651–660 of 676 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure it gets better when everyone gets paid regardless of performance, also things like corruption.
Remember Boeings competitive 737 max? Competition is often about price.
De-nuclearization of other European countries is a long-held goal of the German environmentalist movement and the Green party. It's understandable that France doesn't want to go with that, as they don't want to be forced down the same ruinous path we're currently on here in Germany. And honestly, good for them. It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. I did my PhD at the French nuclear…
There are also many institutes (e.g IDW) constantly pumping out papers that conclude nuclear energy has highest costs, highest danger, will leave unsolvable toxic waste problems, renewable energy is extremely cheap, building enough storage is no problem etc. These people are constantly invited to present these „Zukunftsenergien“ as opposed to the old bad nuclear in talk shows. And yet Germany, after two decades and c…
The problem with nuclear is that companies will not have to pay for final storage of the waste. Tax payers will have to pay forever. Same shit with our german coal mines. Take this into your equation. Google "Ewigkeitskosten"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also "pulled out" of solar early. I have idea how anyone can make sense of German policies. They seem to be working solely on the basis of emotion. The outcome is a disastrous policy that created one of the highest energy prices for consumers for no good reason. The Greens in Germany seem to be hell bent on de-industrializing Germany. They hate nuclear power and they hate all fossil fuels, but want to buy fracki…
For accusing others of being highly emotional, this post is incredibly biased and doesn't hold a fact check. - the Greens are the party most opposed to brown coal out of all German parties. - Gas is far less emissions intense than most other forms of fossil fuels, so it is a good transitional source of energy. - Germanies nuclear plants were built around 40 years ago, with a lifetime in mind of 40 years. The idea of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember Boeings competitive 737 max? Competition is often about price.
We are talking about the EU here. Sure there will always be corruption, but I'd say it's gonna be better than US & Boeing, albeit probably a bit slower in progress.
So I doubt that it is any better in the EU, just less known. Like Greece and Germany. The greece know there is corruption therefore their place in the corruption index, the germans ignore/don't know of corruption hence the better position in the index. And still who paid the corrupt politicians in Greece? companies like Siemens.
Not to mention that certain types of corruption that are illegal in the modern world are still legal in Germany.
Like giving politicianshigh positions afterwards. Because we know it isn't corruption if you got paid afterwards /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tectonic plates don't move nearly quick enough to be a concern in the span of 100k years. A spot square in the middle of a plate is going to be safe from earthquakes for millions of years. And not to mention, how does ground vibration bring sometimes buried under 500 meters of solid rock back onto the surface? Earthquakes shake the ground, they don't dig deep boreholes.
Yet, all the attempts to store nuclear fuel underground in Germany proved so catastrophic that they had to scrap all of them and restart the selection process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can make all the theoretical arguments you like, but the empirical data (California, Germany, and more) disagrees with your conclusion. Perhaps you should consider a more serious argument that actually agrees with the current evidence.
What? Experience in Germany and California is completely consistent with what I was saying. Of course natural gas without sufficient CO2 charges will continue to cover intermittency, especially when there's a great deal of already installed gas capacity whose capital cost is sunk.
If intermittency issues caused storage to be quite attractive, why hasn't storage already been rolled out across Germany and California?
Neither if these claims agrees with what happened in these two cases. Any electrical engineer could have told you storage is needed before decommissioning nuclear in favour of renewables.
De-nuclearization of other European countries is a long-held goal of the German environmentalist movement and the Green party. It's understandable that France doesn't want to go with that, as they don't want to be forced down the same ruinous path we're currently on here in Germany. And honestly, good for them. It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. I did my PhD at the French nuclear…
Your comment gets it entirely backwards. France is currently in a terrible spot with their monoculture of nuclear because the hot temperatures have caused shutdowns of many reactors, many old plants are offline because of security concerns and the French operator of the nuclear plants is close to bankruptcy and needs to be pulled back into government ownership because renewables can be so much cheaper today. What Ger…
De-nuclearization of other European countries is a long-held goal of the German environmentalist movement and the Green party. It's understandable that France doesn't want to go with that, as they don't want to be forced down the same ruinous path we're currently on here in Germany. And honestly, good for them. It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. I did my PhD at the French nuclear…
What is your "science" for dealing with the long term waste? What "science" do you use to design mechanisms to keep highly toxic materials away from human contact for 200,000 years? It is not science. There is no science that can solve those problems. It is greed. (I live in the South Pacific. The French are hated here for what they have done for their nuclear programme)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Fukushima cost $800 billion Note, this is a figure cited by opposition politicians. Nowhere near this much money has actually been spent. The estimate from the government is a bit under $200 billion, and that includes not just cleanup but also resettling people and continued monitoring of the reactor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#:... .
So you exceeded the liability cap by a factor of 100, rather than 400... I'm sure there is a person for which a 99% vs a 99.75% payment by the state makes a difference. But ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Scientifically, nuclear waste disposal is very much solvable problem. No it is not. There is no place on Earth that we know is geologically stable for the time periods required We have no way of knowing what society will be like ten thousand years from now, let alone 100,000 years. How do we communicate with those people bout the danger of what we left behind? Greed. Hubris.
There are water around mines that will be toxic to human life until the sun collapse and the earth burns up. People will have to be aware of those dangers for as long human exist, unless humans mutate enough to tolerate lead and sulfur in their fresh water. How should we communicate to those people of those dangers?
(Hum, I hope that they will not have tiktok)