Germany is committed to closing Nuclear Power Plants

[RobertEarl]

Germany is the only nation that is committed to reducing nuclear power production and cleaning up the mess.

The rest of the world keeps planning and building even more. The USA nuclear-political complex is not committed to a production decline or even figuring out what to do with the nuclear waste.

[zappaman]

1. So you're moving to Germany?

Whereabouts?
I've been all over but have a soft spot for Bonn...

Be sure to give us a shout when you settle in!

[RobertEarl]

2. What about Japan?

Japan has close to 50 reactors that have not blown up yet, like Fukushima did. So, for the time being the policy is to eventually re-start these reactors and build new ones. Sure, lots of Japanese are quite upset with such plans, just as they were before nukes were ever built on the islands, but big money rules Japan. So the Japanese policy is: More Nukes.

[Bonobo]

4. Actually, as usual, you're wrong. nt

[RobertEarl]

3. The US

The US has started building several new plants. Only with government guarantees that the construction loans will be paid.

And the NRC has issued several renew permits to keep old plants burning.

Sure, the ex-head of the NRC has come out saying we need to close down several Fukushima styled plants, and that is why he is the ex-head.

So the US is committed to keeping nuke plants like Fukushima running.

[Bonobo]

5. TEPCO decides permanent shutdown of 2 surviving Fukushima reactors

http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20131218p2g00m0dm094000c.html

[RobertEarl]

6. Because they blew up?

Those two (5&6) are a part of the Fukishima complex. It has been noted that those two plants had some serious problems also, just not quite as evident as the others (1 thru 4).

[Bonobo]

7. Nope.

"Tokyo Electric Power Co. decided Wednesday to declare defunct the two reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant that suffered no major damage in the 2011 disaster, a move that will reduce the number of operable commercial reactors in Japan to 48."

[RobertEarl]

8. Sure, We can trust Tepco

They never lie and they are always right.

That's what they are closing the plants down, because nothing is wrong with them?

[Bonobo]

9. Funny how you actually sound like you DON'T want them to be shut down.

It's sort of like wanting Japan to continue to suffer so that your anti-nuclear stance can be proven correct.

Priorities. Priorities.

[RobertEarl]

10. No.

I do not trust Tepco. Why should I?

I want them all shut down. How about you?

[Bonobo]

11. I want them shut down.

You will never see me cheer for nuclear power. But neither do I cheer for the tragedy that Japan underwent. Nor do I cheerlead their continued suffering.

I choose to cheer for their success at recovery.

I also remember that 20,000 people died in the tsunami and do not whine about how they "dropped that shit in my back yard!!!!" -forgetting the weight of the tragedy and who the real victims are.

[RobertEarl]

12. That's cool

So you don't give a shit that the northern hemisphere got dumped on?

Nothing anyone could do about that Tsunami or the next, except build on higher ground, but we sure could do something about nuke blow-ups.

Close all of them down. Like Germany is doing. Is committed to.

[Bonobo]

13. "we sure could do something about nuke blow-ups"

But that's not what you're doing.

What you are actually doing is kicking people while they are down and not accomplishing a thing.

You are spreading disinformation such as melting starfish (due to radiation, ha), pollution of geoducks that are from US dumped chemicals and attributing THAT too radiation, etc.

You are part of a woo movement now. You left science some time ago. It is personal for you, I get that. You feel affronted, you feel invaded, you are ANGRY. I get it.

But, dude, dude, dude, there are people suffering in Japan from this that are the real victims. And your little petty internet grudge against Japan is NOT helping.

BTW, I am done with you. So go ahead and take the last word. I would expect nothing less.

[RobertEarl]

15. A woo movement?

Last edited Sat Dec 21, 2013, 01:18 AM - Edit history (2)

What the F?

What the hell is your problem. This is a thread about shutting down nuke plants. Like Germany is doing. Japan officially is hoping to crank theirs back up and the US is acting like nothing bad ever happened.

