flamebait and just discuss the topic.
✈️ atcsundevil
c933103 wrote:As opposed to the fossil fuel centric discussion over the other thread, here I would like to discuss how some countries and political factions,especially those who claim to be for the peotection of environment, decided to deprioritize nuclear below gas, or even coal, despite the greatest common threat being green house gas emission, and data is clear on which would produce less.
Noray wrote:atcsundevil wrote:The thread title has been updated, as it was deemed to be flamebait/clickbait. It has been changed accordingly as referenced from the articles.
Yes, the Greens are part of the governing ampelkoalition, but referencing them in relation to the government deeming "some" natural gas projects to be green energy is a gross oversimplification of the dynamics of coalition governance. Therefore, it's flamebait. Please avoid that sort of political flamebait and just discuss the topic.
✈️ atcsundevil
Thanks for taking action, but sorry, that's not what these articles say. So I don't think that the new title is an improvement.
To begin with, as Dutchy wrote, it's not a German, but a EU proposal under the new French leadership, and Germany is critical of some aspects.
Secondly, the EU proposal is to declare some investments in nuclear and gas power as environment friendly.
Thirdly, both energy sources are controversial in Germany. Rejection of nuclear energy is stronger in Germany than rejection of gas-fired power plants. But that doesn't mean that gas-fired power plants are generally considered as green energy. Gas is seen as a bridge technology that helps to reduce the even more environment unfriendly coal-based power generation. The reason we still burn lots of coal is that this is what is locally available.
Fourthly, the discussion distracts from the actually more environmentally friendly renewable energy sources.c933103 wrote:As opposed to the fossil fuel centric discussion over the other thread, here I would like to discuss how some countries and political factions,especially those who claim to be for the peotection of environment, decided to deprioritize nuclear below gas, or even coal, despite the greatest common threat being green house gas emission, and data is clear on which would produce less.
As you can read in French train stations: "Un Train peut en cacher un autre". There may lurk another danger behind the one you're currently focusing on. We shouldn't look at green house gas alone and forget the dangers we leave behind to future generations with nuclear power.
Another reason why gas-fired power plants can be seen as environment friendly, on the long term, is that one day they can be converted from natural gas to hydrogen.
atcsundevil wrote:The thread title has been updated, as it was deemed to be flamebait/clickbait. It has been changed accordingly as referenced from the articles.
Yes, the Greens are part of the governing ampelkoalition, but referencing them in relation to the government deeming "some" natural gas projects to be green energy is a gross oversimplification of the dynamics of coalition governance. Therefore, it's flamebait. Please avoid that sort of political flamebait and just discuss the topic.
✈️ atcsundevil
Noray wrote:c933103 wrote:As opposed to the fossil fuel centric discussion over the other thread, here I would like to discuss how some countries and political factions,especially those who claim to be for the peotection of environment, decided to deprioritize nuclear below gas, or even coal, despite the greatest common threat being green house gas emission, and data is clear on which would produce less.
As you can read in French train stations: "Un Train peut en cacher un autre". There may lurk another danger behind the one you're currently focusing on. We shouldn't look at green house gas alone and forget the dangers we leave behind to future generations with nuclear power.
Another reason why gas-fired power plants can be seen as environment friendly, on the long term, is that one day they can be converted from natural gas to hydrogen.
Aesma wrote:As for the waste, France is building an underground facility to store it (other countries, too). It's like a coal mine, basically. One mine. To store all nuclear waste for 100 years of production. It doesn't even register.
Meanwhile Germany is polluting the atmosphere of the whole planet (not alone of course), with immediate consequences. Irreversible consequences. And on top of it, becoming Putin's puppets in the process !
c933103 wrote:Noray wrote:c933103 wrote:As opposed to the fossil fuel centric discussion over the other thread, here I would like to discuss how some countries and political factions,especially those who claim to be for the peotection of environment, decided to deprioritize nuclear below gas, or even coal, despite the greatest common threat being green house gas emission, and data is clear on which would produce less.
As you can read in French train stations: "Un Train peut en cacher un autre". There may lurk another danger behind the one you're currently focusing on. We shouldn't look at green house gas alone and forget the dangers we leave behind to future generations with nuclear power.
Another reason why gas-fired power plants can be seen as environment friendly, on the long term, is that one day they can be converted from natural gas to hydrogen.
At least those radioactive matters in nuclear plants even if exploded in worse possible way wouldn't go up to atmosphere and then stay in the atmosphere surrounding the entire world for centuries.
Of the three cases of most significant radioactive disasters, only Chernobyl have significant wide area impact, and that's due to the use of graphite in the nuclear plant, which is something comparable to using hydrogen in airship. Three Mile Island is only localized to the plant itself, and Fukushima after 10 years is reopening most of the area previously closed for high radiation, leaving only part of the two nearest towns closed as well as area deep inside mountain that haven't cleaned up yet. Looking back its damage and its danger on life from the plant itself was definitely only a minor share of consequence of the earthquake and tsunami back then, which killed tens of thousands, and have cities entirely washed away having to rebuilt further away from coast with whoever who survived.
Using hydrogran in power plant doesn't seems to make sense, as hydrogen need to be generated using power, which make it a possible candidate for mobile fuel, but what's the point of generating hydrogen using power and then burning those hydrogen back at fixed location?
Also, what's the justification of closing coals decade later than nuclear? Even when local impact is concerned, coal is consistently bad even if they're working "properly", unlike nuclear
Aesma wrote:As for the waste, France is building an underground facility to store it (other countries, too). It's like a coal mine, basically. One mine. To store all nuclear waste for 100 years of production. It doesn't even register.
Meanwhile Germany is polluting the atmosphere of the whole planet (not alone of course), with immediate consequences. Irreversible consequences. And on top of it, becoming Putin's puppets in the process !
Dutchy wrote:I understood that nuclear waste is dangerous for 250.000years. And that is mind-boggling. 250.000years ago we modern humans sapiens just started out and Neanderthals still had 220.000years to live before going extinct.
So the only real thing you can do is bury it deep in a stable layer in the ground and hope it will not cause any problem in 50.000years.
Dutchy wrote:I understood that nuclear waste is dangerous for 250.000years. And that is mind-boggling. 250.000years ago we modern humans sapiens just started out and Neanderthals still had 220.000years to live before going extinct.
So the only real thing you can do is bury it deep in a stable layer in the ground and hope it will not cause any problem in 50.000years.
flyguy89 wrote:Dutchy wrote:I understood that nuclear waste is dangerous for 250.000years. And that is mind-boggling. 250.000years ago we modern humans sapiens just started out and Neanderthals still had 220.000years to live before going extinct.
So the only real thing you can do is bury it deep in a stable layer in the ground and hope it will not cause any problem in 50.000years.
Approximately just 10% of nuclear waste has a half life greater than 30 years. We’re talking about a small amount of waste for a substantial amount of zero carbon energy. Again, climate change is an existential threat, nuclear waste is not and an eminently solvable problem. I recall reading somewhere that the amount of nuclear waste generated to cover a lifetime’s worth energy consumption for the average American would be the size of a soda can…and you can cut that at least in half when you factor in other renewable energy sources.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... =125740818
pune wrote:Aesma wrote:As for the waste, France is building an underground facility to store it (other countries, too). It's like a coal mine, basically. One mine. To store all nuclear waste for 100 years of production. It doesn't even register.
Meanwhile Germany is polluting the atmosphere of the whole planet (not alone of course), with immediate consequences. Irreversible consequences. And on top of it, becoming Putin's puppets in the process !
The problem is that the decay chain would be longer than 100 years, if it was just 100 years then it wouldn't be the nightmare nuclear is. From what little I know both Uranium-235 and Plutonium have a half life of 4 billion years and 24000 years respectively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium
So 100 years is a joke. I was seeing a documentary few years back where the scientists themselves have no idea how to convey processing of nuclear waste for future generations.
Just to take an example of that time-scale, think of the time of Sumerian Kings, all that is lost and is now just guess-work -
https://www.gaia.com/article/sumerian-kings-list
So the idea that information like above would test the time for thousands of years is a fantasy. At the most, it comes to as shared in one another thread, I will be long dead whenever a nuclear catastrophe strikes, so how do I care ???
Noray wrote:c933103 wrote:Noray wrote:
As you can read in French train stations: "Un Train peut en cacher un autre". There may lurk another danger behind the one you're currently focusing on. We shouldn't look at green house gas alone and forget the dangers we leave behind to future generations with nuclear power.
Another reason why gas-fired power plants can be seen as environment friendly, on the long term, is that one day they can be converted from natural gas to hydrogen.
