RE: Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022 - 6/1/2011 8:33:37 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

FR

If I may.

Why pledge ? Why promise ? Why not just do it ?

Look at the market. When it flops, look at the market. Someone is going to make alot of money.

Sorry about the jaded view of bullshit like this, I guess I have been alive too long.

T^T

(in reply to Moonhead)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022 - 6/1/2011 11:08:57 AM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I didn't see anything resembling a pledge or promise in any of that. I saw a target date finalized for a project that has been going on for 5-10 years already. That is, they are not promising to do it, they already are doing it, and have been doing so full force for over five years already.

Of the 17 reactors in Germany, the 8 oldest ones were shut down after the Japanese earthquakes, and one was already shut down for review prior to that. None of them are coming back online. Does that look like a 'promise' or 'pledge' to you? To some of us, that looks like 'just doing it.' As does the 7-9 GW per year new solar generating capacity, which is certain to increase going forward. As does the energy conservation law passed in 2002.

Remember, this is Germany, where most of the time a law means a law, not the US, where much of the time a law means maybe-sorta-kinda, but we'll just undo it or kick it around some more or take it back or revise it to make it even worse, when the next group of financial/oil/agro-chem paid-for politicians come along to 'take our country back' or bray 'finacial reform!' (but not really) or ...

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 6/1/2011 11:16:45 AM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022 - 6/1/2011 12:18:48 PM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
Do you think that wind/solar might gain more traction if we termed them fossil fuel replacements rather than "alternatives"? Alternative has a whiff of ersatz.

It would suit me if we never had to see the words "alternative" or "green" or "sustainable" ever again, especially regarding non-fossil and non-nuclear power generation, or in discussion of energy reduction considerations.

Terms like that are just automatic, knee-jerk button pushers, the good buttons for some, the bad buttons for others. And those terms are incessantly glommed or co-opted by some commercial interests as a costume for the furtherance of nefarious endeavor. Witness the corn ethanol scam, and some part of the carbon credit scheme that resulted in increased sales of Monsanto's Roundup poison to kill weeds in fields growing a carbon credit approved plant that accrues tradeable carbon credits for the grower. Not to mention nuclear itself being referred to by some (with a straight face) as being 'green.'

For wind and solar generation, we could use the term "DC power generation" or just "DC power" but we know that might confuse some people, and the media would absolutely hate it due to inherent lack of drama in the term, not to mention the consternation of the energy literate in having to hear their (media's) inane and torturous attempts at explaining what it means.

Perhaps 'energy transition' or 'fuel energy replacement' could be used as terms for the overall policy.

So maybe then 'non-fuel energy' as a catch-all for solar, wind, wave, and whatever other methods we may stumble upon in the future.

And don't forget piezo:

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/category/piezoelectric/

http://www.innowattech.co.il/

If roads and highways and railroads generated enough just to power their own use of overhead lights, traffic signal lights, switches, etc. that would add up to at least one power plant not needed.

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 6/1/2011 1:05:16 PM >

(in reply to samboct)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022 - 6/1/2011 1:16:06 PM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

The problem with non-fuel energy is that it leaves biofuels by the wayside. And while I agree with you about the overall futility of corn/ethanol, the idea of using sunlight, water, and land to produce fuels certainly is sustainable. I'm not crazy about ethanol as a fuel- DuPont has been pushing butanol instead since methanol is a problem for the lawyers (GM said years ago they wouldn't pursue methanol as a fuel because of toxicity issues- while recognizing that gasoline is far more toxic) but if we go to fuel cells- then methanol can begin looking very attractive indeed.

Maybe we should discuss incumbent power technologies versus new power technologies? It's not quite accurate- fuel cells have been around since the 1850s and power from wind mills goes back a few hundred years, but hey....

I guess I don't mind the term "green". I can accept its not perfect, but it's at least an encouraging mind set.

Piezo suffers from a lot of the waste energy issues- the amount of installations required to actually capture enough energy to do some good is economically daunting.

I'm a sailor- as far as I'm concerned- wave energy is a non starter. It's simple. In order to utilize the energy in large, slow moving masses, you need large installations. Large installations at the seacoast are vulnerable to erosion, corrosion, and biofouling- all of which make utilizing wave energy problematic.

Thermoelectrics may have some potential though, but there's a lot of development needed- not sure they could make much dent in a decade given where they're at.

Sam

< Message edited by samboct -- 6/1/2011 1:22:30 PM >

(in reply to Edwynn)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022 - 6/1/2011 3:05:42 PM

Phoenixpower

Posts: 8098
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Of the 17 reactors in Germany, the 8 oldest ones were shut down after the Japanese earthquakes, and one was already shut down for review prior to that. None of them are coming back online. Does that look like a 'promise' or 'pledge' to you? To some of us, that looks like 'just doing it.' As does the 7-9 GW per year new solar generating capacity, which is certain to increase going forward. As does the energy conservation law passed in 2002.

Considering those eight are shut down already...and considering that the UK wants to build eight more...we could just sell ours then to the UK...

_____________________________

RIP 08-09-07

The PAST is history, the FUTURE a mystery, NOW is a gift - that's why it's called the PRESENT

www.butyoudontlooksick.com/navigation/BYDLS-TheSpoonTheory.pdf

(in reply to Edwynn)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022 - 6/1/2011 7:05:54 PM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
The problem with non-fuel energy is that it leaves biofuels by the wayside.

I did not intentionally exclude biofuels from all discussion of energy sources.

Your question was 'Do you think that wind/solar might gain more traction if we termed them fossil fuel replacements rather than "alternatives"?'

My proposed terminology was in response to that question.

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 6/1/2011 7:12:03 PM >

(in reply to samboct)

Profile

Post #: 46