What is done in Japan is done. What we can do is use the Japanese example as an example of what not to do. What is wrong with that? It's history. It could have been avoided but even with all the warnings they went ahead and the damn place blew up. I don't want to see another plant blow up. I don't want anymore people exposed. Call that woo if you like.

******************

PS: here is the email exchange about my block from E&E as referred to below:

XemaSab
Re: What did I do now?

Mail Message
I asked you to put PamW on ignore.

You did not do this.

You are now blocked.

-XS

[zappaman]

16. Thanks for calling it.

Spot on!
There's a reason why this poster was banned from E&E...

[FarCenter]

14. Germany opens first coal-fired power plant in eight years

Germany has just opened its first coal-fired power plant in eight years, reports Bloomberg, as the country grapples with renewable energy subsidies that are driving up electricity costs.

The German energy company Steag says its 725-megawatt coal plant in the western part of the country will begin commercial operations later this year, after “optimization works and testing” have been completed. This will be the first hard-coal-fired plant to come online in the country since 2005.

This is just the beginning of coal’s German comeback, as ten new hard-coal plants are scheduled to come online in the next two years, according to Germany’s electrical grid regulator. This will boost the country’s coal capacity by 33 percent, according to analysts.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/15/germany-opens-first-coal-fired-power-plant-in-eight-years

ANALYSIS: German 4 GW new coal plants in testing after first fire

Five new coal-fired power plants in Germany with a combined capacity of around 4 GW have had their "first fire" over recent weeks and will be generating electricity in the hot testing phase over the next couple of months, according to a Platts survey of the five plant operators. The projects include RWE's Hamm D unit (800 MW), EnBW's RDK 8 (912 MW), Vattenfall's first block at Hamburg-Moorburg (840 MW), Steag's Walsum 10 unit (725 MW) and GDF Suez's new coal-fired power plant at Wilhelmshaven (800 MW).

Trianel's new 750-MW coal-fired plant at Luenen is already in operation and on track to be commissioned in the third quarter.

...

Overall, Germany's coal-fired power plants (including lignite) contributed more than 50% to the nation's electricity demand in the first half of this year as output from natural gas-fired power plants and wind turbines dropped, according to an analysis of data that German think-tank Fraunhofer Institute collected.

Hard-coal plants alone increased production by 8.5% to 65.8 TWh in the first seven months of 2013, with only lignite-fired power plants generating more electricity in Germany so far this year, the latest data shows.

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/coal/london/analysis-german-4-gw-new-coal-plants-in-testing-26170384

[RobertEarl]

17. I'd rather have coal than nukes

And so would the Germans.

The particulate matter can be cleaned up much better now than before, and it is. There is no 100 year waste like there is with nukes. Coal polluted water is much easier to clean than nuke water. Germany is a damn smart state and its people very wise. They know what they are doing. They don't want a Fukushima in Germany.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. Germany is stupid then

and they continue to get nuclear power from France, anyway. You know why Germany is stupid? Because replacing zero-emissions nuclear with coal and natural gas is stupid. Because Germany isn't on an active fault line, or in an earthquake or volcano zone, so not building more nuclear plants in Germany because of what happened at Fukushima is overreaction.

[RobertEarl]

19. Germany is stupid?

But Japan shows us smarts?

Do you realize what Japan would be like if it wasn't on the pacific and all that nuke waste was concentrated on land? Already 160,000 people have been forced to leave their homes in Japan. Germany also saw what happened at Chernobyl.

No overreaction at all. Smart and sensible.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. Never said that

Japan is in an eathquake and tsunami zone. Germany is not. What happened at Fukushima couldn't happen in Germany. What happened at Chernobyl couldn't happen in Germany, either (because that was due to an inherently unsafe Soviet reactor design that no modern reactor uses).

[RobertEarl]

21. That is a very simple view

A view which was expressed time and again by nuke supporters:
"It can't happen here!"

Well, when Germany has closed the last nuke, then they really can say that.
That's what they want to hear and it be believable.

