Nuclear power - are you for or against?

[Zyx]

I can't find the link to that specific statistical risk model again, but at least I found a link to a mathematical model that says that the probability for a nuclear meltdown in Germany is 1 in 30.000 years (per each plant). Which is still nonsense I think...

Well, as you said later, historically it seems that we have a nuclear meltdown every 10 years or so. However, I would argue that the two major accidents we had are quite atypical of the risks most nuclear reactors face. Also, the definition of a "meltdown" is vague, because it can mean lots of things from small to large. But it's what we use to describe these things, so I don't personally have a problem with term even though it has no meaning in any technical sense.

There were two nuclear meltdowns in 25 years, which means 0,08 meltdowns per year. When we take the the 443 nuclear power plants we have today (and it were fewer 25 years ago), it means we have a risk of about 0,00018.

In comparision there are about 2.5 million passenger flights each year and there were about 30 fatal plane crashes (with passenger jets) each year. Which means only a risk of 0,000012.

It seems to me that flying is much safer...

Well, you are comparing apples to oranges. Also, being pedantic, the risk is usually defined by probability * damage (* assets), so the numbers above are probabilites, not risks. The first number is probability of a nuclear meltdown at a given plant in a year. The second is probability of a plane crash of a flight. To have a comparable metric, you would need to divide it not by flights, by number of planes, and which, assuming an average plane flies at least 10 flights a year, would be higher or at least comparable to the first number. =)

I just didn't give you the link because it is in German and I wasn't in the mood to search for an English source for every single number. And yes, I wouldn't believe Greenpeace as well. I wouldn't consider them as eco-terrorists, but they certainly tend to manipulate statistics if it fits their aims.

Kein Problem, I read German in high school and university, so I knows my ways around it. However, at the quick glance the Spiegel article used the same numbers we already discussed earlier. Greenpeace just doesn't manipulate statistics, they manipulate facts. Having been employed in companies which have been targeted by that bunch; they don't live in the same reality or they just do it to get any publicity (and, donations) they can get.

You are certainly right about Three Mile Island, but I would be careful to prognosticate any numbers for Fukushima yet. The incident isn't over yet and no one knows what still will happen in the future and if Tepco and the Japanese gouvernment told the whole truth about what happened so far. It isn't a good sign that the accident was lately declared to the highest level on the International Nuclear Event Scale.

The INES number is the only thing Fukushima and Chrenobyl share, which probably just tells that the scale can't differentiate well enough in the high end. Definitely both are "Major accidents", but the scale of the accidents is still on a totally different scale in human and environment damage.

A generation normally means a time span of around 25 years. I can't see that the contamined zone around Chernobyl will be inhabitable again very soon, so I guess I wasn't wrong. And when I wrote uninhabitable I meant uninhabitable for humans. Of course there is wildlife even if some of it is mutated or changed. I think ecosystem can in fact take every hit (climate-change won't be a problem for the eco-system for example), but humans can't.

I think the climate change will be a problem for a larger part of the ecosystem. Of course, the climate change won't destroy the whole ecosystem, but it will have a larger impact on the ecosystem than what Chernobyl caused to its surroundings. But, you're right, a major nuclear accident can make the surroundings inhabitable for decades. I don't think this will be the case with Fukushima, for example.

It's also good to keep in mind that we will, in all likelihood, never see anything like Chernobyl ever again. What happened there is no longer possible by physical laws and they willfully caused the accident. It will most likely stay as the worst nuclear accident ever.

I really hope you are right, but I'm a little sceptical. I heard things like that before and if you would've asked some weeks ago, most people would probably have thought that something like Fukushima isn't able to happen.

I still hope that the long-term effects of Fukushima will be very minimal. My main problem is that the most nuclear power building is happening in Russia and China, both which have nowhere near the safety regulations or track record Europe for example has. As I was doing some research I was quite surprised to find a Wikipedia article which stated that 2/3rds of nuclear accidents (with at least a fatality or high monetary damage) have happened in USA of all places.

I will answer the rest of your post as well, but it will have to wait till tomorrow. It's much harder for me to discuss such political topics in English than I thought.

But it's good practice =)

[Zyx]

Here's an interesting article about the status of the wildlife in the Exclusion Zone. Seems like the Ukrainian Government is keen to repopulate the area as soon as possible, which does sound a bit scary.

