It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Swiss to Abandon Atomic Power After Post-Fukushima Rethink........

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

The Swiss government Wednesday decided to exit nuclear energy, phasing out the country's existing nuclear plants and seeking alternative energy sources to meet Switzerland's energy needs, following widespread security concerns in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.


Souce: online.wsj.com...

As far as alternatives to nuclear:
If as much money and research was poured into, say, solar power, as has been spent subsidizing nuclear power, solar power would already be the dominant power source on the planet. But since you can't make bombs and ammunitions out of used up solar panels, the military industrial complex will not pursue it.




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by smartbuddy
 


GO SWITZERLAND! May the rest of the world follow suit.

Anybody want to pay my way to Switzerland...? [grin]



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Well thats smart of them. I hope they like reading by candle light.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
IMO it's time to bring out the free energy technology!!!!!!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TETRA.X
IMO it's time to bring out the free energy technology!!!!!!


Agreed! I know We have it in black ops. It's been time for a very long time.

If We did... The need for money would dissipate, as I illustrate in The End of Entropy, a thread here on ATS, and if We have a structure, We can eliminate poverty, and build in betterment and bliss:

The End of Entropy - the foundation - read first

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform - the structure

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Here's a simple schematic for drawing on the plenum ("dark"/Zero Point/Radiant/Orgone/...) energy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Excellent info, thanks! I will check out your links!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by smartbuddy
 


for the life of it, i haven't been able to figure out how people came to ignore that electric power needs to be produced exactly when it is consumed and that any unpredictable source will not fulfill the need, even if it cost nothing (or incurred lots of subsidies like today...)

progress always included the harnessing of denser and preferably flexible energy sources - Q: what is supposed to follow coal, oil and natgas? on the long run, it will be nuclear or bust. not that current LWRs were that hot, but technological problems need technological solutions, not political opportunism. poverty kills much more reliably than radiation ever could, if you don't see that you've probably had it too good in life, imho.

PS:nuclear power provides ~40% of Switzerland's electric needs, most of the rest is hydro, ie. their position is one one of the best in the world. i wonder what the trade deficit will look like when natgas and imported juice (from France) will have to bridge the gap.
edit on 2011.5.26 by Long Lance because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by smartbuddy
 

progress always included the harnessing of denser and preferably flexible energy sources - Q: what is supposed to follow coal, oil and natgas? on the long run, it will be nuclear or bust.


Or it is electrogravitics... Or other ways of tapping the plenum ("dark"/Zero Point/Radiant/Orgone/...) energy.

We don't need nuclear power at all.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by smartbuddy
 




If as much money and research was poured into, say, solar power, as has been spent subsidizing nuclear power, solar power would already be the dominant power source on the planet.

Thing is, not everyone on earth solar power can work.

You can't run an aluminum factory (which takes a boatload of electricity) on solar power.

But anyway, I applaud the move by Switzerland, I hope they develop real alternative energy sources.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by smartbuddy
 

progress always included the harnessing of denser and preferably flexible energy sources - Q: what is supposed to follow coal, oil and natgas? on the long run, it will be nuclear or bust.


Or it is electrogravitics... Or other ways of tapping the plenum ("dark"/Zero Point/Radiant/Orgone/...) energy.

We don't need nuclear power at all.


feel free to implement as you wish....

btw, remember the e-cat by Rossi and Focardi? if that worked, it'd be nuclear energy


i see no reason to oppose an entire field of technology just, well, just because. at the same time, several thousand nuclear warheads are kept in ready condition at any given moment and roughly 100 tons of Pu are stored at Sellafield alone! the mental disconnect is astounding, imho. there is every reason to use these materials, because the risks have to a large part been 'paid' already. at this point it's either nuclear power or nuclear warfare (how many oil wars can be waged before someone says no in a visible way?) and no matter how i feel about Chinese policies as a whole, i can only wholeheartedly congratulate them, since they are one of the few nations who actually seek to improve the situation through research, along with India and a couple of other (mostly Asian) countries.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by smartbuddy
 

progress always included the harnessing of denser and preferably flexible energy sources - Q: what is supposed to follow coal, oil and natgas? on the long run, it will be nuclear or bust.


Or it is electrogravitics... Or other ways of tapping the plenum ("dark"/Zero Point/Radiant/Orgone/...) energy.

We don't need nuclear power at all.


feel free to implement as you wish....


If electrogravitics (EG) - which went into black ops over 50 years ago - can be wrested from TPTB, it can be implemented. I can't implement as I wish, because I am not involved with black ops. But My father was a CalTech grad, an electrical engineer, working for one of the several government contractors working on EG, tried to teach Me all about EG when I was a toddler - only to come home one night and tell me We could not talk about it anymore because "They want it secret for now."


btw, remember the e-cat by Rossi and Focardi? if that worked, it'd be nuclear energy


True - and it is unneeded.


see no reason to oppose an entire field of technology just, well, just because.


Hmmm. Well, that field of technology is NOT being opposed "just because." It is being opposed because it creates deadly waste and cannot be made safe from earthquakes.


at the same time, several thousand nuclear warheads are kept in ready condition at any given moment and roughly 100 tons of Pu are stored at Sellafield alone! the mental disconnect is astounding, imho.


Because We (some of Us) have warheads and store radioactive stuff means it's ok to build power plants that create deadly waste and are a severe danger to the whole planet in earthquakes? When the universe is seething with energy at every point and We can draw on this? That is what sounds disconnected to Me.


there is every reason to use these materials, because the risks have to a large part been 'paid' already.


What?!? I cannot see how We "paid" for the issues of doing something with deadly waste (We still have no excellent solution), and how did We "pay" already for the radioactivity that is pouring into Our environment day in and day out at Fukushima?


at this point it's either nuclear power or nuclear warfare


HUH!?! Wow. How about the "neither" option? How about getting Our energy from the plenum? I can't see that if We eliminate nuclear power that it means We must therefore go to war. Please elucidate your thoughts here.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


compare the amount of people killed or harmed by nuclear accidents to all other causes you can think of. you'll see that risk isn't limited to nuclear systems. the issue of waste applies needs to be addressed, which realisitcally at least requires some processing, because tossing it in the nearest salt mine is normally not a disposal plan for any type of waste. once you extract residual fuel, half lives of most isotopes suddenly become much more manageable (decades) the rest can be transmuted - if you have neutrons, how come?! needless to say, it goes beyond LWRs, how many artificial radioisotopes are being used daily? from tritium for emergency signs to lutetium and cobalt for therapy or technetium for alloys, these things have actual uses and rejection of all things nuclear must logically include them.

still, what's the half life of mercury? infinite, right? always consider the alternatives, please, especially in matters of energy, because these actually matter. the following link will be very instructive, but keep in mind that nitrogen fixation can be accomplished with process heat of any kind.

www.fromthewilderness.com...

starve the planet of energy and people will start to die, with nothing to lose. at the same time, some will have 10k nuclear warheads. consider the implications, it's as easy as putting two and two together.
edit on 2011.5.27 by Long Lance because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


compare the amount of people killed or harmed by nuclear accidents to all other causes you can think of. you'll see that risk isn't limited to nuclear systems.


Yeah, so? The risk of nuclear power is untenable, regardless of how many other things One can find that are dangerous or damaging. Also, there is no way to determine how many ultimately dies because of radioactivity - since the issues can crop up decades after exposure and often are attributed to more recent activity.

But We DO know radioactive particles cause cancer. We DO know that adding it to Our environment is deadly. And We DON'T need it for power.


the issue of waste applies needs to be addressed, which realisitcally at least requires some processing, because tossing it in the nearest salt mine is normally not a disposal plan for any type of waste. once you extract residual fuel, half lives of most isotopes suddenly become much more manageable (decades) the rest can be transmuted - if you have neutrons, how come?! needless to say, it goes beyond LWRs, how many artificial radioisotopes are being used daily? from tritium for emergency signs to lutetium and cobalt for therapy or technetium for alloys, these things have actual uses and rejection of all things nuclear must logically include them.


We don't need to eliminate uses for radioactive elements - IF the use is not polluting Our environment with radioactivity. (And "therapy" would better be done with harmonics (Royal Rife - www.abovetopsecret.com... ), cannabis, and other non-polluting methods.)