At least those radioactive matters in nuclear plants even if exploded in worse possible way wouldn't go up to atmosphere and then stay in the atmosphere surrounding the entire world for centuries.
Of the three cases of most significant radioactive disasters, only Chernobyl have significant wide area impact, and that's due to the use of graphite in the nuclear plant, which is something comparable to using hydrogen in airship. Three Mile Island is only localized to the plant itself, and Fukushima after 10 years is reopening most of the area previously closed for high radiation, leaving only part of the two nearest towns closed as well as area deep inside mountain that haven't cleaned up yet. Looking back its damage and its danger on life from the plant itself was definitely only a minor share of consequence of the earthquake and tsunami back then, which killed tens of thousands, and have cities entirely washed away having to rebuilt further away from coast with whoever who survived.
Using hydrogran in power plant doesn't seems to make sense, as hydrogen need to be generated using power, which make it a possible candidate for mobile fuel, but what's the point of generating hydrogen using power and then burning those hydrogen back at fixed location?
Also, what's the justification of closing coals decade later than nuclear? Even when local impact is concerned, coal is consistently bad even if they're working "properly", unlike nuclear
Hydrogen can be created from renewable energy sources where/when these are plentyful and then transported to the place of consumption that doesn't (constantly) have renewable energy available.
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.
pune wrote:it has yet to be demonstrated by numbers and everything how it will all work out. The whole thing has been told vaguely without any definite timelines.
flyguy89 wrote:pune wrote:it has yet to be demonstrated by numbers and everything how it will all work out. The whole thing has been told vaguely without any definite timelines.
I guess I’m not clear what you mean exactly because it in fact has been demonstrated. Right now. Large scale nuclear power has been operating continually in a number of countries safely for many decades, with far less environmental and human toll than fossil fuel generated power. The numbers are in and the difference in safety profile between nuclear and fossil fuels couldn’t be more stark…99.7% fewer deaths compared to coal, 97.5% fewer deaths compared to gas.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
As Aesma pointed out, nuclear waste is a concern and consideration, but an incredibly small and solvable one compared to climate change. It’s hard to take seriously any group like the German Greens who professes the existential threat of climate change yet preferences increased reliance on fossil fuels vs. nuclear despite the latter’s zero carbon footprint and incredibly strong safety profile. If that’s the route Germany wants to go that’s fine, but shouldn’t be forcing those preferences on the other EU countries.
MohawkWeekend wrote:Two questions -
1) we've had nuclear waste in large amounts since the early 1940s. Nobody has figured away to safely store it permanently or render it harmless including the guy with unlimited pockets - the US. Why does anyone think the solution is just around the corner?
2) Private insurers (at least in the US) won't touch a nuclear power plant with a ten foot pole.The have a pretty good reason to study risk. Have they been wrong all these years?
Aaron747 wrote:MohawkWeekend wrote:Two questions -
1) we've had nuclear waste in large amounts since the early 1940s. Nobody has figured away to safely store it permanently or render it harmless including the guy with unlimited pockets - the US. Why does anyone think the solution is just around the corner?
2) Private insurers (at least in the US) won't touch a nuclear power plant with a ten foot pole.The have a pretty good reason to study risk. Have they been wrong all these years?
I really don't see much of a distinction between #2 and both construction and aviation. Both are fields many laypersons consider to be very dangerous, but they are actually quite safe in normal operation when people are paying attention to what they do, have proper training, and management doesn't cut corners. With those conditions met, insurers cover those activities. Nuclear power generation is exactly like this, except accidents potentially affect a wider area than just the plant workers or airline passengers. If the necessary human factors are addressed, plant safety should not be an issue. Both Fukushima and Chernobyl presented clear examples of letting all the holes in the Swiss cheese line up - it's a bit presumptuous for an insurer to assume all ops will be run in the same fashion.
flyguy89 wrote:Dutchy wrote:I understood that nuclear waste is dangerous for 250.000years. And that is mind-boggling. 250.000years ago we modern humans sapiens just started out and Neanderthals still had 220.000years to live before going extinct.
So the only real thing you can do is bury it deep in a stable layer in the ground and hope it will not cause any problem in 50.000years.
Approximately just 10% of nuclear waste has a half life greater than 30 years. We’re talking about a small amount of waste for a substantial amount of zero carbon energy. Again, climate change is an existential threat, nuclear waste is not and an eminently solvable problem. I recall reading somewhere that the amount of nuclear waste generated to cover a lifetime’s worth energy consumption for the average American would be the size of a soda can…and you can cut that at least in half when you factor in other renewable energy sources.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... =125740818
MohawkWeekend wrote:Two questions -
1) we've had nuclear waste in large amounts since the early 1940s. Nobody has figured away to safely store it permanently or render it harmless including the guy with unlimited pockets - the US. Why does anyone think the solution is just around the corner?
2) Private insurers (at least in the US) won't touch a nuclear power plant with a ten foot pole.The have a pretty good reason to study risk. Have they been wrong all these years?
GDB wrote:Aaron747 wrote:MohawkWeekend wrote:Two questions -
1) we've had nuclear waste in large amounts since the early 1940s. Nobody has figured away to safely store it permanently or render it harmless including the guy with unlimited pockets - the US. Why does anyone think the solution is just around the corner?
2) Private insurers (at least in the US) won't touch a nuclear power plant with a ten foot pole.The have a pretty good reason to study risk. Have they been wrong all these years?
I really don't see much of a distinction between #2 and both construction and aviation. Both are fields many laypersons consider to be very dangerous, but they are actually quite safe in normal operation when people are paying attention to what they do, have proper training, and management doesn't cut corners. With those conditions met, insurers cover those activities. Nuclear power generation is exactly like this, except accidents potentially affect a wider area than just the plant workers or airline passengers. If the necessary human factors are addressed, plant safety should not be an issue. Both Fukushima and Chernobyl presented clear examples of letting all the holes in the Swiss cheese line up - it's a bit presumptuous for an insurer to assume all ops will be run in the same fashion.
I do get fed up when the blurt of ‘but...Chernobyl’, what about it? A reactor design rejected by the UK and almost certainly the US in the late 1940’s, when the earliest planning for the first power stations were being considered, as too unsafe, used shitty fuel, uniquely no containment, cheap and nasty, quick and dirty, run under a decaying, corrupt system. We don’t ground Western aircraft if a Russian one crashes due to design and/or maintenance errors after all.
As for Fukushima, what a place to build, vulnerable to events like Earthquakes and associated Tsunami and with especially inadequate defenses against the latter.
Three Mile Island, not to brush it off but how many died? How severe was the radiation discharge? Did it remotely compare with the two above?
Many Greens in the UK have accepted, some advocated even, for nuclear power to be a part of cleaner energy, it does seem a German Green obsession, maybe it’s DNA are the influence of some of the original founders, some of their wacky ideas.
bpatus297 wrote:flyguy89 wrote:Dutchy wrote:I understood that nuclear waste is dangerous for 250.000years. And that is mind-boggling. 250.000years ago we modern humans sapiens just started out and Neanderthals still had 220.000years to live before going extinct.
So the only real thing you can do is bury it deep in a stable layer in the ground and hope it will not cause any problem in 50.000years.
Approximately just 10% of nuclear waste has a half life greater than 30 years. We’re talking about a small amount of waste for a substantial amount of zero carbon energy. Again, climate change is an existential threat, nuclear waste is not and an eminently solvable problem. I recall reading somewhere that the amount of nuclear waste generated to cover a lifetime’s worth energy consumption for the average American would be the size of a soda can…and you can cut that at least in half when you factor in other renewable energy sources.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... =125740818
Spent nuclear fuel can also be reprocessed and used again is other reactors. I am still looking into the specifics, but I think this is done in most countries outside of the US. Reactors can also be designed for other fuels, such as Thorium (Th). Th has a lot of advantages over Pu and U. The reason the US wanted Pu and U over Th reactors was for weapons proliferation. Nuclear has some challenges, just like any other source of energy, but nothing that can't be worked out.
GDB wrote:Aaron747 wrote:MohawkWeekend wrote:Two questions -
1) we've had nuclear waste in large amounts since the early 1940s. Nobody has figured away to safely store it permanently or render it harmless including the guy with unlimited pockets - the US. Why does anyone think the solution is just around the corner?
2) Private insurers (at least in the US) won't touch a nuclear power plant with a ten foot pole.The have a pretty good reason to study risk. Have they been wrong all these years?
