Germany Shutting last three nuclear power plants
- Thread starter bradfordwhite
- Start date
Help Support :
Reply #1
I agree: I am not a big fan of nuclear power, but shutting down prematurely a plant in working conditions does not bring many advantages and does not greatly reduce the risk, while the power generation is lost for good.
Building new plants is a different matter and would need a much more accurate assessment
I agree: I am not a big fan of nuclear power, but shutting down prematurely a plant in working conditions does not bring many advantages and does not greatly reduce the risk, while the power generation is lost for good.
Building new plants is a different matter and would need a much more accurate assessment
Yay for Germany
Commercial nuclear power will prove to be as big a failure as the SST airplanes.
It’s the most expensive way to generate electricity that’s ever been done on a large scale. There’s no getting around that.
It also has the biggest potential for catastrophic problems.
Hopefully other countries will follow suit. I am confident that they will never build another nuclear power plant in this country at least.
John.
Commercial nuclear power will prove to be as big a failure as the SST airplanes.
It’s the most expensive way to generate electricity that’s ever been done on a large scale. There’s no getting around that.
It also has the biggest potential for catastrophic problems.
Hopefully other countries will follow suit. I am confident that they will never build another nuclear power plant in this country at least.
John.
Nuclear
I'm not sure this is the best idea either. Nuclear power has become significantly safer with computer controls and technological advancements. The nuclear waste is another story, though. Wind power is proving to be more of an issue than expected, and not to mention that there seems to be a bit of tooling going on with the grants.
I'm not sure this is the best idea either. Nuclear power has become significantly safer with computer controls and technological advancements. The nuclear waste is another story, though. Wind power is proving to be more of an issue than expected, and not to mention that there seems to be a bit of tooling going on with the grants.
Reply number 4
When power is proving to be more of an issue than expected, and not to mention, there seems to be a bit of tooling going on with the grants.????
Please explain what you’re talking about, thanks, John
When power is proving to be more of an issue than expected, and not to mention, there seems to be a bit of tooling going on with the grants.????
Please explain what you’re talking about, thanks, John
good-shepherd
Well-known member
Commercial nuclear power will prove to be as big a failure
LOL
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02...ity-supply-six-months-and-half-a-dozen-years/
"But in fact in reviewing in the 2020’s the decades of past world nuclear power performance it is clear that nuclear has turned out to be the cheapest, safest, cleanest, and greenest, of any energy source ever.
Reactors built in the 1970’s are still running today, producing inexpensive reliable electricity. Koeberg produces South Africa’s cheapest electricity.
Nuclear is safe
Contrary to much public belief, not a single person was killed by nuclear radiation at Fukushima, and in fact not a single person was even injured by nuclear radiation during the much publicized incident.
The Fukushima incident was an amazing demonstration of a massive amount of power going out of control under the worst possible circumstances, and nuclear radiation did not harm anybody, or any private property.
The Fukushima story was twisted
The Fukushima incident could not have been a worse collection of factors all coming together… yet the drama unfolded such that one could not have had a better nuclear safety experiment had it been intentionally designed."
LOL
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02...ity-supply-six-months-and-half-a-dozen-years/
"But in fact in reviewing in the 2020’s the decades of past world nuclear power performance it is clear that nuclear has turned out to be the cheapest, safest, cleanest, and greenest, of any energy source ever.
Reactors built in the 1970’s are still running today, producing inexpensive reliable electricity. Koeberg produces South Africa’s cheapest electricity.
Nuclear is safe
Contrary to much public belief, not a single person was killed by nuclear radiation at Fukushima, and in fact not a single person was even injured by nuclear radiation during the much publicized incident.
The Fukushima incident was an amazing demonstration of a massive amount of power going out of control under the worst possible circumstances, and nuclear radiation did not harm anybody, or any private property.
The Fukushima story was twisted
The Fukushima incident could not have been a worse collection of factors all coming together… yet the drama unfolded such that one could not have had a better nuclear safety experiment had it been intentionally designed."
Fukushima is the byproduct of fear and public ignorance. Many years ago the US government was pro-typing and successfully tested designs which did not melt down during a total station blackout. Of course the funding was stopped and the project did not move on...
Had the US continued advancing Thorium and melt down proof reactors, the US would today be the most energy secure, independent and prosperous nations on earth. The switch to all electric would have taken place 30 years ago. Instead the US spends septillions on oil and all its gifts that keep on giving...
Had the US continued advancing Thorium and melt down proof reactors, the US would today be the most energy secure, independent and prosperous nations on earth. The switch to all electric would have taken place 30 years ago. Instead the US spends septillions on oil and all its gifts that keep on giving...
neptunebob
Well-known member
Hopefully Germany will be wise
And not start to take all their nuclear plants apart just yet. Isn't there a way to preserve the equipment so if need be the place can be restarted again?
And not start to take all their nuclear plants apart just yet. Isn't there a way to preserve the equipment so if need be the place can be restarted again?
bradfordwhite
Well-known member
Attention PRO -nuclear people.