But for power? No need at all. And as for waste...We have been trying to come up with better ways of dealing with it (and We have some - in black ops) and have failed in the public sector. For over 50 years We have been looking.


still, what's the half life of mercury? infinite, right? [/quote]

What's mercury got to do with anything?


always consider the alternatives, please, especially in matters of energy, because these actually matter. the following link will be very instructive, but keep in mind that nitrogen fixation can be accomplished with process heat of any kind.


I AM]/u] considering alternatives. Plenum energy. Otherwise known as Zero Point energy. "Dark" Energy. Available at every point in the universe. In vast abundance. From this energy We may extract useful modes of energy. All day long. All night long. Anywhere. And on scales from the microscopic to the enormous.


www.fromthewilderness.com...


Yes, We need energy. We are USING petro-fuel for a large percentage of Our needs. We are using nuclear power for a goodly sum, as well. This article points out that We are using petro-fuels. But it does not support the idea that We MUST use these forms of energy.


starve the planet of energy and people will start to die, with nothing to lose. at the same time, some will have 10k nuclear warheads. consider the implications, it's as easy as putting two and two together.


Yes. Starve society of energy and you have rampant poverty, starvation, and disintegration. But We don't need to be energy-starved. We can eliminate the need for money, raising everyOne's standard of living to that of the present elite with the use of the (effectively) infinite supply of plenum energy the universe holds for Us.

As for warheads... Give Us all the energy We can use and power over others will dissipate in favor of autonomous control of Self. For more information on how and why this is so, please visit My threads here on ATS:
The End of Entropy - the foundation - read first

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform - the structure

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Here's a simple schematic for drawing on the plenum ("dark"/Zero Point/Radiant/Orgone/...) energy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
i sympathize with your point of view wrt cleaner and better tech and a couple of years ago we wouldn't even have had that discussion, although you'll have to understand that only proven technology can be used for future scenarios. if i have no proof i can't base anything on it as much as it sucks.

IF no fissile had been mined or bred and fission reactions had been discovered in 1999, you'd have a point, but as it stands, the material is plentiful and the technology understood by a lot of people (implementations suck, but that wouldn't be the first time) and Asia for one will use what they have

en.wikipedia.org...

look at China, India and South Korea, trying to 'opt out' in this case is much like trying to opt out of firearms, it is wishful thinking at its finest. Western nations believe they live in the center of the world because their map says so, in the end the options boil down to constructive participation or ignorance and irrelevance.


PS: 50 years of research into producing bomb grade material and designs that don't change. what this industry needs is a good look in the mirror, because if they can't implement worth a damn, someone else can and will. i'm talking about more than safety, if you aren't looking into synfuels, raw chemicals and desalination besides electricity you have no vision.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Germany decides to abandon nuclear power by 2022
www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
I feel sorry for Japan.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Bike, batteries... Get fit and make power.

I always buy lowpower goods and always prefer cranks and handles to push button.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
The Germans said the same thing too,.

The likely result? More expensive power from "alternative energy sources" will be available, and less of it.

Enjoy your higher power bills.

When alternative energies are found to "not be viable" in the next few years, the coal lobby is going to have a field day.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
Well thats smart of them. I hope they like reading by candle light.


You said it. Switzerland doesn't have any ocean for wave technology, and definitely not enough spare land for wind farms or solar panel farms large enough to replace even one nuclear power station.

My guess is that after "exhaustive searches" to find an alternative energy source, they will go back to coal. More expensive and dirtier than nuclear.

I bet the environmentalists think they've won a big victory.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
No the environmentalists did not win any victories.

The industrialists and their polluting ways have won again. Like they always do.

Since money calls the shots after all.

I would rather live without electricity than have all my kids be retarded and deformed due to radioactive contamination.

Also nuclear power plants are 1000x dirtier than coal power plants when accidents happen. See some radioactive isotopes don't decay for thousands of years and it makes entire swaths of land uninhabitable. Show me a coal power plant that has this super-pollutive effect. Mercury is no where near as bad as plutonium.



new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join