PDA

View Full Version : Why does Germany close down it's Nuclear reactors?



ultralars
30-08-11, 20:59
Why did Angella merkel decide to close down all nuclear reactors by 2022?

It makes no sense, modern nuclear reactors are safe and energy efficient.

Anton, Bear's den
30-08-11, 22:47
Agreed, Merkel is too cautious!
Medvedev just arrived from Fukushima, said that there is nothing to worry about

http://megaonlinez.net/uploads/posts/2011-05/1306274369_1303022668_vernulsya-s-fukusimi-vse-v-norme.jpg

Mzungu mchagga
30-08-11, 23:16
Why did Angella merkel decide to close down all nuclear reactors by 2022?

It makes no sense, modern nuclear reactors are safe and energy efficient.

It's not Angela Merkel who decided it, but the people! After the earthquake and the tsunami in Japan scientists proved that this scenario is also very realistic here, actually any second! People went in masses on the street to force the government to illegalize nuclear powerplants. Peaceful demonstrators in Berlin also set fire to several wire distributors to show a sign of their concern. (I was for three days without internet and phone then and all the trains didn't work.) And as we are living in a tyranny of the majority, things got to be done in that way! :thinking:

LeBrok
31-08-11, 06:04
Psychology of a crowd.
We are afraid to die of airplane crash, thunders, nuclear reactors. Things that happen rarely. But we are not afraid to cross the street, driving a car, smoking, and overeating. Things that can kill us a thousand fold more often.

We are not afraid much of things that we do everyday, things that we are used to, things that everybody around us does.
We are very afraid of things that are unusual, or with great power, but with small probability of killing us. One in ten million.
Human nature, that's all.

Mzungu mchagga
31-08-11, 11:36
Yeah! People get scared about things they don't have any individual control of, which is reasonable. So smoking cigarettes, ignoring speed-limits, sleeping without condoms is considered less dangerous, as people have the theoretical control of their actions. Nuclear powerplants on the other hand are less controllable, so it gets more scary.

Antigone
31-08-11, 15:42
I think the extreme over-reaction in Germany is more an indication of how very badly the general public has been informed (or not informed in this case) on the subject and relative safety of nuclear energy.

To put it into context, over 20,000 people die per year in China alone mining coal. Add to that the yearly mining accidents the world over, plus the accidents in the volatile natural gas industry then the safety of nuclear energy looks very favourable indeed.

Reinaert
31-08-11, 19:57
Haha.. Nuclear plants are unsafe!
All the rest is bullshit propaganda!

I studied nuclear technology a bit! And I got told a nuclear catastrophe had a chance to happen once in 10,000 (ten thousand) years.
We had already Three Mile Island disaster, Sellafield, Chernobil, now Fukoyama. In only my life span, I can remember.
And don't forget the numerous atom bomb tests.
There are a lot more disasters than predicted!!


And lets not forget the French terrorist attack on a Greenpeace ship in New Zealand!
A man from Portugal died.

From that day on, I did never go to France for the holidays of my family again!

Antigone
31-08-11, 21:09
So is coal unsafe and it has killed far more people than nuclear accidents ever have. So what is your alternative?

Comparing radioactive waste to industrial toxic waste

In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes, much of which remains hazardous indefinitely.[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#cite_note-wna-wmitnfc-68) Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material by volume than fossil-fuel based power plants. Coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal)-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring metals and mildly radioactive material from the coal. A recent report from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Ridge_National_Laboratory) concludes that coal power actually results in more radioactivity being released into the environment than nuclear power operation, and that the population effective dose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_dose) equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as from ideal operation of nuclear plants.[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#cite_note-colmain-84) Indeed, coal ash is much less radioactive than nuclear waste, but ash is released directly into the environment, whereas nuclear plants use shielding to protect the environment from the irradiated reactor vessel, fuel rods, and any radioactive waste on site.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#cite_note-cejournal-85)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_plant

LeBrok
01-09-11, 02:36
[QUOTE=Reinaert;379126]Haha.. Nuclear plants are unsafe!
All the rest is bullshit propaganda!

I studied nuclear technology a bit! And I got told a nuclear catastrophe had a chance to happen once in 10,000 (ten thousand) years.
We had already Three Mile Island disaster, Sellafield, Chernobil, now Fukoyama. In only my life span, I can remember.
And don't forget the numerous atom bomb tests.
There are a lot more disasters than predicted!!


QUOTE]

Now we know why you don't believe in statistics,...you don't get it.

Safety rating of 10,000 years is for one reactor. There are about 1,000 reactors in the world.
10,000/1,000=10 years, theoretically between accidents.
Statistically this is what happens in real world too. Now you believe?