[Pater Alf]

The end result of Fukushima is that we end up polluting the environment more if we pulled back all nuclear power. True, energy generation is not the main culprit of carbon emissions, like industry and traffic, but there's certain irony in that.

That would only be the result if we shut down all nuclear power right now with no concept how to replace them with renewable energies. If we doit in a reasonable, well-planned manner, the result may be a complete different.

Of course, but is it possible?

Of course I can't be sure, but I think so. There are several concepts made by experts a decade ago when our gouvernment (consisting of social democrats and greens at that time) first decided to shut down all nuclear power plants one by one (depending on their age and safety) till 2021. Unfortunately these concepts cost lots of money and the big power companies never decided to spend it as they relied on the hope that a new gouvernment would take the law back (which our recent gouvernment in fact did just half a year ago). The concepts are still there (of course improved as technology changed a lot since 2002) and I'm pretty sure that they will invest lots of money now as it seems to be their only chance to stay in big business.

Uranium isn't a rare element. It's abdundant in the Earth. Also, as an added bonus, it's available in places that are politically stable, unlike oil.

Politically stable places like Kazakhstan, Namibia, Niger, Uzbekistan and Russia? And of course it isn't abundant. There are estimations that say that it will only last for about 50-75 years if we go on mining the way we do now.

No, places like Australia and Canada. It is also important to note that any estimation is based on currently known reserves and does not mean that we will run out uranium in 50-100 years. The number is also high compared to many other minerals. By the same fallacy, we should have run out of oil decades ago.[/quote]
I'm not sure if all countries will mine the Uranium even if there are known reserves as it is more complecated than coalmining for example and more dangerous for the workers' health. Germany for example has some reserves (they were the third biggest producer in history) but won't mine anymore. Eastern Germany did mine for several years and the environment is still recovering. Also the UK won't mine because of political and environmental reasons (I'm not sure if they have really major reserves though).

And did you look at the ecological destruction the mining causes? Not to speak about the medical causes for many workers (especially in Africa).

Yes I did, but it is not that different from mining for other minerals, if done responsibly. The way western companies exploit Africa is however a bit off-topic, but definitely is a factor to consider.

And not only in Africa. For some strange reasons about 70% of Uranium are mined in regions of indigenous peoples. Not only environment is destroyed there, but also culure and traditions of these people. And it not only happens in Africa, but in Asia, America and Australia as well.

There is kind of a superfund in Germany as well. But you say it yourself: In the case of a major accident that money won't be enough by far. And so the tax payer will pay. And why should the tax payers bear the risks and the costs if the power companies can't/won't?

Because the alternative is that we wouldn't have nuclear power, or many other things. In a similar way, the tax payers underwrite many risks that no company could ever take, as witnessed by the financial crisis in 2008 and it's aftermath in Ireland, Portugal and Greece.

And it is wrong here as well. Socialising the risks might be ok if the companies are socialised as well. But it doesn't work if you have private companies (and the power companies in many countries are private). It can't be right that they take all the profit they gain in good times (often not even paying taxes in the countries they gain the money from) and ask for tax payers' money if problems occur. I think the financial industry is still laughing. They took all the money, didn't change anything and go on the way they always did untill the next crash when we will pay again. That can't be the right way. I think the one who gains the profit has to take the risks as well.

Also, insurance really only works for things that happen at certain statistical certainty and with a predictable price tag.

And again you say it yourself: The risks and costs are not predictable. So how can it be reasonable to bear them nonetheless?

[...]There are many things that can't be insured so the options are either to avoid the risk or take it. With nuclear power we have decided to take the risk, because we believe the benefits outweigh the risks.

We didn't decide anything. It was our parents or even grandparents. And they decided when there was a big believe in new technologies and a better future. They didn't know anything about many risks. Today we ave seen the dark side of many technologies as well. Maybe it's time to reconsider their decisions or make our own ones. And maybe it would be nice if the politicians would really ask their populations when it comes to such important manners. I don't think that was done in many countries.

It's also a bit misleading that no-one has thought about where to put nuclear waste. The world's first and only final waste repository is soon a reality in a place known for low seismic activity, stable and low corrupted government...

And you are sure it will stay that way for hundreds of years (not to speak about thousands)?

Well, the political stability has to endure only as long until the place is ready and the stuff is put in. As for seismic activity, I have no clue but I would expect this thing was looked into when the place was planned. In fact, after Fukushima, further studies into this were asked for.

You really think that the political stability has to endure as long as it takes to bury the nuclear waste? What happens if they don't secure the place in the right way after that? If they sell radioactive material to terrorists or use it in a bad way themselves. And besides, having a stable system doesn't mean the handle the nuclear waste with care. I don't know if you looked at the link I gave about the waste repository Asse II?

And about seismic activity: I think it's a little hard to foresee, if we are really talking about thousands of years. And that's one of my main problems with the nuclear energy. We are using it now and leave the probable problems for the future. Seems more than a little egoistic to me.

...and secondly because in the end, there's very little point to hide it deep into the Earth's core if there are possibilities of doing something about the waste in the near future. Rememeber, technology rarely gets worse, so unless we hit a new Dark Age, there's a lot of promising technology to solve the problem of nuclear waste.

I read some things about that in the past as far as I can see these technologies are even more far away than efficient renewable power sources.

Could be. However, we have around a century to come up with a solution for nuclear waste, other than putting it deep into ground.

But that doesn't mean we can close our eyes and ignore the problem. About half a century passed and no one worldwide came up with a safe and usable radioactive waste repository so far. Ok, maybe there is one in Finland in the near future, but that won't be enough. I'm pretty sure the Fins don't want the nuclear waste from the rest of the world.

Why do you think so? As said in the other thread, we just have to replace about 20% we get from nuclear power plants. Renewable technologies get more and more efficient very fast and if it is certain that we get out of the atomic industry, the huge power companies will spend a lot of money on research, so they can keep their part of the energy cake. I know that the aim is still ambitious, that it won't be cheap and that there is a lot to be done (smart and more powerful power grids, posibilities to store the energy so it can be used when needed etc.) but it can be done. And as "Rage Against the Machine" said: “It has to start somewhere. It has to start sometime. What better place than here? What better time than now?"...

I base my information on that Economist article I linked back in the other thread. According to it, the only short-term solution for Germany is gas. I do not have the knowledge to assess the situation any better.

I'm not sure if the Economist is a good source when it comes to green technologies. It tends to take neo-liberal positions and support the high-finance. Here's another article based on the dossier of the federal environmental agency that says it can be done till 2017 (seems very optimistic to me) without giving up the climate protection targets using combined heat and power.

http://www.wallstreet-online.de/nachric ... 17-machbar

I know that means we still need gas, but not in the ammounts that Economists article implied.

There was a new article in a recent one explaining a bit more about the challenges. Basically, one of the big problems is that unlike nuclear, coal and gas, electricity from renewables is not constant. The current energy grid is not designed to handle such fluctuations. The other problem is that the wind farms will be in the north, the solar panels in south and your industry happens to be somewhere in the middle. This requires hundreds of kilometers of new grid to be built, and as no-one wants high power lines going through their backyard, this has been problematic as well. Even the new high power lines do not solve the balancing problem the renewables cause. The ugly truth is that you can't just plug in the renewables to the grid, unless you want to bring it down.

I see exactly the same problems and "nimby-mentality" can definitely be a serious issue here. And still I think it can be done. Depends on the political will in my eyes and on the question how much money the politic (and the population) is willing to spend for the task. High power lines for example could be build subsurface in densely populated areas (which means hiher costs and a higher difficulty to maintain them of course). Will be interesting to see how the Greens will deal with this situation as they have to act in a constructive manner (very often they just tend to be agains everything).

When it comes to the grids, the combination of renewable energy and nuclear energy we have now is the worst solution. We need a basic load from an energy source that can be quickly turned down if there is enough energy from the renewables. Nuclear power is obstructive as you can't shut it down quickly and so it is plugging the grids.

Also, the progress of efficiency improvements in solar and wind leave lot to be desired. Yes, there are lot of hopeful stuff coming out of the research labs, but those do not always scale to real-world solutions as quickly. It would be great if they did.

I disagree here. During the last two decades the renewable energies developed much faster than expected even if the big power companies did everything to prevent them and make them laughable (at least that was the situation in Germany). There are so many great ideas right now. If just a part of it comes true, we will have powerful green energy much faster than a really safe nuclear reactor.

Phew, I think I never wrote a longer posting in this forum.

Just prepare for the next thread...

I'm curious what it will be? The 100 most well-meant mistakes in mankind (including nuclear energy)?

I will answer the rest of your post as well, but it will have to wait till tomorrow. It's much harder for me to discuss such political topics in English than I thought.

But it's good practice =)

I know and I really enjoy discussing this issue with you. Right at the moment you couldn't hold such a discussion in a German forum the way we do it here (calm and sensible). It would end in recremenations and wild abuses between pro and contra debaters within minutes.

[Chroelle]

[interruption]
Just to let you guys know that you are not the only ones reading this topic...

I really like the kind of debate you have got going. And I am learning quite a bit from reading in here, and following links.
[/interruption]

[Zyx]

Unfortunately these concepts cost lots of money and the big power companies never decided to spend it as they relied on the hope that a new gouvernment would take the law back (which our recent gouvernment in fact did just half a year ago). The concepts are still there (of course improved as technology changed a lot since 2002) and I'm pretty sure that they will invest lots of money now as it seems to be their only chance to stay in big business.

You refer to this many times, but I'd be interested to know who would replace the old power companies? The business has pretty high barriers for entry and is capital-intensive, so I'd imagine they don't really have to fear competition?

I'm not sure if all countries will mine the Uranium even if there are known reserves as it is more complecated than coalmining for example and more dangerous for the workers' health. Germany for example has some reserves (they were the third biggest producer in history) but won't mine anymore.

Sure, because it's currently much cheaper to mine it elsewhere. Like it was cheap to drill oil in Middle East and then once those weren't enough, oil was explored from elsewhere as well. We won't run out of either stuff, because as demand or costs increase, so does the price and so places where it previously wasn't economically viable to explore make sense now.

And not only in Africa. For some strange reasons about 70% of Uranium are mined in regions of indigenous peoples. Not only environment is destroyed there, but also culure and traditions of these people. And it not only happens in Africa, but in Asia, America and Australia as well.

Well, technically 100% of the land did belong to the indigenous people. However, as I said before, I believe this goes for all mining. However, coal mining is far more destructive to the miner's health and the environment. The miner deaths and CO2 emissions from coal plants in China are really a crime against humanity and the environment. But, you're right, mining is bad, but the issues are not exclusive to nuclear. The minerals used for solar panels are actually quite rare and do cause similar damage, of course without radon. This is why I'm a bit iffy about solar as a energy source, until we can manufacture panels which do not require these elements.

And it is wrong here as well. Socialising the risks might be ok if the companies are socialised as well. But it doesn't work if you have private companies (and the power companies in many countries are private). It can't be right that they take all the profit they gain in good times (often not even paying taxes in the countries they gain the money from) and ask for tax payers' money if problems occur. I think the financial industry is still laughing. They took all the money, didn't change anything and go on the way they always did untill the next crash when we will pay again. That can't be the right way. I think the one who gains the profit has to take the risks as well.

Yes, this is the way it should be. However, as I said, if the company had to bear all the eventualities itself, no-one would enter that business. Also, as we have seen in the case of Fukushima, the financial hit to the energy company is quite severe. As you said, the nuclear power plants in Germany generate 1m a day. Consider what happens when they don't? Anyway, I'm quite sure that if there was a major nuclear accident in Europe, the power company responsible would go bankrupt or be taken over like the banks in Spain and Ireland.

We didn't decide anything. It was our parents or even grandparents. And they decided when there was a big believe in new technologies and a better future. They didn't know anything about many risks. Today we ave seen the dark side of many technologies as well. Maybe it's time to reconsider their decisions or make our own ones. And maybe it would be nice if the politicians would really ask their populations when it comes to such important manners. I don't think that was done in many countries.

Yes, but as we have shown in this thread, the issues are far from clear. I would not trust the population to make informed decisions about nuclear power, or taxation. Those are too complex questions. I'm all for green, who isn't? But as a a pure ideology it is often dangerous and counterproductive. Our parents and grandparents really screwed up us on pensions and with the whole climate change thing. And I'm all for nuclear power withdrawal, but not before we get out of the worse options first and have proven technology in use.

You really think that the political stability has to endure as long as it takes to bury the nuclear waste? What happens if they don't secure the place in the right way after that? If they sell radioactive material to terrorists or use it in a bad way themselves. And besides, having a stable system doesn't mean the handle the nuclear waste with care. I don't know if you looked at the link I gave about the waste repository Asse II?

Yeah, I checked it out. First of all, the stuff in the long-term places are put there forever. You can't take the stuff out. You wouldn't even want to, because it's useless for terrorists - you can't build bombs out of the normal nuclear waste. Sure, you probably could build dirty bombs, but first you would need to get it out of its reinforced concrete grave where it was meant to stay. The German waste repositories were meant as places where you take the stuff out at some point and either have figured out a nice way to dispose it or you throw it into the Earth's core.

Could be. However, we have around a century to come up with a solution for nuclear waste, other than putting it deep into ground.

But that doesn't mean we can close our eyes and ignore the problem. About half a century passed and no one worldwide came up with a safe and usable radioactive waste repository so far. Ok, maybe there is one in Finland in the near future, but that won't be enough. I'm pretty sure the Fins don't want the nuclear waste from the rest of the world.[/quote]
Yes, but as we discussed, the reasons for the half a decade of nothing happening is partly because nothing needed to be done and partly because no-one wanted to do anything about it. Once the waste was out of sight, it was out of mind... Actually, both Swedes and Finns are building these final resting places for the rest of the world. Neither country will ever produce enough nuclear waste to justify building them for just ourselves.

I'm not sure if the Economist is a good source when it comes to green technologies. It tends to take neo-liberal positions and support the high-finance. Here's another article based on the dossier of the federal environmental agency that says it can be done till 2017 (seems very optimistic to me) without giving up the climate protection targets using combined heat and power.

I know that means we still need gas, but not in the ammounts that Economists article implied.

You should check out their Technology Quarterlys, they did a green technology couple of issues back. Of course, I think it needs to be pointed out that I do believe strongly in liberalism and the market economy. I don't agree with everything, but their positions are often quite close to my world view. They are also often quite funny.

As for combined heat and power (I live just 4km away from one...), they are often basically a coal plant with a new name. And naturally they are a very good idea, because it's silly not to use the heat for anything.

Will be interesting to see how the Greens will deal with this situation as they have to act in a constructive manner (very often they just tend to be agains everything).

Yes, it is rare to see them be constructive. Many times, especially in the energy debate, their position is that we'd need to decrease our energy consumption. How do you get people to decrease their quality of life or how losing the small amount of industry we have left is going to be good for anyone are beyond me.

When it comes to the grids, the combination of renewable energy and nuclear energy we have now is the worst solution. We need a basic load from an energy source that can be quickly turned down if there is enough energy from the renewables. Nuclear power is obstructive as you can't shut it down quickly and so it is plugging the grids.

Well, the other point of view is that we should be able to store the excess energy generated by things like wind and solar using dams or something and then release that energy when there are peaks in load. Also, you can't control how much energy a nuclear power plant generates. They're designed to generate a constant amount of energy. And as Chernobyl and closing down Fukushima's reactors have shown, you better not touch that system.

Also, the progress of efficiency improvements in solar and wind leave lot to be desired. Yes, there are lot of hopeful stuff coming out of the research labs, but those do not always scale to real-world solutions as quickly. It would be great if they did.

I disagree here. During the last two decades the renewable energies developed much faster than expected even if the big power companies did everything to prevent them and make them laughable (at least that was the situation in Germany). There are so many great ideas right now. If just a part of it comes true, we will have powerful green energy much faster than a really safe nuclear reactor.

I do not believe that it is in the power companies interests to prevent developing renewables. In fact, here you can buy 100% renewable electricity and many want to pay a premium for that. The power companies make money out of that instead of losing. I also believe we already have really safe nuclear reactors, but I don't think I can convince you of that.

Phew, I think I never wrote a longer posting in this forum.

Just prepare for the next thread...

I'm curious what it will be? The 100 most well-meant mistakes in mankind (including nuclear energy)?

Well, the green movement will be there as well, but no, I think we should let other people take part into this discussion as well.

[Pager]

Well, the green movement will be there as well, but no, I think we should let other people take part into this discussion as well.

I'm gathering my wits with the intent to not get eaten alive...
I am all for nuclear energy. But not the impact. Environmentally speaking...to run a nuclear plant, does not pose a risk to the outlying environment much like the alternatives that exist, but it does have lasting and dangerous effects in the terms of by-products and catastrophic impact on human health when things go horribly wrong.