Please forward your <span style="text-decoration: underline;">personal address</span> so the dismantlers will know where they can unload all the
spent nuclear waste,
radio active construction debri,
and other associated crap.
Also, they will need your addresses to send the Million or perhaps BILLION $$$$$$$$$ dollar clean up costs to.
As for solar, citizens and business happily welcome working panel arrays onto their rooves in a matter of only a day or so.
Imagine that. Can't do that with nuclear, coal, or explosive NG.
See, we want the electricity, not the drama.
Please forward your <span style="text-decoration: underline;">personal address</span> so the dismantlers will know where they can unload all the
spent nuclear waste,
radio active construction debri,
and other associated crap.
Also, they will need your addresses to send the Million or perhaps BILLION $$$$$$$$$ dollar clean up costs to.
As for solar, citizens and business happily welcome working panel arrays onto their rooves in a matter of only a day or so.
Imagine that. Can't do that with nuclear, coal, or explosive NG.
See, we want the electricity, not the drama.
panasonicvac
Well-known member
Uh
There is one problem with solar panels that I know of, not every home can have one. Examples: Our house can't have one after a few opinions say that the solar panels aren't designed for our roof, we tried to put solar panels in. And my relative, she wanted to have solar panels at her new house just like at her old one and her roof was eligible have solar panels put in. But the city denied it, however she was allowed to have one for her electric fence just not at her house. That wasn't a big deal at first since her electric bills was still cheaper than at her old house which was one of the reasons why she moved there, unfortunately one of her power plants just shut down recently and now her bills has started to rise. She also lives in a area where the power would go out quite often which doesn't help the problem. Luckily she has a generator that runs on natural gas but it doesn't power up everything in the house.
Also on a side note, I'm not buying that "free solar" claim in the picture. These are scams, it’s basically just a really bad loan that these guys are offering, it is not free. There is no such thing as free solar.
There is one problem with solar panels that I know of, not every home can have one. Examples: Our house can't have one after a few opinions say that the solar panels aren't designed for our roof, we tried to put solar panels in. And my relative, she wanted to have solar panels at her new house just like at her old one and her roof was eligible have solar panels put in. But the city denied it, however she was allowed to have one for her electric fence just not at her house. That wasn't a big deal at first since her electric bills was still cheaper than at her old house which was one of the reasons why she moved there, unfortunately one of her power plants just shut down recently and now her bills has started to rise. She also lives in a area where the power would go out quite often which doesn't help the problem. Luckily she has a generator that runs on natural gas but it doesn't power up everything in the house.
Also on a side note, I'm not buying that "free solar" claim in the picture. These are scams, it’s basically just a really bad loan that these guys are offering, it is not free. There is no such thing as free solar.
Bradfordwhite - There is a big point to be made here. All power generation that we have generates waste. Even the “cleanest” forms tend to require development and construction, or (mined) products that result in sometimes awful environmental degradation ( usually in counties with poor oversight). Nuclear is proven to be one of the safest form of electricity at this point in time. Does it create waste yes? Is it generally discrete and localized and can be controlled? Yes.
The alternative is traditional waste from fossil fuels in the form of pollution that is released indiscretely into the air, circles the entire globe impacting all 8 billion people causing millions of death each year due to asthma, cardiac issues in the US alone etc. etc. etc. It affects every continent and human being, with the wealthiest best able to escape its ravages to health, a disproportionately harming lower socioeconomic classes. It’s also a leading factor to climate change. If you total the damages and triple bottom line costs that the entire globe pays for traditional electrical power generation, I’m sure it is in the trillions of dollars and greatly exceeds the damages associated with nuclear many times over.
Modern nuclear power generation has also evolved quite a bit. npr did a recent and very good report on California facilities. As I recall they use thorium nowadays which is a more stable isotope.
The alternative is traditional waste from fossil fuels in the form of pollution that is released indiscretely into the air, circles the entire globe impacting all 8 billion people causing millions of death each year due to asthma, cardiac issues in the US alone etc. etc. etc. It affects every continent and human being, with the wealthiest best able to escape its ravages to health, a disproportionately harming lower socioeconomic classes. It’s also a leading factor to climate change. If you total the damages and triple bottom line costs that the entire globe pays for traditional electrical power generation, I’m sure it is in the trillions of dollars and greatly exceeds the damages associated with nuclear many times over.
Modern nuclear power generation has also evolved quite a bit. npr did a recent and very good report on California facilities. As I recall they use thorium nowadays which is a more stable isotope.
Supposedly “Nuclear is the most expensive way to generate electricity”, but is hands down more expensive to generate power from fossil fuels which displaces people with pollution and health issues etc.
It really amazes me on how people want to reduce pollution but are against nuclear, then complain on how people still use fossil fuels since there isn’t a abundance of electricity from nuclear power, and just contradicts itself over and over and over again like a cat chasing it’s tail in a circle.
It really amazes me on how people want to reduce pollution but are against nuclear, then complain on how people still use fossil fuels since there isn’t a abundance of electricity from nuclear power, and just contradicts itself over and over and over again like a cat chasing it’s tail in a circle.
neptunebob
Well-known member
Reply #13
Good for Finland. They will have many years of trouble free, pollution free, and cheap electricity (yes, there’s maintenance costs). Come to think of it, nuclear power is the Maytag of the electricity generation world, reliable for many, many years.
