Germany abandons nuclear power by 2022

[JaredJames]

I hope you understand the stupidity in your way of reasoning.

I see why you stick to P&WA. You'd make a good politician.

Your arguments are fallacious and use things I've never said, for example:

I know you dismiss this as 'unreal' since you can’t go to the store today a buy this stuff today...

Where did that come from? Not me, so I guess it's your imagination.

For the record, at no point have I ever said I dislike the Sahara Project. In fact, I think it sounds like a good idea. My problem lies, as ever, with the timescales involved with these 'super' renewable sources that will save us. Certainly we can develop them, we need to, but we can't just sit back and wait until 2050 hoping this will work.

Oh, an here's the link: http://global-sei.com/sn/2010/391/7a.html

 

[zomgwtf]

Where do all these unprecedented nucleus geniuses come from? I’m stunned.

You know you're on a forum which has many people with an academic background in sciences/engineering right?

You learn about nuclear radiation etc. in all three main branches of science (physics/chemistry/biology) and many people here have taken probably multiple courses of any two of those. Probably leads to these people understanding these things which leads to same people being annoyed by the publics irrational fears and the undeserved media hype.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, there's:

-"XXX is right around the corner". Scientists and engineers tend to recognize that you can't schedule discoveries.
-Working prototype =/ commerically viable product, even if Google installs one at their corporate headquarters (see the recent hype about fuel cells).

 

[DrClapeyron]

It is selfish to stand by the status quo when there is a good alternative and say something like "it's a lot of work to change what is currently being done, therefore let's stand pat". Why is it we have to be motivated by things like cost and global warming in order to change our ways when the motivation has been there all along? I think it is this: fear and money are human societies' greatest motivators.

I doubt whether science and engineering are the big hold ups in bring about the nuclear rennasaince. I have heard people mention how breeder reactors are outlawed except in the world's naval fleets. Seems selfish to keep all that power in one hand. Why not spread the love?

As for the Germans, they are giving up. The US is too fat. Everyone is too fat to care about what the French are doing. That leaves the Chinese to lead us to the next great advancement in human society.

 

[robinson]

Breeder reactors are not outlawed, nor are they used on ships. You might be thinking plutonium reactors.

 

[mheslep]

...

I doubt whether science and engineering are the big hold ups in bring about the nuclear rennasaince. ...

I'd say the lack of engineering of new designs *is* a hold up: engineering for lower cost, safer, and more proliferation resistant reactors. The science is there; the engineering is held back by bureaucratic inertia and an industry attached to the PWR reactor and the U235 solid fuel cycle status quo, IMO.

 

[shashankac655]

I think Germany is doing something reasonable for the long term because however useful or powerful this energy source (nuclear) might be, we have to remember that it is still a non-renewable source of energy i.e we don't have infinite amount of uranium(or other fissionable materials)in the earth.

Today the world is addicted to fossil fuels as a source of energy even though it is a well known fact that fossil fuels are non-renewable and none of the governments are thinking far enough into the future to realize that if this addiction is allowed to grow then some day we will completely run out of an economical energy source.

I think we have to learn a lesson from this and not let the world get addicted to another (even if more powerful) non-renewable source of energy.
Another problem with nuclear energy is the about the nuclear waste disposal, imagine if all the countries in the world are running on nuclear power ,then how and where are we going dispose all the hazardous wastes which will remain hazardous for thousands of years?
The countries cannot throw away these wastes on each other’s backyard, even if the radioactive wastes are buried deep underground it still does make some people uneasy.

I know the nuclear powerplants today are supplying energy which is unprecedented in the history of our civilization but I feel it is like a drug (steroids :human body::nuclear power:world).
We are in the beginning of the space age and we have to stop depending on energy sources that are available only on Earth ,I admit that we can’t simply shut down all the nuclear and thermal power plants overnight ,but our dependence on them has to reduce and not increase.
More research and attention to renewable sources can give good results but it will demand more time.Potential wave energy on our coastlines, can provide 1/5 of world demand. Hydroelectric power can supply 1/3 of our total energy global needs. Geothermal energy can provide 1.5 more times the energy we need. There is enough wind to power the planet 30 times over, wind power could power all of humanity's needs alone. Solar currently supplies only 0.1% of our world energy needs, but there is enough out there to power humanity's needs 4,000 times over, the entire global projected energy demand by 2050

 

[robinson]

If you could tax the sun solar energy would be the most used source of power.

