Germany votes 'nein' to nuclear

[Lars77]

Run time: 01:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aDHmdla3Qc   Posted on YouTube: June 30, 2011 By YouTube Member: Euronews Views on YouTube: 30   Posted on DU: June 30, 2011 By DU Member: Lars77 Views on DU: 725

 

[TrollBuster9090]

1. The Germans can AFFORD to vote nein to nuclear power

Because, unlike the oil industry owned traitors in OUR government, the German government has been boosting the development of windmill energy for 20 years. I think they're now the leading exporters of windmill technology.

Meanwhile, the icelandic government has been developing geothermal energy for 20 years, and are running half their economy from it.

And here we've been all the while, fighting over the last barrels of oil like a bunch of cavemen fighting over the last scrap of brontosaurus meat.

[blank space]

2. Um really,

lets see, Iceland being responsible for shutting down half the worlds air traffic every couple of years due to its volcanoes?
No other country on earth could have hope of doing what they do - they are on the largest fault line between two of the largest plates on earth.

Australia also has an unlimited easy accessible source of geothermal with a granite rock the size of half the country ten kilometers down - it is estimated it could power all the worlds needs for 76,000 years.


Germany has invested heavily in wind technology and been a world leader in developing renewable's, continuing on this course with projected growth rates would maintain the ration - there becomes saturation and economies of scale which Germany is reaching with renewable's.

Right now the country maintains at least 40% of its power from Nuclear, and a massive amount from coal and oil STILL.

So please tell me where they are going to get the energy to replace their nuclear ? Not from renewables as they have already stated as such that they are near saturation - they themselves are very open and clear - they do not know how they are going to replace nuclear.

The rest of Europe has called it political as they react to protesters in order to maintain power through the economic problems - it has nothing to do with global warming and the environment.

France has called on them to reconsider (AND THEY ARE), while france has pledged several BILLION in developing 4th generation reactors (safer than coal fired stations).

If we do not go nuclear - we are left with two possibilities - a return to living in the dark ages, or total climate collapse.

There is no renewable option for maintaining society as we know it - absolutely NONE. People simply do not understand what is being said when it is claimed we can rely on renewables, we can, if we return to a primarily agrarian life style with almost no modern benefits, which implicitly means no industrial manufacturing etc hence no global economy, hence no real health care etc.

That is the implication, that is what is being inferenced by the renewable claims. I do not want to live like that when I can live a perfectly safe life style with nuclear technology and maintain living standards.

I Dont think people really understand what social melt down will be like - you would not want to live in that.

[TrollBuster9090]

3. Your argument for nuclear and against renewables makes no sense

First, are you suggesting there are no fault lines or geothermal areas that can be exploited for geothermal energy in north america? Second, you strangely invoke "economies of scale" as a reason windmill energy will saturate and can't grow anymore. Economy of scale has the opposite effect. The more windmills you build, the cheaper they become. That only leaves the question of where to put them, and there's no shortage of unused tundra in many areas.

Then you (indirectly) invoke economy of scale as a reason why nuclear makes sense. There are only two reasons why nuclear power even APPEARS to make as much economic sense as it does. a) the U.S. government poured billions of dollars into developing the technology for military purposes in the 50s, making it "economical" for civilian purposes as well. The same could be done for any other energy source including geothermal, windmill, solar, tidal, and even sewage to methanol conversion and sea-weed cellulose to ethanol conversion. And, b) because the long term cost of disposing of the nuclear waste is NEVER factored into the equation. Sure, if you just want to dump it into the Black Sea and hope nobody notices, it makes economic sense. If you want to be more responsible with large amounts of nuclear waste that will be hazardous to human life for thousands of years, large scale nuclear power looks less and less economical, not to mention SANE.

You mention France, which generates most of its power from nuclear, but you don't mention the French problem with nuclear waste disposal. A problem which they haven't even started to address. You might have half an argument for nuclear if they can find a way to make fusion rather than fission reactors, but I don't see this happening.

[TrollBuster9090]

4. But you're not fooling anybody, Lars...

We all know you're interested in geothermal energy. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to locate the Arne Saknussemm expedition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1N5lrCQ3hc