Before I retort in full, take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI

[Pater Alf]

Unfortunately these concepts cost lots of money and the big power companies never decided to spend it as they relied on the hope that a new gouvernment would take the law back (which our recent gouvernment in fact did just half a year ago). The concepts are still there (of course improved as technology changed a lot since 2002) and I'm pretty sure that they will invest lots of money now as it seems to be their only chance to stay in big business.

You refer to this many times, but I'd be interested to know who would replace the old power companies? The business has pretty high barriers for entry and is capital-intensive, so I'd imagine they don't really have to fear competition?

I think they can be replaced by many smaller companies. These are the companies that did all the research on renewal energies so far (besides universities) and also the ones who build most of the facilities. The grids are public in Germany which means you have to give access to everyone at a very low price. Besides the time of mega power companies might very well be over soon. When you build a house today, it is pretty easy to build it in a way that you are completely independant from power companies (you can use solar panels, geothermal energy and small block power stations) and can even sell energy if you create more than you need for yourself. Of course that just works for normal family homes and not for big industrial complexes. But in that cases the smaller companies (most of them owned by cities and communities) can take over.

I'm not sure if all countries will mine the Uranium even if there are known reserves as it is more complecated than coalmining for example and more dangerous for the workers' health. Germany for example has some reserves (they were the third biggest producer in history) but won't mine anymore.

Sure, because it's currently much cheaper to mine it elsewhere. Like it was cheap to drill oil in Middle East and then once those weren't enough, oil was explored from elsewhere as well. We won't run out of either stuff, because as demand or costs increase, so does the price and so places where it previously wasn't economically viable to explore make sense now.

You might be right about that. But I'm not sure if countries will mine if they don't use the stuff themselves. The damage caused and the costs needed to repair the environment might be higher than the economical profit.

And not only in Africa. For some strange reasons about 70% of Uranium are mined in regions of indigenous peoples. Not only environment is destroyed there, but also culure and traditions of these people. And it not only happens in Africa, but in Asia, America and Australia as well.

Well, technically 100% of the land did belong to the indigenous people. However, as I said before, I believe this goes for all mining. However, coal mining is far more destructive to the miner's health and the environment. The miner deaths and CO2 emissions from coal plants in China are really a crime against humanity and the environment. But, you're right, mining is bad, but the issues are not exclusive to nuclear. The minerals used for solar panels are actually quite rare and do cause similar damage, of course without radon. This is why I'm a bit iffy about solar as a energy source, until we can manufacture panels which do not require these elements.

I think the CO2 emissions (as bad as they are) can not be directly related to the mining risks. But even if you are right with the rest of your post, it's hard to justify one bad thing with another. It's pretty clear that we have to get rid of as many of these things as possible and we have to start with the ones that are not necessarily needed. I just doubt that we both agree which ones these are.

And it is wrong here as well. Socialising the risks might be ok if the companies are socialised as well. But it doesn't work if you have private companies (and the power companies in many countries are private). It can't be right that they take all the profit they gain in good times (often not even paying taxes in the countries they gain the money from) and ask for tax payers' money if problems occur. I think the financial industry is still laughing. They took all the money, didn't change anything and go on the way they always did untill the next crash when we will pay again. That can't be the right way. I think the one who gains the profit has to take the risks as well.

Yes, this is the way it should be. However, as I said, if the company had to bear all the eventualities itself, no-one would enter that business.

Well, maybe you shouldn't enter a business if you don't think it is profitable after considering all the risks. At least this is the way in most other businesses and this is the way it should normally be in free market economy.

As you said, the nuclear power plants in Germany generate 1m a day. Consider what happens when they don't?

Well, maybe they couldn't pay 373.7 millions respectively 1.87 billion Euro to their shareholders.

We didn't decide anything. It was our parents or even grandparents. And they decided when there was a big believe in new technologies and a better future. They didn't know anything about many risks. Today we ave seen the dark side of many technologies as well. Maybe it's time to reconsider their decisions or make our own ones. And maybe it would be nice if the politicians would really ask their populations when it comes to such important manners. I don't think that was done in many countries.

Yes, but as we have shown in this thread, the issues are far from clear. I would not trust the population to make informed decisions about nuclear power, or taxation.

I agree that there are some decisions that shouldn't be done by the population, but I doubt that energy policy is one of them (I'm thinkink more of fields that affect human rights). Of course it isn't an easy complex, but it should be the work of elected politicians to make it understandable and create an election that clearly shows the different alternatives.

