Merged nuclear power safe?

[DC]

And all the dead people? Apparently, **** 'em.



And they can't be replaced at all unless you have something to replace them with. And right now, realistically speaking, you have NOTHING to replace them with except fossil fuels. All you have is hopes that one day you'll have something else. Perhaps that day will come. But it isn't here. And it isn't about to be here either.

yes there are already solutions to replace Nuclear plants, and heavely investing in them will gratly increase their capacities.

 

[Ziggurat]

yes there are already solutions to replace Nuclear plants

Indeed: fossil fuels.

There are no other replacements right now.

 

[DC]

Indeed: fossil fuels.

There are no other replacements right now.

yes there are several techniques together able to deliver the energy we need, without fossil nor nuclear energy.

Solar, Wind, geo, hydro combined with storage will be able to produce our baseload.

 

[Ziggurat]

Solar, Wind, geo, hydro combined with storage will be able to produce our baseload.

No. First off, hydro is dangerous. You still haven't come to terms with the irony of using a hydro disaster in order to explain how a nuclear disaster could occur. Second, you're probably tapped out (or close to) in terms of hydro power without causing severe environmental damage. Where can you expand? Can you close to double your hydro capacity? Not likely. Third, the fact that Switzerland has lots of opportunity for hydro doesn't mean that everyone else does. Fourth, geo is even more limited than hydro in terms of where it's suitable. And lastly, wind and solar don't have a chance in hell of replacing nuclear. They CANNOT supply a base load, for the simple and obvious reason that we cannot control their power output. There's simply no chance in hell that you're going to get any combination of solar, wind, and geo to come anywhere close to 40% of your electricity generation.

Your claims are simply false.

 

[shadron]

the typical downplaying of real dangers.....

some people just like to make it look more save than it is in reality, just like alot like to let it look as if it is much more dangerous than it is.

Good old DC, always plying the middle ground against a world of extremists.

yes tsunamis are unlike here, but we have for example the beznau plant that is very very close to a water damm. in an earthquake, and yes we also do get earthquakes here, there is a chance the damm breaks and will flood the plant, and we will have the same situation as in Japan. When i am not misstaken Beznau is a similar model to the Fukushima reactors.

Pardon, DC, but I looked up the Beznau plant on Google earth, and I'm having difficulty finding any dam upstream from the plant. Downstream, there's one, oh, 50km as the bird flies, but water doesn't run upstream in Switzerland, does it? I would like to think that there's a reason there isn't one upstream, and that it has something to do with planning ahead.

As for earthquakes, Switzerland is a place of minor quakes, not unlike Colorado in that regard; afterall, Africa is still shoving the Alps upward. Moody's gives it an IFSR (insurance financial strength rating, a rating of its own insurance exposure) of A1, stable. It appears to have had 20 or so quakes in the last month above the threshold of 3.0, highest was 4.3. A 6.0 is possible about once in 100 years, a 7.0 once in 1000 years.

And its not like Nuclear is the only technology, i think it will be possible, or we will make it possible to replace nuclear plants in future with saver technologies that will be able to provide base loads.

Well, let's say that fission isn't the only technology.

ans yes "the possibility of a massive accident causing widespread contamination" is "an important concern compared to things like cost, waste, supply stability, and so on." for the people, and here it is the people making the decision.

Whatcha gonna do when these people start getting cold because the countries around start making power too expensive to buy? If the people starts demanding an answer, even if it's nuclear fission, is that going to be OK with you too?

Since I see you're touting geo, I'll point out that your relative safety from earthquakes comes at the cost of being a long way from active geothermal power as well. Wind and solar require a lot of land; you do have that available, right? While I certainly don't have a problem with wind turbines, I'm sure that there are lots of people that don't want them in their nice green alpine valleys. Shoot, we have problems with people calling them unsightly here in the US, where I can easily own a square mile of cow pasture and not have another human being in sight.

 

[Aepervius]

i like our nuclear plants. i am pro nuclear power. but i dont see Nuclear power as the final solution, and especially for a small country like mine, there is a problem, when we have accidents in such nuclear power plants, we dont have to much space to have large areas where nobody is allowed to be living because of contamination.
this is a problem.

Yes our energy bundle is so clean because we use alot nuclear power. But we are still working on making that bundle even cleaner with more renewable sources.

you call it now sarcasm, but it is clear by now that the coal power red herring is not sarcasm but a red herring.

No instead we (in germany) frigging evacuate and raze whole village to mine brown coal.

Yeah. Sure. Much better evacuate people to mine stuff and leave giant pocket mark without any environment whatsoever.

 

[Ziggurat]

Pardon, DC, but I looked up the Beznau plant on Google earth, and I'm having difficulty finding any dam upstream from the plant.