I would even

Every form of energy will kill people, no matter what. So far nuclear reactors had fewer casualties than coal or natural gas, per Gigawatt. Pretty soon we are going to hear people dieing from wind turbines and solar panels. :)

ultralars
01-09-11, 08:46
Stop spreading BS you can't take the Chernobyl incident and say because of that Nuclear reactors is bad because you obviously need to look deeper into it. the Chernobyl reactor was built at a time when the sovjet had a crap economy, it was built poorly and maintained poorly. It's like saying that because a drunk driver driving a bad car crashed we should ban cars.

Check out this video --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usg7-xbQOcM

Antigone
01-09-11, 16:53
I don't think Fukushima can be used as a good example of why nuclear energy is bad either. The reactors at Fukushima automatically shut down in exactly the way they were designed to do, and in an earthquake far more powerful than the plant was designed to withstand. It was the resultant tsunami flooding the emergency generators which caused the problem, with no power the reactors could not be cooled sufficiently. Quite simply the 5.7m protective sea walls around the plant were not high enough for the 15m tsunami.

I'm not necessarily in favour of nucleur energy but it is a more viable option than the other sources we currently have. At the moment there is no 100% safe way to generate the amount of power we need, so it really comes down to what is the lesser of the two or three evils. Until something better comes along anyway.

Anton, Bear's den
04-09-11, 00:35
Nuclear reactor is a dangerous thing, it have a feature to explode sometimes. If Germany can afford to abandon nuclear energy without large costs then Merkel did a good job for own population.
And It's does not look very important for me what caused the catastrophe - the personnel mistake during reactor's testing (Chernobil) or tsunami (Fukushima) or maybe next time the plane will fall right on the reactor, in all cases you getting 100 square kilometers of radiation-contaminated land anyway. It's more or less "OK" if nuclear power plant located in unpopulated Siberian tundra, but what you will be do if it in just 10 kilometers from Berlin or any other populated place? Don't forget that Europe has high population density. No matter where you build in Europe near always will be a lot of people.

Some photoes from dead city Pripyat, there lived 47000 people

http://pripyat1986.org.ua/images/20091017154025_pripyat.jpg

http://www.yoursun.ru/assets/images/prypiat-.jpg

http://billionnews.ru/uploads/posts/2011-04/1303803477_6.jpg

http://forum.materinstvo.ru/uploads/1219817530//post-221-1219936222.jpg


So German decision have sense, especially good that Germans will buy more natural gas from Russia & Norway probably :grin:

LeBrok
04-09-11, 02:46
The deadline to close reactors is purposely set far away in the future, so far that it is not going to happen. If there is no other reactor catastrophe for next 11 years, and demand for power will only rise, that public sentiment will change and reactors will stay.
The german experts can assess all the reactors, improve safety.

Here are the next generation of nuclear reactors that use 100% nuclear energy, not 1% that we currently achieve with nuclear plants.

Lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR)
http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lead-Cooled_Fast_Reactor_Schemata.svg)
Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)


Main article: Lead cooled fast reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_cooled_fast_reactor)
See also: MYRRHA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MYRRHA)
The lead-cooled fast reactor[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#cite_note-Roadmap-1) features a fast-neutron-spectrum lead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead) or lead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead)/bismuth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuth) eutectic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutectic) (LBE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-bismuth_eutectic)) liquid-metal-cooled reactor with a closed fuel cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle). Options include a range of plant ratings, including a "battery" of 50 to 150 MW of electricity that features a very long refueling interval, a modular system rated at 300 to 400 MW, and a large monolithic plant option at 1,200 MW. (The term battery refers to the long-life, factory-fabricated core, not to any provision for electrochemical energy conversion.) The fuel is metal or nitride-based containing fertile uranium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertile_material) and transuranics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transuranic). The LFR is cooled by natural convection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection) with a reactor outlet coolant temperature of 550 °C, possibly ranging up to 800 °C with advanced materials. The higher temperature enables the production of hydrogen by thermochemical processes.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_IV_reactor&action=edit&section=10)] Advantages and disadvantages


Relative to current nuclear power plant technology, the claimed benefits for 4th generation reactors include:

Nuclear waste that lasts a few centuries instead of millennia [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#cite_note-2)
100-300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#cite_note-3)
The ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity
Improved operating safety
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

rugger
04-09-11, 09:57
May be international pressure or may be they thought that those weapons are against humanity.

LeBrok
04-09-11, 10:56
What weapons?

Mzungu mchagga
04-09-11, 11:19
The deadline to close reactors is purposely set far away in the future, so far that it is not going to happen. If there is no other reactor catastrophe for next 11 years, and demand for power will only rise, that public sentiment will change and reactors will stay.
The german experts can assess all the reactors, improve safety.