Yes, but as we discussed, the reasons for the half a decade of nothing happening is partly because nothing needed to be done and partly because no-one wanted to do anything about it. Once the waste was out of sight, it was out of mind... Actually, both Swedes and Finns are building these final resting places for the rest of the world. Neither country will ever produce enough nuclear waste to justify building them for just ourselves.

I guess in that case the rest of the world will be pretty happy. And I'm honestly amazed. No way that would be possible in Germany without major protests. It's hard enough to find a final resting for our own waste here. I'm still a little sceptical about burying the waste. Landscapes change over thousands of years and I'm not sure a place once save will be save for all times.

As for combined heat and power (I live just 4km away from one...), they are often basically a coal plant with a new name. And naturally they are a very good idea, because it's silly not to use the heat for anything.

Agreed. Of course they need coal, gas or any other energy. But they have a much higher degree of efficiency and so they are very useful (regarded from the ecological as well as the economical point of view) as long as we can't shut down all the old technologies.

Will be interesting to see how the Greens will deal with this situation as they have to act in a constructive manner (very often they just tend to be agains everything).

Yes, it is rare to see them be constructive. Many times, especially in the energy debate, their position is that we'd need to decrease our energy consumption. How do you get people to decrease their quality of life or how losing the small amount of industry we have left is going to be good for anyone are beyond me.

I don't think saving energy/decresing energy consumption necessarily means a decrease of of quality of life. In many ways we still waste a lot of energy without any sense (e.g. insufficient thermal insulation of (old) buildings). If we could use a part of this energy in a constructive manner we could keep our standards of life and still deal much more responsible with our resources.

When it comes to the grids, the combination of renewable energy and nuclear energy we have now is the worst solution. We need a basic load from an energy source that can be quickly turned down if there is enough energy from the renewables. Nuclear power is obstructive as you can't shut it down quickly and so it is plugging the grids.

Well, the other point of view is that we should be able to store the excess energy generated by things like wind and solar using dams or something and then release that energy when there are peaks in load. Also, you can't control how much energy a nuclear power plant generates. They're designed to generate a constant amount of energy. And as Chernobyl and closing down Fukushima's reactors have shown, you better not touch that system.

That's exactly my point. We need a technology that can be quickly react to the ammount of energy created by the renewals. Nuclear power is useless here and because of that prevents the expansion of green technologies.

Also, the progress of efficiency improvements in solar and wind leave lot to be desired. Yes, there are lot of hopeful stuff coming out of the research labs, but those do not always scale to real-world solutions as quickly. It would be great if they did.

I disagree here. During the last two decades the renewable energies developed much faster than expected even if the big power companies did everything to prevent them and make them laughable (at least that was the situation in Germany). There are so many great ideas right now. If just a part of it comes true, we will have powerful green energy much faster than a really safe nuclear reactor.

I do not believe that it is in the power companies interests to prevent developing renewables. In fact, here you can buy 100% renewable electricity and many want to pay a premium for that. The power companies make money out of that instead of losing.

You are right only in theory (at least regarding Germany). Here we have four major power companies and none of them was interested in researching and building up renewal energies (all the work was done by small companies and universities). In contrary they did what they could to prevent these new technologies and telling everybody how expansive these technologies would be. Reason might be that the population was always sceptical about nuclear power and so they could be sure that they would loose these business segment once there would be something new to replace it.

I also believe we already have really safe nuclear reactors, but I don't think I can convince you of that.

You could at least try. But please don't come up with stuff like the pebble-bed reactor.

And somehow I doubt that we have the same understanding of "really safe"...

[Zyx]

For what's it worth, Bill Gates likes nuclear power. =)

[Pater Alf]

Oh my god! Bill Gates is not even able to create a bugless and well-working computer system software. I'm a bit skeptical if he is the right expert when it comes to safe nuclear reators and waste storages...

[Pager]

Oh my god! Bill Gates is not even able to create a bugless and well-working computer system software. I'm a bit skeptical if he is the right expert when it comes to safe nuclear reators and waste storages...

Come on now, Microsoft Calculator works okay.

[Pater Alf]

Germany is not alone any longer. Switzerland decided to get out of the nuclear power as well (till 2034):

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-swi ... power.html