I really don't see much of a distinction between #2 and both construction and aviation. Both are fields many laypersons consider to be very dangerous, but they are actually quite safe in normal operation when people are paying attention to what they do, have proper training, and management doesn't cut corners. With those conditions met, insurers cover those activities. Nuclear power generation is exactly like this, except accidents potentially affect a wider area than just the plant workers or airline passengers. If the necessary human factors are addressed, plant safety should not be an issue. Both Fukushima and Chernobyl presented clear examples of letting all the holes in the Swiss cheese line up - it's a bit presumptuous for an insurer to assume all ops will be run in the same fashion.
I do get fed up when the blurt of ‘but...Chernobyl’, what about it? A reactor design rejected by the UK and almost certainly the US in the late 1940’s, when the earliest planning for the first power stations were being considered, as too unsafe, used shitty fuel, uniquely no containment, cheap and nasty, quick and dirty, run under a decaying, corrupt system. We don’t ground Western aircraft if a Russian one crashes due to design and/or maintenance errors after all.
As for Fukushima, what a place to build, vulnerable to events like Earthquakes and associated Tsunami and with especially inadequate defenses against the latter.
Three Mile Island, not to brush it off but how many died? How severe was the radiation discharge? Did it remotely compare with the two above?
Many Greens in the UK have accepted, some advocated even, for nuclear power to be a part of cleaner energy, it does seem a German Green obsession, maybe it’s DNA are the influence of some of the original founders, some of their wacky ideas.
Dutchy wrote:bpatus297 wrote:flyguy89 wrote:Approximately just 10% of nuclear waste has a half life greater than 30 years. We’re talking about a small amount of waste for a substantial amount of zero carbon energy. Again, climate change is an existential threat, nuclear waste is not and an eminently solvable problem. I recall reading somewhere that the amount of nuclear waste generated to cover a lifetime’s worth energy consumption for the average American would be the size of a soda can…and you can cut that at least in half when you factor in other renewable energy sources.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... =125740818
Spent nuclear fuel can also be reprocessed and used again is other reactors. I am still looking into the specifics, but I think this is done in most countries outside of the US. Reactors can also be designed for other fuels, such as Thorium (Th). Th has a lot of advantages over Pu and U. The reason the US wanted Pu and U over Th reactors was for weapons proliferation. Nuclear has some challenges, just like any other source of energy, but nothing that can't be worked out.
Thorium reactors aren't operational, as far as I know. China seems to be the one who is the closest. So yeah, it might work to keep nuclear waste more manageable, and keep it 'only' dangerous for a few hundred years.
pune wrote:GDB wrote:Aaron747 wrote:
I really don't see much of a distinction between #2 and both construction and aviation. Both are fields many laypersons consider to be very dangerous, but they are actually quite safe in normal operation when people are paying attention to what they do, have proper training, and management doesn't cut corners. With those conditions met, insurers cover those activities. Nuclear power generation is exactly like this, except accidents potentially affect a wider area than just the plant workers or airline passengers. If the necessary human factors are addressed, plant safety should not be an issue. Both Fukushima and Chernobyl presented clear examples of letting all the holes in the Swiss cheese line up - it's a bit presumptuous for an insurer to assume all ops will be run in the same fashion.
I do get fed up when the blurt of ‘but...Chernobyl’, what about it? A reactor design rejected by the UK and almost certainly the US in the late 1940’s, when the earliest planning for the first power stations were being considered, as too unsafe, used shitty fuel, uniquely no containment, cheap and nasty, quick and dirty, run under a decaying, corrupt system. We don’t ground Western aircraft if a Russian one crashes due to design and/or maintenance errors after all.
As for Fukushima, what a place to build, vulnerable to events like Earthquakes and associated Tsunami and with especially inadequate defenses against the latter.
Three Mile Island, not to brush it off but how many died? How severe was the radiation discharge? Did it remotely compare with the two above?
Many Greens in the UK have accepted, some advocated even, for nuclear power to be a part of cleaner energy, it does seem a German Green obsession, maybe it’s DNA are the influence of some of the original founders, some of their wacky ideas.
For Fukushima, apart from the vulnerable site where it was put up, ironically if you had seen the documentary/docu-drama shared by me, the reactor which gave the Japanese the most problems was not Russian but the ones made by America. That was commented multiple times in that, and it was the first reactor to go. Of course all the blame was put on the Japanese, nothing on IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/) that actually has to approve each and every thing and is supposed to have an overarching interest in safe operations of nuclear reactors.