Let me also add that the design of Beznau isn't really that similar to Fukushima, despite DC's claim. Beznau is a pressurized water reactor, whereas Fukushima was a boiling water reactor.

 

[Aepervius]

Oh and ehre is the english wiki :

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

very poor go for the german wiki it shows you that a lot of village were razed and people moved in new home, "umgesiedelt" , more are in planning and indeed people are protesting getting kicked out.

So DC before you speak about hypothetical zone which might possibly get evacuated, let us speedspeak of those getting their butt kicked out of their home on enormous surface *today*.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagebau_Garzweiler

 

[DC]

No. First off, hydro is dangerous. You still haven't come to terms with the irony of using a hydro disaster in order to explain how a nuclear disaster could occur. Second, you're probably tapped out (or close to) in terms of hydro power without causing severe environmental damage. Where can you expand? Can you close to double your hydro capacity? Not likely. Third, the fact that Switzerland has lots of opportunity for hydro doesn't mean that everyone else does. Fourth, geo is even more limited than hydro in terms of where it's suitable. And lastly, wind and solar don't have a chance in hell of replacing nuclear. They CANNOT supply a base load, for the simple and obvious reason that we cannot control their power output. There's simply no chance in hell that you're going to get any combination of solar, wind, and geo to come anywhere close to 40% of your electricity generation.

Your claims are simply false.

we are talking about switzerland, so it doesn0t matter if others are more limited there.
and Solarthermal with salt storage is indeed able to deliver baseload. and a combo of different sources with storage asure long term stability. together with smart grid it will work. and people seem to be willing to try it out and make it work. we have to if we want to be nuclear free.

 

[Aepervius]

we are talking about switzerland, so it doesn0t matter if others are more limited there.
and Solarthermal with salt storage is indeed able to deliver baseload. and a combo of different sources with storage asure long term stability. together with smart grid it will work. and people seem to be willing to try it out and make it work. we have to if we want to be nuclear free.

I see a lot of hand waving on 1) how long it would take to construct 2) maintain 3) what surface seeing germany isn't wexactly the sahara desert when it comes to sun 4) stability

Yeah I know smart grid is supposed to be the magic pixie which make it stick.

Now call me when the NORTH of germany can supply the SOUTH in an even *non smart way* instead of getting the stuff from tchecoslovacia, and all people yelling they don't want to have their lovely nature places eroded to have a north-south energy bahn.

 

[DC]

Good old DC, always plying the middle ground against a world of extremists.

Pardon, DC, but I looked up the Beznau plant on Google earth, and I'm having difficulty finding any dam upstream from the plant. Downstream, there's one, oh, 50km as the bird flies, but water doesn't run upstream in Switzerland, does it? I would like to think that there's a reason there isn't one upstream, and that it has something to do with planning ahead.

As for earthquakes, Switzerland is a place of minor quakes, not unlike Colorado in that regard; afterall, Africa is still shoving the Alps upward. Moody's gives it an IFSR (insurance financial strength rating, a rating of its own insurance exposure) of A1, stable. It appears to have had 20 or so quakes in the last month above the threshold of 3.0, highest was 4.3. A 6.0 is possible about once in 100 years, a 7.0 once in 1000 years.

Well, let's say that fission isn't the only technology.

Whatcha gonna do when these people start getting cold because the countries around start making power too expensive to buy? If the people starts demanding an answer, even if it's nuclear fission, is that going to be OK with you too?

Since I see you're touting geo, I'll point out that your relative safety from earthquakes comes at the cost of being a long way from active geothermal power as well. Wind and solar require a lot of land; you do have that available, right? While I certainly don't have a problem with wind turbines, I'm sure that there are lots of people that don't want them in their nice green alpine valleys. Shoot, we have problems with people calling them unsightly here in the US, where I can easily own a square mile of cow pasture and not have another human being in sight.

yeah i was mistaken, its actually Mühleberg I.

and im ok with Nuclear power yes, i would even support that we replace the first 2 plants that will go offline because of age with a top notch nuclear plant that has a bit reserves, so we give our self more time to reach the goal of being nuclear free without going more fossil. The risk i see of loosing areas to accidents is very minimal, but its there, and on a long term i dont want to take that risk. and obviously alot people don't want it to take it now already anymore. and in the proposed timeframe, i think we can do it if we do it right and invest a good amount of money and effort. Its a bit like flying to the moon when nobody did it yet and many believe its not possible. i am optimistic we can do it.

 

[DC]

No instead we (in germany) frigging evacuate and raze whole village to mine brown coal.

Yeah. Sure. Much better evacuate people to mine stuff and leave giant pocket mark without any environment whatsoever.

nice red herring

 

[DC]

I see a lot of hand waving on 1) how long it would take to construct 2) maintain 3) what surface seeing germany isn't wexactly the sahara desert when it comes to sun 4) stability

Yeah I know smart grid is supposed to be the magic pixie which make it stick.