 

[mheslep]

...

I know the nuclear powerplants today are supplying energy which is unprecedented in the history of our civilization but I feel it is like a drug (steroids :human body::nuclear power:world).
We are in the beginning of the space age and we have to stop depending on energy sources that are available only on Earth ,I admit that we can’t simply shut down all the nuclear and thermal power plants overnight ,but our dependence on them has to reduce and not increase.

Why would one *want* to shut down "all" the nuclear plants, any more than one would want stop eating food? Why does dependence on nuclear, a source that can easily last thousands of years, have to decrease?

 

[shashankac655]

Why would one *want* to shut down "all" the nuclear plants, any more than one would want stop eating food? Why does dependence on nuclear, a source that can easily last thousands of years, have to decrease?

If all the countries in the world start depending on nuclear power to the scale in which we depend on thermal power today,will this source exist for thousands of years?

Demand for energy will increase exponentially all over the world due to rapid urbanization and development ,the more energy we get ,the more we will ask for it i.e our modern civilization will not stop demanding more.We will reach a limit somehow some day and so what ever the case we will one day run out nuclear fuel(it is simply non-renewable).If the rate of growth in energy consumption is constant then it may last for thousand's years but it is simply not that way.

If extraction of uranium is accelerated then it is going affect the environment badly,(what ever precautionary measures you take there is always a possibility of leakage of radioactive materials into the environment when nuclear power is used at such a large scale) on the top of what is already taking place due mining and oil extraction.

I never said all the nuclear power plants have to be immediately shut down!...i just said we have look for other energy sources as back up plan.

And you will not have stop eating food as long as the sun exists in it's present state

 

[mheslep]

If all the countries in the world start depending on nuclear power to the scale in which we depend on thermal power today,will this source exist for thousands of years?

Not with current reactor designs, but yes, it can.

Demand for energy will increase exponentially all over the world due to rapid urbanization and development ,the more energy we get ,the more we will ask for it i.e our modern civilization will not stop demanding more.

Demand is increasing exponentially only in the developing world, but not in the US, and not in the developed world in general.

...And you will not have stop eating food as long as the sun exists in it's present state

The sun by itself does not grow a modern food supply; modern agriculture with all its various energy sources and machines and transportation system does.

 

[russ_watters]

My current car is 7 years old and runs on gas. When I was shopping for it, I didn't consider an electric because I knew we wouldn't run out of gas before I got rid of the car. So too for nuclear:

No plant built in the next 100 years will have trouble finding fuel so that isn't a relevant concern.

 

[shashankac655]

My current car is 7 years old and runs on gas. When I was shopping for it, I didn't consider an electric because I knew we wouldn't run out of gas before I got rid of the car. So too for nuclear:

No plant built in the next 100 years will have trouble finding fuel so that isn't a relevant concern.

i agree with you that it's not a relevant concern now but it will be after 100's years.

i think that we are thinking of nuclear power today in the same way people thought about fossil fuels during the beginning of the industrial revolution.I repeat once again that i didn't ask for a drastic cut in nuclear power all of a sudden, i just suggested that we should have a "plan B" although it not urgently necessary.

 

[shashankac655]

Not with current reactor designs, but yes, it can.


Demand is increasing exponentially only in the developing world, but not in the US, and not in the developed world in general.

The sun by itself does not grow a modern food supply; modern agriculture with all its various energy sources and machines and transportation system does.

Yes i agree that nuclear power will dominate the world's power production for a very long time,but still can't think of it as a perfect energy source for the future of humanity,for several reasons what do you suggest about nuclear waste management when nuclear power is used in such a large scale?
What about nuclear accidents ,as the number of nuclear reactors in the world increases so does the accidents even with precautions?

Imagine a time when almost all of the world's people adapt to an american style of life,can nuclear power sustain the world?

 

[russ_watters]

Neither waste nor accidents are a substantial concern. They've been overhyped and are used as political footballs, but political issues is all they are.