The problem is and was in most incidents, there is and was cover-up and still is because if truly the questions are asked, it would open up a pandora's box. I am sure people would disregard this as they have done to other posts when questions of accountability have been asked.
bpatus297 wrote:pune wrote:GDB wrote:
I do get fed up when the blurt of ‘but...Chernobyl’, what about it? A reactor design rejected by the UK and almost certainly the US in the late 1940’s, when the earliest planning for the first power stations were being considered, as too unsafe, used shitty fuel, uniquely no containment, cheap and nasty, quick and dirty, run under a decaying, corrupt system. We don’t ground Western aircraft if a Russian one crashes due to design and/or maintenance errors after all.
As for Fukushima, what a place to build, vulnerable to events like Earthquakes and associated Tsunami and with especially inadequate defenses against the latter.
Three Mile Island, not to brush it off but how many died? How severe was the radiation discharge? Did it remotely compare with the two above?
Many Greens in the UK have accepted, some advocated even, for nuclear power to be a part of cleaner energy, it does seem a German Green obsession, maybe it’s DNA are the influence of some of the original founders, some of their wacky ideas.
For Fukushima, apart from the vulnerable site where it was put up, ironically if you had seen the documentary/docu-drama shared by me, the reactor which gave the Japanese the most problems was not Russian but the ones made by America. That was commented multiple times in that, and it was the first reactor to go. Of course all the blame was put on the Japanese, nothing on IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/) that actually has to approve each and every thing and is supposed to have an overarching interest in safe operations of nuclear reactors.
The problem is and was in most incidents, there is and was cover-up and still is because if truly the questions are asked, it would open up a pandora's box. I am sure people would disregard this as they have done to other posts when questions of accountability have been asked.
Simply put, Fukushima was caused by a dumb design which is now glaringly obviously a bad design. Diesel back-up generators and fuel tanks in the basement of an area that was likely to be hit by a tsunami.
Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:pune wrote:
For Fukushima, apart from the vulnerable site where it was put up, ironically if you had seen the documentary/docu-drama shared by me, the reactor which gave the Japanese the most problems was not Russian but the ones made by America. That was commented multiple times in that, and it was the first reactor to go. Of course all the blame was put on the Japanese, nothing on IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/) that actually has to approve each and every thing and is supposed to have an overarching interest in safe operations of nuclear reactors.
The problem is and was in most incidents, there is and was cover-up and still is because if truly the questions are asked, it would open up a pandora's box. I am sure people would disregard this as they have done to other posts when questions of accountability have been asked.
Simply put, Fukushima was caused by a dumb design which is now glaringly obviously a bad design. Diesel back-up generators and fuel tanks in the basement of an area that was likely to be hit by a tsunami.
As posted above, based on the seismic data and tsunami historical record the Japanese had in the 1960s, they thought 15m seawall protection would be sufficient.
Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:pune wrote:
For Fukushima, apart from the vulnerable site where it was put up, ironically if you had seen the documentary/docu-drama shared by me, the reactor which gave the Japanese the most problems was not Russian but the ones made by America. That was commented multiple times in that, and it was the first reactor to go. Of course all the blame was put on the Japanese, nothing on IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/) that actually has to approve each and every thing and is supposed to have an overarching interest in safe operations of nuclear reactors.
The problem is and was in most incidents, there is and was cover-up and still is because if truly the questions are asked, it would open up a pandora's box. I am sure people would disregard this as they have done to other posts when questions of accountability have been asked.
Simply put, Fukushima was caused by a dumb design which is now glaringly obviously a bad design. Diesel back-up generators and fuel tanks in the basement of an area that was likely to be hit by a tsunami.
As posted above, based on the seismic data and tsunami historical record the Japanese had in the 1960s, they thought 15m seawall protection would be sufficient.
bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:
Simply put, Fukushima was caused by a dumb design which is now glaringly obviously a bad design. Diesel back-up generators and fuel tanks in the basement of an area that was likely to be hit by a tsunami.
As posted above, based on the seismic data and tsunami historical record the Japanese had in the 1960s, they thought 15m seawall protection would be sufficient.
They still put the back-up generator that provides power to cool the spent fuel in the basement.
MohawkWeekend wrote:Again - after 80 years of work by many countries, that there is no way to safely (now or in the near future) to safely remediate nuclear waste? Is it some great conspiracy?
The German Greens get it. I get it. We have no right to leave a deadly toxin (and its the most deadly toxin on earth) for people 100 years from now to deal with.
