Nuclear Shutdown

[1by1]

So Germany will close all its nuclear plants and replace them with mostly coal and gas plants.

What do you think of this?

I find it a bit odd that nuclear plants will be replaced with coal plants, especially as the safety record for coal is far worse than for nuclear. I think the nuclear stories get blown up by the media because it is a new, "scary" technology, while coal is seen as old and safe.

[openeyes]

That seems rather backward, given that coal plants emit more dangerous radiation/pollutants than nuclear. I could see a shift to more geothermal, wind, solar, and energy efficiency, but would rather see modern, latest generation nuclear plants with all their safety features put in than coal/gas.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by openeyes

That seems rather backward, given that coal plants emit more dangerous radiation/pollutants than nuclear. I could see a shift to more geothermal, wind, solar, and energy efficiency, but would rather see modern, latest generation nuclear plants with all their safety features put in than coal/gas.

YES YES YES!

We need innovation! Clever ways of harnessing energy sources that go unused. Not the endless expansionism of a technocratic society mind you, but a smart way of using energy that otherwise goes to waste.

Mushrooms are another source of potential energy, as they are excellent at breaking down nearly any non biodegradable waste product (they eat oil!)

[aelle]

This is one of the reasons why the anti-nuclear movement pisses me off. Work on a pro-solar, pro-tidal, pro-geothermal energies, work on new biofuels (bacterial fuels are IMO one of the most amazing fields of research at the moment), make something that works. No one gave up horses because they were bad for the environment. They gave up horses when they could use cars.

[cacheborn]

A knee-jerk reaction, IMO. Germany does not have the risk of earthquakes anywhere near that of Japan. Going back to coal and gas does not look very promising.

[Chris_1977]

Time to read Taleb. See note #142 on this page. Opacity

Unfortunately, the criminals juggling small probabilities are everywhere nowadays. Under such circumstances nuclear energy is unsafe.

[1by1]

Chris, why is it different for any other energy source though? Why is it that nuclear power is consider risky but coal, oil, gas, heck even hydroelectric dams, seem to be considered safe?

If you look at the last 20 years, there have been maybe a dozen or so nuclear related fatalities. Long term damage is restricted to nuclear waste and some environmental damage.

Now look at oil. Just the other day 4 people were killed in an oil explosion in the UK. As someone pointed out above, coal stations produce radioactive waste and coal dust is hazardous to long term health. Hydroelectric dams can fail and flood huge areas.

You say nuclear energy is unsafe because there is always a probability of a big accident, but that goes for almost everything in life, and almost certainly every energy source. If you want to use electricity then you have to accept that we don't have a risk free way of producing it.

To replace nuclear (which has a fairly good safety record) with something like coal (which has a pretty poor safety record and is linked to long term environmental damage) does appear to be a kneejerk reaction.

What are you proposing instead of nuclear? Would it work? Why would it be safer?

[garentee]

Originally Posted by aelle

This is one of the reasons why the anti-nuclear movement pisses me off. Work on a pro-solar, pro-tidal, pro-geothermal energies, work on new biofuels (bacterial fuels are IMO one of the most amazing fields of research at the moment), make something that works. No one gave up horses because they were bad for the environment. They gave up horses when they could use cars.

Follow the money...the reason that the alternatives that you mentioned are not gaining more steam is that the larger scale energy producers are not interested in using any alternatives. What galls me most is that because of our experience with oil being able to transform humanity more than any other fuel source in our history, we are looking for a silver bullet to replace oil... It is not nuclear.....It is all of the sources that you listed above and then some...Those technologies do in fact work... Most are either cost prohibitive BECAUSE the larger energy producers are NOT interested in moving away from their cash cows. If we put all of the money towards research for the alternatives that we use in cleaning up oil spills etc I bet that we would be able to have several alternatives on a large scale..


I also think that since most governments fund a lot of energy companies could be a source of the lag in the alternatives....

I think turning away from nuclear energy is a fantastic idea....It is not a safe form of electricity. Ask the people in Fukishima about that... The people who had to be evacuated from the area and may not be able to go back home... To justify nuclear as being safe is rather dishonest.. There are no solutions for the waste....That was one of the bigger problems at Fukishima as it would be at any nuclear plant that got hit by a tidal wave after a big earth quake..

We have the technology... The money is going into the pockets of people who do not care about safe clean power..

I am not debating any more on this... This is my point of view, take it or leave it.