 

[shashankac655]

Well, seawater contains 3.3 mg per cubic meter, and can be extracted relatively economically with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Recovery_from_seawater". (The only reason that's not currently economical is the even cheaper supply with other sources).

Aside from the 4.6 billion tons of uranium already in the oceans, rivers add about 32,000 tons per year.

Long story short, according to calculations by http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html" , we have enough uranium from seawater alone to last about 5 billion years. I would consider a power source which will easily outlast our sun to be a renewable energy source.

If so much uranium exists in the oceans naturally then may be the ecosystems in the oceans are dependent or are influenced in some way by the uranium so by consuming the uranium present in the oceans at a fast pace may affect the ocean's ecosystems in ways we may not know much about now.

You know how sensitive ocean ecosystems are don't you? a few degrees of temperature difference can do a lot damage so there is possibility that the ecosystems will be affected badly by slight changes in the concentration of some substances,i am not blindly speculating
i think it is obvious that presence of so much uranium in the oceans will have some important purpose to serve in the ecosystem( it can't be there without any purpose waiting for us to consume it for energy).

 

[mheslep]

If so much uranium exists in the oceans naturally then may be the ecosystems in the oceans are dependent or are influenced in some way by the uranium so by consuming the uranium present in the oceans at a fast pace may affect the ocean's ecosystems in ways we may not know much about now.

You know how sensitive ocean ecosystems are don't you? a few degrees of temperature difference can do a lot damage so there is possibility that the ecosystems will be affected badly by slight changes in the concentration of some substances,i am not blindly speculating ...
.

Yes that is exactly what you are doing. However, you don't need to and can at least speculate based on some data if you are willing to research the matter further.

 

[shashankac655]

Yes that is exactly what you are doing. However, you don't need to and can at least speculate based on some data if you are willing to research the matter further.

No country has started extracting uranium from sea water in commercial quantities as far as i know (correct me i am wrong) so i cannot give any research data but i have another argument ,nuclear power may last for over 5 billion years as mentioned earlier(with advanced reactor designs) only if the sun retains it's present state but check this out
Ocean free era.

So in a little more than 1 billion years Earth's oceans would have vaporized and Earth the marine ecosystems would have died out and the terrestrial ecosystems will follow and Earth would have become too hostile for humans to live (in fact we don’t have to wait for the oceans to evaporate in order to realize that Earth will no longer sustain multi-cellular life ,an increase in few degrees of temperature can kill all the coral reefs and bring an end to the marine ecosystems and terrestrial ecosystems will follow) now there will be 2 possibilities.

1. Humans will go extinct
2. Humans will manage to build settlements in outer planets or in their moons (titan or Europa etc) where the surface temperatures would have increased since sun would have become much brighter.
(Should we not at least try to be advanced enough to think about our energy needs beyond a few 100’s or 1000’s of years?)
Assuming No:2 is going to happen .Do you think we can afford to spend precious resources to look for uranium or other fissionable materials in outer space when we have been stripped off our home planet?
So depending on nuclear power too much just because we can will not do good in the long term, depending on nuclear power will be good in short term but you see such easily available energy source will slow down the research work on other renewable energy sources, (I don’t think the present world leaders are far sighted enough to allow money to be spent on research on alternate energy sources when there is no shortage in energy production at the present)

Just think about the problems we going to face in the next few hundred years (forget about the problems that are going to face after 1000’s or billions of years later) like the global warming and climate change , can you name one country that is really taking these relatively “less far away “ problems seriously ?has any big western country with high emission rates(like the US) agreed to cut down it’s emissions by significant proportions like by 70% or 90% ?the answer is no.

Why is this happening ?because it takes a lot of time , work and money for our modern civilization to switch completely from one energy source to another, so depending on nuclear technology on a large scale will make it very difficult and time consuming to switch over to other energy sources when the situation demands.

If our governments are so ignorant or incapable of solving problems that are going to affect us in such a short period of time(few 100 years) imagine the magnitude of difficulty regarding problems that are so far away(when we are addicted to one particular energy source ,it may even be invisible to them) and when they realize it ,it may be too late.The bottom line is if you are only interested in short term solutions to energy crisis go for nuclear power if not go for solar power.