And the comment "Interestingly, the U.S. didn't offer any help or 'expertise' when it comes to cleaning up because either they don't know or they don't want to get into the mess, so much for 'friendship". I suggest you research that a bit because no country helped Japan more than the US
In fact, had the US Navy not provided tons of cooling water, the disaster would have been even worse.
"Under the name Operation Tomodachi (Friend), all branches of the United States armed services in Japan were involved in rescue and relief activities. At the peak of operations, 20 U.S. ships, 160 aircraft, and more than 20 000 personnel were involved. Mississippi and Alabama National Guard forces joined those from Kentucky and Guam to assist with Operation Tomodachi. 500,000 gallons of fresh water has been provided from the US Navy to support cooling efforts at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:
As posted above, based on the seismic data and tsunami historical record the Japanese had in the 1960s, they thought 15m seawall protection would be sufficient.
They still put the back-up generator that provides power to cool the spent fuel in the basement.
Um yes, based on the belief there would be no flooding of the basement due to the seawall protection being sufficient. Connect the dots.
pune wrote:flyguy89 wrote:pune wrote:it has yet to be demonstrated by numbers and everything how it will all work out. The whole thing has been told vaguely without rany definite timelines.
I guess I’m not clear what you mean exactly because it in fact has been demonstrated. Right now. Large scale nuclear power has been operating continually in a number of countries safely for many decades, with far less environmental and human toll than fossil fuel generated power. The numbers are in and the difference in safety profile between nuclear and fossil fuels couldn’t be more stark…99.7% fewer deaths compared to coal, 97.5% fewer deaths compared to gas.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
As Aesma pointed out, nuclear waste is a concern and consideration, but an incredibly small and solvable one compared to climate change. It’s hard to take seriously any group like the German Greens who professes the existential threat of climate change yet preferences increased reliance on fossil fuels vs. nuclear despite the latter’s zero carbon footprint and incredibly strong safety profile. If that’s the route Germany wants to go that’s fine, but shouldn’t be forcing those preferences on the other EU countries.
No, the way forward is wind, solar and such kind of initiatives. Fossil fuels are on the way out as they should be. I have asked multiple times on this thread itself as to why China and say Europe are going en-masse to EV. In China, almost all EV manufacturers showing 200+ growth while ICE vehicles are way down. The same trend is happening in Europe.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/30/15 ... -november/
And this is when the Chinese have not even entered the markets as of yet, once they do, the numbers will be vastly different and it will take more share from both EV as well as ICE vehicles who are on their last legs anyway.
flyguy89 wrote:pune wrote:flyguy89 wrote:I guess I’m not clear what you mean exactly because it in fact has been demonstrated. Right now. Large scale nuclear power has been operating continually in a number of countries safely for many decades, with far less environmental and human toll than fossil fuel generated power. The numbers are in and the difference in safety profile between nuclear and fossil fuels couldn’t be more stark…99.7% fewer deaths compared to coal, 97.5% fewer deaths compared to gas.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
As Aesma pointed out, nuclear waste is a concern and consideration, but an incredibly small and solvable one compared to climate change. It’s hard to take seriously any group like the German Greens who professes the existential threat of climate change yet preferences increased reliance on fossil fuels vs. nuclear despite the latter’s zero carbon footprint and incredibly strong safety profile. If that’s the route Germany wants to go that’s fine, but shouldn’t be forcing those preferences on the other EU countries.
No, the way forward is wind, solar and such kind of initiatives. Fossil fuels are on the way out as they should be. I have asked multiple times on this thread itself as to why China and say Europe are going en-masse to EV. In China, almost all EV manufacturers showing 200+ growth while ICE vehicles are way down. The same trend is happening in Europe.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/30/15 ... -november/
And this is when the Chinese have not even entered the markets as of yet, once they do, the numbers will be vastly different and it will take more share from both EV as well as ICE vehicles who are on their last legs anyway.
The Chinese also have about 13 new nuclear power plants under construction with advanced research into the next gen Molten Salt Reactors which produce no net waste. At their rate they may go carbon zero before even Germany.
Wind and solar certainly have a crucial and growing role to play as well, no one said otherwise. But again, climate change being an existential threat…kind of hard to ignore this extant, incredibly safe, zero-carbon power source that many countries are looking to leverage in tandem with other renewables to move *quickly* toward carbon zero and energy independence.