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. Because pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere from coal-fired power plants is a good idea

[RobertEarl]

23. Name one coal plant blow-up

Just one blow-up that made 100's of thousands of people evacuate their homes. To maybe never return like we have seen at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

We can clean up coal problems quite easily. It is being done. But cleaning up nuke blow-ups is impossible.

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. Wow. That's amazingly ignorant, I'm sorry

do you know how many people coal mining has killled? Do you know how many people have died as a result of mining accidents plus harmful effects of coal smoke? Many, many more than have been killed in nuclear incidents, by orders of magnitude. Do you know why fish are contaminated with mercury? It comes from coal smoke from power plants. And we can't clean up the effects of carbon dioxide easily. The effects of coal burning and mining? Cumulatively much worse than nuclear. Given the potential of making all of the planet unlivable for everyone vs making a small part of it unlivable for some people? The latter is a much better option.

[RobertEarl]

25. You evaded the direct, simple question

Sure, burning fossil fuels creates poisons. Best not to stick your head in the smoke. Duh. Don't let too much of your exhaust from your car become your main source of air, either.

What goes right over your head is the fact that nuclear waste accumulates, being as it lasts so long. Most particulates from fossil fuels are part of the earth to begin with and return to the earth from which it comes. Not so with radioisotopes. The planet did not evolve with them in the form we are introducing them and their half-lives make it so they continue to poison for many many years.

I guess if one is still stuck on the idea that nuclear wastes can not spread around the world, then one can harbor the false idea that nuclear waste somehow disappears.

Why you don't accept the science descriptions of the deadly aspect of nuclear is unclear. You don't seem like a science denier, but here you are denying the nuclear science. Even too much radiation from the sun will kill. It is the same with man made nuclear, only it takes a very small amount of man made to become deadly. Time you accepted that simple fact, eh?

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. I don't see why you don't accept the fact of climate change

which is far worse in the long term. CO2 in the atmosphere released from coal-burning doesn't dissipate, it accumulates (because clearcutting forests has led to serious reduction in carbon uptake capacity, in part).

The fact remains that in terms of relative environmental and human costs, nuclear power is many orders of magnitude safer than coal.

[RobertEarl]

28. Coal contributes about 30% of co2

Most comes from other fossil fuel burns. Besides we can replace both coal and nuclear with solar power and other alternatives.

Then there is emerging science that nuclear emissions have an effect on climate change. The various gasses released may be effecting the ozone and causing more heat in the atmosphere. Now, before you say that is impossible, remember that just a few ppm of co2 is claimed to be responsible for warming. A little bit goes a long way. And nuclear emissions are much more self-energetic than plain old co2.

As for co2, the release of it in high altitudes is much more dangerous than near ground emissions. Near ground the flora can recycle it. Way up in the air where jets fly, it just stays there mostly, contributing to capture heat.

[solarhydrocan]

26. Germany is not stupid

Germany is the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installer, with a solar PV capacity of 35.308 gigawatts (GW) at the end of October 2013.[2]

Germany has a goal of producing 35% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 100% by 2050.[5]

...On midday of Saturday May 26, 2012, solar energy provided over 40% of total electricity consumption in Germany, and 20% for the 24h-day. The federal government has set a target of 66 GW of installed solar PV capacity by 2030,[8] to be reached with an annual increase of 2.5–3.5 GW,[9] and a goal of 80% of electricity from renewable sources by 2050.

From 3.5 GW to 4 GW are expected to be installed in 2013. Solar power in Germany has been growing considerably due to the country's feed-in tariffs for renewable energy which were introduced by the German Renewable Energy Act. Prices of PV systems have decreased more than 50% in 5 years since 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

The US is stupid for allowing Germany to take the lead in PV.





Solarpark Neuhardenberg



Solarpark Finsterwalde



Solarpark Kothen



Solarpark Senftenberg

While Germany has been building Solarparks the US has been building these: