hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 194 of 196 FirstFirst ... 94144184191192193194195196 LastLast
Results 3,861 to 3,880 of 3903

Thread: (Germany über alles) Superior EU Politics Thread

  1. #3861
    Jack Coutu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 9, 2011
    Location
    marketjacker
    Posts
    2,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post
    Which is basically the same problem all power plants have. When a dam bursts it ain't good news either.

    The fact we all know about most if not all nuclear power plant disasters should tell you how much more aware of them people are compared to other similar disasters for other types of power plants, which were both more numerous and killed more people and yet rare folks can come up with even a single example when asked.
    Ok, but I wasn't arguing anything there? Living in a area that had a aged out nuclear plant that leaked into the water supply and the company fought tooth and nail to not pay to shut the plant down early I'm just speaking from experience, people get nervous about 1000 year radiation more than smog because it is a far more terrible idea than a cloud. I'm aware of how deadly coal is, and would like new nuclear plants too. Dont fall into the "I must fight" thing yourself when I'm not fighting at least m8.

    Do you have any recent or 90s onwards nuclear plants in your area? Do people feel strongly one way or another about them?

  2. #3862

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Pizza delivery van
    Posts
    8,017
    Quote Originally Posted by GeromeDoutrande View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GeromeDoutrande View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GeromeDoutrande View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    but without nuclear reactors how can we all bath in the fire of the atom come judgement day?
    Or blow em up on purpose to take those goddamn aliens down with us?
    That's not how nuclear reactors work, even nuking one would only make it a huge dirty bomb.
    But then what to do about the goddamn aliens?
    Just nuke them
    Ah of course, trusty old nukes
    Nuke them from the orbit, it is the only way to be sure.

  3. #3863
    Jack Coutu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 9, 2011
    Location
    marketjacker
    Posts
    2,490
    Bury it in a vault yes, launching it into space is fucking dumb.

  4. #3864
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 23, 2017
    Posts
    2,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Coutu View Post
    Bury it in a vault yes, launching it into space is fucking dumb.
    always worth a rewatch.


  5. #3865
    Lief Siddhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    8,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Coutu View Post
    Do you have any recent or 90s onwards nuclear plants in your area? Do people feel strongly one way or another about them?
    I live about 60km downriver from NE Krško https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kr%C5%...ar_Power_Plant
    Last edited by Lief Siddhe; March 31 2021 at 10:56:06 AM.
    I was somewhere around Old Man Star, on the edge of Essence, when drugs began to take hold.

  6. #3866

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Pizza delivery van
    Posts
    8,017
    Would rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal one, would result in less radiation exposure on top of all of the other things.

  7. #3867
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,914
    Just in terms of probabilities, dying of a coal related cancer or something breathing related from the neighborhood coal plant is almost 100% guaranteed vs dying from your neighborhood NPP going boom.

    You can see the full effects it has, if you care, here: https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-so...ght-to-breathe

    Coal scars the landscape and fouls the air NOW. An NPP causes irrational fear in greens about what _might_ happen sometime in the future.
    meh

  8. #3868

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    5,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Coutu View Post
    nuclear as a filler for areas not easily able to get renewable energy
    Are there actually such regions? It's a honest question, as there are tons of different renewable energy sources.

    And would it be easier to dump a nuclear plant there, as a filler even? Or wouldn't it be easier (and faster) to build the necessary infrastructure to deliver power to those regions, while the actual production is done elsewhere. Nuclear plants often take decades to be build. Time we don't have.

  9. #3869

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    5,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    That's a pretty good record when you consider fossil fuels are leading to hot house earth and ecosystem collapse.
    And going full nuclear will be different how, considering that we have to find a way to deal with its waste that's safe for a couple of thousand years? I mean, we can't even construct buildings, bridges and other infrastructure that doesn't break down within a few decades.
    You drill a km deep hole in a granite bedrock (in a geologically stable area) and drop it there. Use said rubble to bury it.
    And because it's that easy, we have exactly ZERO final storgare locations (don't know the exact English term, its' Endlager in German) on earth as of today, but just interim storage locations.

  10. #3870
    Paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 24, 2011
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Devonshire
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Coutu View Post
    nuclear as a filler for areas not easily able to get renewable energy
    Are there actually such regions? It's a honest question, as there are tons of different renewable energy sources.

    And would it be easier to dump a nuclear plant there, as a filler even? Or wouldn't it be easier (and faster) to build the necessary infrastructure to deliver power to those regions, while the actual production is done elsewhere. Nuclear plants often take decades to be build. Time we don't have.
    This is a common problem that all forms of power generation run into. Sending power across distances is *incredibly* inefficient. You lose an enormous amount to heat and noise through HT copper cables

    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    That's a pretty good record when you consider fossil fuels are leading to hot house earth and ecosystem collapse.
    And going full nuclear will be different how, considering that we have to find a way to deal with its waste that's safe for a couple of thousand years? I mean, we can't even construct buildings, bridges and other infrastructure that doesn't break down within a few decades.
    You drill a km deep hole in a granite bedrock (in a geologically stable area) and drop it there. Use said rubble to bury it.
    And because it's that easy, we have exactly ZERO final storgare locations (don't know the exact English term, its' Endlager in German) on earth as of today, but just interim storage locations.
    Again. Modern reactors produce so little waste that it's not really a concern. What waste is produced is even now commonly used in breeder reactors and comes out as slightly spicy solid carbon.