Most people here wanted nuclear power plants to be closed down on the very same day the catastrophe in Fukushima occured. Moreover they demonstrated on the streets against the government because 11 years is waaay to far in the future, for the same reason you mentioned above. And I don't think that will change, as the closing of reactors is always one of the main topics at each election, on the same level as health care reforms, social welfare and arguments for and against multiculturalism.

Sad but true, terrorist plane attacks are the only, but reasonable argument against nuclear energy.
-Why did you close down all power plants?
-Because of Islamisation!

ultralars
04-09-11, 12:41
That sounds awesome lebrok! A major step in science!

But i am sure that this and many other steps in science could have been achieved sooner if the people not always protest against what they don't understand or are miss-informed about. The mass has always been holding science back.

that's an interesting point Mzungu, what would we do if a nuclear power plant was subject of a terrorist attack?

Reinaert
04-09-11, 13:55
Now we know why you don't believe in statistics,...you don't get it.

Safety rating of 10,000 years is for one reactor. There are about 1,000 reactors in the world.
10,000/1,000=10 years, theoretically between accidents.
Statistically this is what happens in real world too. Now you believe?

I would even

Every form of energy will kill people, no matter what. So far nuclear reactors had fewer casualties than coal or natural gas, per Gigawatt. Pretty soon we are going to hear people dieing from wind turbines and solar panels. :)

10.000 years was an estimation for a nuclear meltdown of every nuclear plant.
You can't add things up. 10.000/1000=10 years would be THE MAIN REASON to definitely stop ANY Nuclear plant in the world.
Now we have had at least 10 nearly meltdowns in only 30 years. And that is 1 every 3 years.
It's even more unsafe than you suggest.

Antigone
04-09-11, 14:50
Most people here wanted nuclear power plants to be closed down on the very same day the catastrophe in Fukushima occured. Moreover they demonstrated on the streets against the government because 11 years is waaay to far in the future, for the same reason you mentioned above!

Out of interest MM, what are the people suggesting as a replacement for the nuclear plants?

I'd imagine that if it were possible to close all nuclear stations in Germany today, those very same protesters would then be complaining, blaming the government and wondering why there is no longer sufficient power for all their computers, TVs, lights, cooking, hot water, heating, cooling and every other gadget that we (supposedly) can no longer do without.

Reinaert
04-09-11, 19:26
Haha.. We need less and less energy!
It just is the truth!

Question: When did any nation need enormous amounts of energy?
Answer: The USA in WWII in producing the materials for their atomic bombs.

Second question:
Where did they get the energy from?
Answer:
That still is a hot question today.. Saudi Arabia.
Uncle Sam sold his soul to the Wahabi devils!

Got nothing to do with Islam whatsoever!

The Wahabi's are the most brutal gangsters of the Middle East for a hundred years.
They killed thousands of people to get the power.
The Wahabi's are exploiting Islam today, for their own gains.

It's the opposite of what Islam was meant to be.
Like in so many religions.

Mzungu mchagga
04-09-11, 23:22
Out of interest MM, what are the people suggesting as a replacement for the nuclear plants?

I'd imagine that if it were possible to close all nuclear stations in Germany today, those very same protesters would then be complaining, blaming the government and wondering why there is no longer sufficient power for all their computers, TVs, lights, cooking, hot water, heating, cooling and every other gadget that we (supposedly) can no longer do without.

Even experts in that field are arguing whether electricity blackouts would become realistic or not. Truth be said, most of who agreed that it's going to happen are working for the energy supply companies.
But there is no question that energy prices will rise dramatically (and they already did!). Those who supported the end of nuclear energy -so almost everyone- said they are fine with that! Well, ok then... :confused2:
Their other argument is that abandoning nuclear energy will accelerate research and development of more energy efficient technical products of every kind, as well as the creation of environmentally friendlier and renewable energy ressources. Subsequently they argue that this should also make Germany the leading researcher and producer of this kind of technology in the world. Of course it is all very hypothetical and connected to hopes and wishes! I hope they are right, otherwise, uhm, OFF WITH THEIR HEAD! lol :laughing:

Reinaert
05-09-11, 18:39
I don't think Fukushima can be used as a good example of why nuclear energy is bad either. The reactors at Fukushima automatically shut down in exactly the way they were designed to do, and in an earthquake far more powerful than the plant was designed to withstand. It was the resultant tsunami flooding the emergency generators which caused the problem, with no power the reactors could not be cooled sufficiently. Quite simply the 5.7m protective sea walls around the plant were not high enough for the 15m tsunami.


Tsunami's often happen in Japan.
I really don't get how the Japanese could be so stupid to put nuclear reactors on the ocean side of Japan!
The east side of Japan has a coast with deep water, the west side is very shallow water.
I didn't know they were there. Nobody knew I guess!!!

Tsunami's have far less effect on the west side of Japan.
And I don't even know if they have nuclear reactors over there.