Good for Finland. They will have many years of trouble free, pollution free, and cheap electricity (yes, there’s maintenance costs). Come to think of it, nuclear power is the Maytag of the electricity generation world, reliable for many, many years.
bradfordwhite
Well-known member
The clock is ticking
Those who willing want
spent nuclear waste, radio active construction debri, and other associated substances in their backyard
and
Also are willing to pay the Millions or perhaps BILLIONs of $$$$$$$$$ dollars in clean up costs to for a nuclear power plant
<span style="font-size: 18pt;">Please raise your hand now</span>
And prove that you aren't just an industry troll and/or someone thoughtlessly in love with the idea of nuclear power regardless of the toxic waste and the serious threat to humanity and the planet.
Those who willing want
spent nuclear waste, radio active construction debri, and other associated substances in their backyard
and
Also are willing to pay the Millions or perhaps BILLIONs of $$$$$$$$$ dollars in clean up costs to for a nuclear power plant
<span style="font-size: 18pt;">Please raise your hand now</span>
And prove that you aren't just an industry troll and/or someone thoughtlessly in love with the idea of nuclear power regardless of the toxic waste and the serious threat to humanity and the planet.
neptunebob
Well-known member
I wish I was an industry troll....
Because if I had a degree in engineering and was able to do the advanced math I would have liked to have a career with (what is left of) Westinghouse. Unfortunately, I got scared of calculus by a child psychiatrist I was sent to. Yes, I was messed up enough for that to happen!
Bradford I hope you are not of Polish descent because guess what, Poland is making plans to build 2 brand new nuclear power plants from Westinghouse (before the Ukraine war, they might have considered Russian models but now WH is the winner).
Nuclear waste can be made less if the spent fuel is reprocessed, but reprocessing is a Nasty process that involves dangerous chemicals and is banned in the US. Reprocessing does take place in Britian, France, Russia and Japan.
Because if I had a degree in engineering and was able to do the advanced math I would have liked to have a career with (what is left of) Westinghouse. Unfortunately, I got scared of calculus by a child psychiatrist I was sent to. Yes, I was messed up enough for that to happen!
Bradford I hope you are not of Polish descent because guess what, Poland is making plans to build 2 brand new nuclear power plants from Westinghouse (before the Ukraine war, they might have considered Russian models but now WH is the winner).
Nuclear waste can be made less if the spent fuel is reprocessed, but reprocessing is a Nasty process that involves dangerous chemicals and is banned in the US. Reprocessing does take place in Britian, France, Russia and Japan.
Thorium
Thorium is still in an experimental stage. Although the US stopped experimenting with it during the Nixon government because uranium was preferred, experiments were still going on. The Chinese are trying to get it working too. Their prognosis is that a good working Thorium reactor will not be operable before 2055! Not a solution for the short term and especially not the energy crisis we're in now.
Finland has opened the Olkiluoto 3 indeed. But building it was way more of a problem than foreseen. Building it took 18 years! Building a fourth reactor has been postponed due to the Russian participation with this project. Number one and number 2 are having problems too due to delivery problems of the fuel elements that have to come from Russia.
Thorium is still in an experimental stage. Although the US stopped experimenting with it during the Nixon government because uranium was preferred, experiments were still going on. The Chinese are trying to get it working too. Their prognosis is that a good working Thorium reactor will not be operable before 2055! Not a solution for the short term and especially not the energy crisis we're in now.
Finland has opened the Olkiluoto 3 indeed. But building it was way more of a problem than foreseen. Building it took 18 years! Building a fourth reactor has been postponed due to the Russian participation with this project. Number one and number 2 are having problems too due to delivery problems of the fuel elements that have to come from Russia.
bradfordwhite
Well-known member
"18 years! " Holy scHmIt! Can only imagine the cost over runs.
Thanks for the update Louis.
Just imagine that: any nuclear plant that's coming online now had to have been started in 2013 OR EARLIER.
The best thing that can happen with those outdated plants is for them to simply not open. It will make it much cheaper to decommission because all it is is cement and steel. Once it's been contaminated with radiation the waste would need to be handled in a much different way.
Even though S. Carolina waste 9 BILLION on a nuclear power plant, the wisely chose to not complete it.
9 BILLION $$$$$$$$$$$$
Do you know how much solar infrastructure could be built for that? And in just a few months.
OH the DRAMA!
Thanks for the update Louis.
Just imagine that: any nuclear plant that's coming online now had to have been started in 2013 OR EARLIER.
The best thing that can happen with those outdated plants is for them to simply not open. It will make it much cheaper to decommission because all it is is cement and steel. Once it's been contaminated with radiation the waste would need to be handled in a much different way.
Even though S. Carolina waste 9 BILLION on a nuclear power plant, the wisely chose to not complete it.
9 BILLION $$$$$$$$$$$$
Do you know how much solar infrastructure could be built for that? And in just a few months.
OH the DRAMA!
