441–450 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I said they were right to fund them because they are not a threat. What's your point?
What you say makes no sense. Russia has been and is a threat to the US.
The data is Russia's humiliating defeat in Ukraine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its vitrified in glass, and then placed into a copper barrel amd welded shut. Where and how does that move in 200 years?
The reality looks like this: https://www.bge.de/en/asse/short-information/ Nuclear waste buried underground. Didn't work like planned. Now it needs another several billion Euros to deal with that failure. It took less than 200 years to waste several billion Euros on a failed storage site. It wasn't even for highly radioactive waste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accident one (Chernobyl): The plant manager disabled multiple safety overrides (including the one that would provide power to drop the rods if the turbines went into emergency shutdown), then ran above rated capacity to see how far he could push it. This caused the turbines to stop generating power. Without backup power, rod control shut down. I argue this is not the fault of the plant designer or technology. With en…
Judging by your numbers, is if we had 12,500 plants in the world we will have a disaster every year. Also considering human error, I don't see more plants equaling less human errors, needing more workers my drop the quality of workers. No one wants Homer Simpson running their local plant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is calling BS on this exact paragraph. Replacing 12% of the electricity supply with something other than Russian gas, along with the other measures being taken, is enough to eliminate 100% of Russian gas imports. Enough nuclear fuel could be easily shipped to Germany, unlike the necessary natural gas.
Here [1] are statistics on usage of natural gas in Germany. Roughly 1/3 is used for heating, 1/3 is used by the industry. None of those can be replaced by electricity in the short run, nuclear or otherwise. Probably only part of that could even replaced by electricity in the long run. Only 14% is used for power generation, but this part is for the "we need more power right now for current demand, and not more power i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article argues for a 9 month timescale, not two weeks, and suggests replacing the role Russian gas has in the European grid. It then shows the decommissioned nuclear plants and the gas plants it proposes shutting down have enough capacity to do exactly that.
Gas usage for electricity is insignificant and irrelevant for the discussion at large. What Germany is concerned about is usage of gas for heating and in industry. Turn of the gas and realistically, parts of German industry will be destroyed at a 0.5-6% loss to GDP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe OP meant it in the way that Putin wanted to just rush over Ukraine, replace the government and be done with it. That would have been a very short war at best. But that is not the war he got, so yes, he "accidentally" created the current one.
“Accident” implies a lack of responsibility, which is not the case.
It probably won't escalate to a shooting war outside of Ukraine, but that's mostly because the rest of the world will probably be able to stop him via a proxy war.
He showed spectacular lack of judgment. I'm sorry if anyone thought I meant he lacks responsibility for his actions. I hope Putin is charged and convicted of war crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pyramids? (Granted, the contents were not highly dangerous, but they would have been adequate for nuclear waste storage until at least now.)
And most of them were looted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The discussion around Fukushima is not about the loss of land that got rendered uninhabitable, it is exclusively focused on the loss of life. If you want to change the discussion into be about the loss of land we also need to consider how an hydro power dam changes the landscape, turning habitable land into uninhabitable lakes or turning arid land into deserts by changing water flows. For the amount of energy that nu…
>The discussion around Fukushima is not about the loss of land that got rendered uninhabitable, it is exclusively focused on the loss of life. This conversation is happening in response to my mentioning of Fukushima (see the thread above). I did not focus exclusively on the loss of life and do not see why the discussion should be restricted to that topic. Nevertheless, "uninhabitable" means people cannot live there s…
Quickly moving people from the dangerous area is undesirable, but as I said previously, California did exactly that. It would be interesting to see an estimate on how many died from it so we could make an apple to apple comparison.
When looking at energy sources it is good to look at statistics. Per unit of energy produced, how much land is used. How many lives are lost. How many are maimed or injured.
If we are jumping directly to unacceptable risks, continuing funding Russian military is unacceptable risk to Germany. Continuing burning fossil fuel and causing global warming is unacceptable. Not having enough enough electricity produced to meet demand is unacceptable. Paying more for electricity than the economy can handle is unacceptable. Continuing having nuclear power plants is unacceptable. Solving the unacceptable problems seems to be impossible, and thus some things that are unacceptable will need to be accepted. The question is which one people are willing to stomach. Personally I kind of dislike the idea of funding civilian slaughter and Russian quest for lebensraum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was a great answer and well thought out! Thanks for taking the time. My only rebuttal is heat pumps can heat the air directly. No need for a radiator or plumbing.
Germany basically didn't have central air heating. There is no way to deliver that to each room in a simple retrofit. You can't even do widow AC style units.
This isn't at all a counter to your statement, just an interest fact nugget.