Now call me when the NORTH of germany can supply the SOUTH in an even *non smart way* instead of getting the stuff from tchecoslovacia, and all people yelling they don't want to have their lovely nature places eroded to have a north-south energy bahn.

i do hope we have taken a lesson from your government's failure. and do actually work on alternatives in a adequte scale.

and no you can keep your strawman of smart grid being the magic solution, they are not, but i do see them as an essential part of the solution we need.

 

[DC]

Oh and ehre is the english wiki :

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

very poor go for the german wiki it shows you that a lot of village were razed and people moved in new home, "umgesiedelt" , more are in planning and indeed people are protesting getting kicked out.

So DC before you speak about hypothetical zone which might possibly get evacuated, let us speedspeak of those getting their butt kicked out of their home on enormous surface *today*.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagebau_Garzweiler

maybe you didn't know yet, but Germany isn't a swiss Canton, so i don't see why you bring up Germany.

 

[Ziggurat]

we are talking about switzerland

No, we aren't. I think you will find that the thread is about nuclear power.

so it doesn0t matter if others are more limited there.

It matters a hell of a lot to those other people. Furthermore, I note that you aren't actually trying to argue that your hydroelectricity capacity can be significantly increased. So even limiting the discussion to Switzerland, I don't see how hydro can significantly contribute to replacing your current nuclear plants.

and Solarthermal with salt storage is indeed able to deliver baseload.

You complain about nuclear power making large amounts of land unusable, but yet you're OK with CHOOSING to use up large amounts of land with solar? How is that rational?

And even ignoring seasonal variations in capacity (salt can't store the heat for months, and I suspect the dead of winter isn't exactly the period of minimum electricity demand in Switzerland), there's just no chance in hell you're going to get solar to provide more than a few percentage points of your electricity needs.

and a combo of different sources with storage asure long term stability.

Appeals to "other sources" which cannot be quantified or even specified aren't going to cut it. And our ability to store electricity is pathetically small.

together with smart grid it will work.

No, it won't.

and people seem to be willing to try it out and make it work. we have to if we want to be nuclear free.

If you want to be nuclear free, you can do one of two things: drastically cut your electricity consumption (and suffer a correspondingly large drop in standard of living), or adopt fossil fuel electricity generation. Those are the ONLY two available methods for getting off nuclear in the next 50 years. I have no doubt you're willing to "try" to make it work with magic alternatives, but it won't.

 

[DC]

No, we aren't. I think you will find that the thread is about nuclear power.



It matters a hell of a lot to those other people. Furthermore, I note that you aren't actually trying to argue that your hydroelectricity capacity can be significantly increased. So even limiting the discussion to Switzerland, I don't see how hydro can significantly contribute to replacing your current nuclear plants.



You complain about nuclear power making large amounts of land unusable, but yet you're OK with CHOOSING to use up large amounts of land with solar? How is that rational?

And even ignoring seasonal variations in capacity (salt can't store the heat for months, and I suspect the dead of winter isn't exactly the period of minimum electricity demand in Switzerland), there's just no chance in hell you're going to get solar to provide more than a few percentage points of your electricity needs.



Appeals to "other sources" which cannot be quantified or even specified aren't going to cut it. And our ability to store electricity is pathetically small.



No, it won't.



If you want to be nuclear free, you can do one of two things: drastically cut your electricity consumption (and suffer a correspondingly large drop in standard of living), or adopt fossil fuel electricity generation. Those are the ONLY two available methods for getting off nuclear in the next 50 years. I have no doubt you're willing to "try" to make it work with magic alternatives, but it won't.

we will see

 

[Aepervius]

maybe you didn't know yet, but Germany isn't a swiss Canton, so i don't see why you bring up Germany.

You can restrict yourself to Switzerland if you wish, but we are speaking of nuclear power in general, and in the specific case of germany if solar , wind can replace nuclear and the danger of having swath of land being contamined and people getting evacuated. Well.... People are already getting evacuated on quite a scale for brown coal.

 

[Aepervius]

we will see

Who is hand waving now ? Or should I say Sight waving ?

 

[DC]

You can restrict yourself to Switzerland if you wish, but we are speaking of nuclear power in general, and in the specific case of germany if solar , wind can replace nuclear and the danger of having swath of land being contamined and people getting evacuated. Well.... People are already getting evacuated on quite a scale for brown coal.

well yes our decision is restricted to switzerland. and i hope we will do a better job than germany, else we will also fail.

but sorry for not joining into the nay sayers. i am optimistic it can be done, we might be wrong and also fail.

 

[DC]

Who is hand waving now ? Or should I say Sight waving ?

i am not handwaving, i posted what i think will do it.
some say yes,, some say no. what now? we will have to see. sorry i don't know yet, nor do you.