    Poland treats me like shit and I hate them as a result of it

  11. #3871

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Pizza delivery van
    Posts
    8,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    That's a pretty good record when you consider fossil fuels are leading to hot house earth and ecosystem collapse.
    And going full nuclear will be different how, considering that we have to find a way to deal with its waste that's safe for a couple of thousand years? I mean, we can't even construct buildings, bridges and other infrastructure that doesn't break down within a few decades.
    You drill a km deep hole in a granite bedrock (in a geologically stable area) and drop it there. Use said rubble to bury it.
    And because it's that easy, we have exactly ZERO final storgare locations (don't know the exact English term, its' Endlager in German) on earth as of today, but just interim storage locations.
    Finland has decided on the place and the construction is well underway for the facility. I have even been there in the tunnels. And yeah, we are the only country in this position.

  12. #3872
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,914
    Quote Originally Posted by depili View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    That's a pretty good record when you consider fossil fuels are leading to hot house earth and ecosystem collapse.
    And going full nuclear will be different how, considering that we have to find a way to deal with its waste that's safe for a couple of thousand years? I mean, we can't even construct buildings, bridges and other infrastructure that doesn't break down within a few decades.
    You drill a km deep hole in a granite bedrock (in a geologically stable area) and drop it there. Use said rubble to bury it.
    And because it's that easy, we have exactly ZERO final storgare locations (don't know the exact English term, its' Endlager in German) on earth as of today, but just interim storage locations.
    Finland has decided on the place and the construction is well underway for the facility. I have even been there in the tunnels. And yeah, we are the only country in this position.
    The Swiss passed the legislation in 2008, but, are only expected to finish the facility in 2030.
    meh

  13. #3873
    GeromeDoutrande's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Fakefrenchistan
    Posts
    3,496
    Need to get all the nazi gold out of the hole before they can dump the radioactivium into it

  14. #3874
    Totally Not Larkonnis's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25, 2012
    Posts
    1,903
    Despite working in the industry I'm kind of on the fence over 'new nuclear'. I think it's generally great but given the progression of renewables over the past decade I'm not sure if the investment would be worth it.

    Depending on your source it works out the safest or at least within the same order of magnitude in terms of deaths per TW/h as wind and solar.
    It's great for baseload and until we crack the energy storage nut we will need that capability for days when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
    I'll grant that it's expensive but you're paying for reliability and with modern plants pretty much ironclad safety (almost 'overly' safe IMHO). Delays on various recent projects are generally down to new designs being rolled out, I would expect these to be ironed out as production of reactor fleets progresses.
    Waste is less of an issue than you'd think and a lot of the blockers to dealing with it are political rather than practical.


  15. #3875
    Totally Not Larkonnis's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25, 2012
    Posts
    1,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post
    Again. Modern reactors produce so little waste that it's not really a concern. What waste is produced is even now commonly used in breeder reactors and comes out as slightly spicy solid carbon.
    That's not entirely correct. If you're running a breeder programme with a closed cycle (which literally nobody does due to proliferation fears) it's possible to elminate a good chunk of long lived actinides and have your waste particularly hazardous for 'only' 300 years.


  16. #3876
    Jack Coutu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 9, 2011
    Location
    marketjacker
    Posts
    2,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Coutu View Post
    nuclear as a filler for areas not easily able to get renewable energy
    Are there actually such regions? It's a honest question, as there are tons of different renewable energy sources.

    And would it be easier to dump a nuclear plant there, as a filler even? Or wouldn't it be easier (and faster) to build the necessary infrastructure to deliver power to those regions, while the actual production is done elsewhere. Nuclear plants often take decades to be build. Time we don't have.
    Not sure about your area but I know alot of my childhood area isn't good for solar, and is only partially suited to windowed. Its ability to have geothermal is nine. Tidal is limited and usually better harnessed by wind, or is too far for effective transmission to inland areas. Nuclear requires a water source and because we can form most land along a river well enough, that's about it geographically. We haven't built any new ones it a bit but I'd rather a new one than the aged ones because those were dangerous and got shut down for leaks into water. Nothing like Fukushima but a leak can get worse, and I'm with anyone freaked out over that. Most power in New Sngland being built is renewable, a large share is Natural Gas, with about a quarter or so nuclear. I doubt that quarter will rise because of NIMBY attitudes and concerns over difficulty holding companies accountable that run nuclear plants.

  17. #3877
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    32,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    waste particularly hazardous for 'only' 300 years.
    At current rates Venus might be a better planet for habitation in 300 years.

  18. #3878
    GeromeDoutrande's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Fakefrenchistan
    Posts
    3,496
    Austria ... Austria never changes.

    Das.Ist.Nicht.Normal.
    https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/...kurz-1.5253815 [in German]

    https://translate.google.com/transla...kurz-1.5253815 [Google Machine English]

  19. #3879

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    5,635
    I don't know how much polemics went into this, but summing it up that way is quite an interesting read...


  20. #3880
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    16,113
    I've been saying it for ten years now, Austria is a Banana Republic, they just hide it better.

    Tapapapatalk
    nevar forget

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •