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.

 

German nuclear shutdown unlawful

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   


Germany's reaction to the Fukushima accident in 2011 was extreme, with Chancellor Angela Merkel making two decisions: one to order a shutdown of eight units that started operation in or before 1980 for a three-month moratorium period; and subsequently that those units may not be allowed to restart. Without consultation or reference to independent regulatory advice on the safety of the plants, the orders were executed by the German states which are home to the reactors.



German nuclear shutdown unlawful

Showing that knee-jerk illegal reactions by governments in response to scaremongering are just as bad as considered illegal actions by Govts and sometimes eth courts DO get it right.

The German reaction was stupid - there was no connection between Fukushima and any increase in risk from reactors in Germany - they were not going to be hit by tsunami's, they were operating as safely the day before eth shutdown as they had been for decades before then, and the only people who benefitted from the shutdown were those who made up the shortfall - fossil fuel supplier,s who got to sell more oil and gas, and the French - who export power to Germany....most of which is generated by nuclear reactors!!




posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Some people just get the "big" picture, I guess.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Germans reaction was stupid.

The only reason japan had a melt down was because Japan where stupid enough to place there nuclear plant in a tsuanmi risk zone!

Germanys has no fault lines or tsuanmi risks.


I hate how the ignorant masses view EVERYTHING nuclear as bad.

Its holding us back. If we are to continue on our way of life with fossil fuels running out we have to go nuclear.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

crazyewok
Germans reaction was stupid.

The only reason japan had a melt down was because Japan where stupid enough to place there nuclear plant in a tsuanmi risk zone!

Germanys has no fault lines or tsuanmi risks.


I hate how the ignorant masses view EVERYTHING nuclear as bad.

Its holding us back. If we are to continue on our way of life with fossil fuels running out we have to go nuclear.



Ukraine wasn't at risk for earthquakes or tsunamis either...
Still went BOOM!



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   

the owlbear


Ukraine wasn't at risk for earthquakes or tsunamis either...
Still went BOOM!

Because it was built on a shoe string budget with little to no saftey systems. chernobyl was very easy to prevent.


This is the thing as long as full safety measures are adhered to in it location(fukushima) and construction (chernobyl) saftey isnt a problem. Or is that too big of a complicated concept to understand?



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

crazyewok

the owlbear


Ukraine wasn't at risk for earthquakes or tsunamis either...
Still went BOOM!

Because it was built on a shoe string budget with little to no saftey systems. chernobyl was very easy to prevent.


This is the thing as long as full safety measures are adhered to in it location(fukushima) and construction (chernobyl) saftey isnt a problem. Or is that too big of a complicated concept to understand?


If safety isn't a problem. And if the Chernobyl disaster was easily preventable...
Why did it still happen? Why is the land still unsafe?
It isn't hard for me to understand.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

the owlbear
If safety isn't a problem. And if the Chernobyl disaster was easily preventable...
Why did it still happen? Why is the land still unsafe?
It isn't hard for me to understand.


You should read a little bit about what caused Chernobyl. It was built as cheaply as possible with few safety systems, it couldn't even pump water in the event of a power loss. This is actually what caused the meltdown. They were trying to generate residual power from the turbines to get generators online (this wouldn't have worked btw) and had a test coming up, through a bunch of random events they had a team in place that had never performed the test, in order to simulate it they also disabled ALL safety systems. What happened afterwards is a bit of a mystery because everyone died and the recorders didn't catch everything, but things went wrong, they ignored it, and the reactor blew up.

The other reactors at Chernobyl were actually kept in use after the accident, the last one was shut off in 2000.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

the owlbear
If safety isn't a problem. And if the Chernobyl disaster was easily preventable...
Why did it still happen? Why is the land still unsafe?
It isn't hard for me to understand.
Chernobyl had safety systems. The operators bypassed them.

Likewise, in three mile island, the safety systems would have prevented the meltdown, had the operators not interfered with them. So both of those meltdowns could have been prevented had the safety systems been allowed to do their job.

Fukushima was the first major nuclear disaster which the safety systems in place could not have prevented, but had they built on the bluffs like the plant up the coast from Fukushima did, Daiichi could have been out of reach of the tsunami.

Back to the OP, I thought the German reaction to Fukushima was a bit extreme, especially if they were buying electricity from France, generated by France's nuclear power plants!



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Aazadan

the owlbear
If safety isn't a problem. And if the Chernobyl disaster was easily preventable...
Why did it still happen? Why is the land still unsafe?
It isn't hard for me to understand.


You should read a little bit about what caused Chernobyl. It was built as cheaply as possible with few safety systems, it couldn't even pump water in the event of a power loss. This is actually what caused the meltdown. They were trying to generate residual power from the turbines to get generators online (this wouldn't have worked btw) and had a test coming up, through a bunch of random events they had a team in place that had never performed the test, in order to simulate it they also disabled ALL safety systems. What happened afterwards is a bit of a mystery because everyone died and the recorders didn't catch everything, but things went wrong, they ignored it, and the reactor blew up.

The other reactors at Chernobyl were actually kept in use after the accident, the last one was shut off in 2000.


Kinda like SL1 in Idaho I believe - Ever hear of that home grown nuclear disaster? Hanford is the very picture of clean and responsible nuclear power.

Yep - nuclear power is safe at all levels. Right.

You are correct about chernobyl - the very same 'conditions' apply in Japan, the USA - maybe less in Germany as they take their engineering very seriously - but when have US companyies involved in designing or building the plants you can be certain that the work was substandard and very profitable to a few.
edit on 14-1-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

FyreByrd

Yep - nuclear power is safe at all levels. Right.



no one has ever said that - it is scaremongering hyperbole.

Nuclear power involves radiation and very high energy levels - those things are dangerous regardless of what causes them, but they are also able to be mitigated.

Saying otherwise is not denying ignorance!

SL1 has its own wiki page - so yes, lots of people have heard of it!



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


German engineers must have too. Check out the intake manifolds on the Audi and VW's with Audi engines.
Plastic, with plastic moving parts to actuate air intake. Total junk. I am no longer impressed with German engineering. Over rated from my stand point. Part wore out on my car under 40,000 miles, and it happens to most of them from what I read.

So, I am not so sure their Nuclear plants are any safer than ours. Just hope Audi engineers didn't design them.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Whoa - hyperbole - wild hyperbole - really.

And I was speaking retorically when mentioning SL-1 and I am happy to see that you are in the 'in-group' of the informed.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

the owlbear


If safety isn't a problem. And if the Chernobyl disaster was easily preventable...
Why did it still happen? Why is the land still unsafe?

Because it was built in a bankrupt empire with no saftey oversight!

Hell they used substained materials in alot o it to save money.

If chernobyl had the safety oversight EU powerplants have it would never have even gotten built.

Its obviously a hard concept for you to grasp as you are litrealy compareing apples to oranges. The USSR a broke dying superpower that had to even build the reactor out of substandard parts and cut out saftey features and German Nuclear plants that you most likley cant break a fart in without the safety systems cutting in.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   

FyreByrd
Kinda like SL1 in Idaho I believe - Ever hear of that home grown nuclear disaster? Hanford is the very picture of clean and responsible nuclear power.

Yep - nuclear power is safe at all levels. Right.

You are correct about chernobyl - the very same 'conditions' apply in Japan, the USA - maybe less in Germany as they take their engineering very seriously - but when have US companyies involved in designing or building the plants you can be certain that the work was substandard and very profitable to a few.
edit on 14-1-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)


The nuclear experiments are the dark ages, there were a lot of accidents and safety mechanisms were terrible compared to today. Something Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl all have in common however is that they were all second generation nuclear plants. Third and especially fourth generation plants are orders of magnitude safer, even in this article they talk about plants built before 1980 which corresponds to the second generation plants. To date I don't think there have been any serious or even moderate nuclear accidents with the more advanced plants.

Then we can get into the whole harm index thing where nuclear by far has the lowest death count attached for the power generated.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Daz3d-n-Confus3d
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


German engineers must have too. Check out the intake manifolds on the Audi and VW's with Audi engines.
Plastic, with plastic moving parts to actuate air intake. Total junk. I am no longer impressed with German engineering. Over rated from my stand point. Part wore out on my car under 40,000 miles, and it happens to most of them from what I read.

So, I am not so sure their Nuclear plants are any safer than ours. Just hope Audi engineers didn't design them.


Lol what kind of Audi is that? Got one from 94 , over 135 000 miles on-bord and runs like a clock. Anyway this is off-topic but over all I do not believe the german enrgineering is over-rated. US is very good too however they do not have efficiency in mind so it would be non-competitive in Europe. What about a car going 240 mpg? en.wikipedia.org...

Going back to the nuclear decision, I believe it is a good one however this sould not happen over the night. Even if you ignore the potentiality of a nuclear incident, a problem will allways remain : spent fuel storage. germany can survive without nuclear. just read this short article:

www.the9billion.com...

"Germany Reaches 59% Renewable Energy Peak, Power Grid Doesn’t Blow Up"

basicly a sunny and windy day when the existing installed renewable provided 59% of the consumption.

And for people totaly thrusting nuclear, here we go :

Nuclear power accidents in Germany[14][15] Date Location Description Cost (in 2006 US$ million)
4 May 1986 Hamm-Uentrop, Germany Operator actions to dislodge damaged fuel elements at the thorium high-temperature reactor release excessive radiation to 4 km2 surrounding the facility 267
17 Dec 1987 Hesse, Germany Stop valve fails at Biblis Nuclear Power Plant and contaminates local area 13
24 Nov 1989 Greifswald, East Germany A near core meltdown occurs at Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant. Three out of six cooling water pumps were switched off for a test. A fourth pump broke down and control of the reactor was lost; 10 fuel elements were damaged 443

en.wikipedia.org...

Go go Germany!



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Some German manufacturers and energy companies have criticized the phase-out plans, warning that Germany could face blackouts.[28] However, this did not happen.[29] Germany remained a net exporter of about 5 terawatt hours (TW·h) of power in 2011 after exporting 17.7 TW·h last year, according to data published by the energy utility association "AG Energiebilanzen" in February 2012.[30]


Source: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Romanian
 


Did you forget this bit?



Due to the costs "Energiewende" Germany now has Europe's highest energy costs. Costs have risen over the last 5 years even for industrial consumers who are exempted from the costs of the renewable energy subsidy that consumers pay. In 2013, energy was 4 times cheaper in the United States than in Europe, and 6 times cheaper than in Germany.[4]



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Aazadan

FyreByrd
Kinda like SL1 in Idaho I believe - Ever hear of that home grown nuclear disaster? Hanford is the very picture of clean and responsible nuclear power.

Yep - nuclear power is safe at all levels. Right.

You are correct about chernobyl - the very same 'conditions' apply in Japan, the USA - maybe less in Germany as they take their engineering very seriously - but when have US companyies involved in designing or building the plants you can be certain that the work was substandard and very profitable to a few.
edit on 14-1-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)


The nuclear experiments are the dark ages, there were a lot of accidents and safety mechanisms were terrible compared to today. Something Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl all have in common however is that they were all second generation nuclear plants. Third and especially fourth generation plants are orders of magnitude safer, even in this article they talk about plants built before 1980 which corresponds to the second generation plants. To date I don't think there have been any serious or even moderate nuclear accidents with the more advanced plants.

Then we can get into the whole harm index thing where nuclear by far has the lowest death count attached for the power generated.


Sources please. And where are these plants.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Romanian
 


www.ecstuning.com...
Also in the A4 and VW Wolfsburg Edition 2009. Terrible design.
I was just showing this because someone was praising German engineers and slamming other countries.
I know Germany is well known for steel product manufacturing and engineering. I work in the ball bearing field and well acquainted with what they have done. Just showing that they aren't perfect either.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   

crazyewok
The only reason japan had a melt down was because Japan where stupid enough to place there nuclear plant in a tsuanmi risk zone!


You know that the melt down was already started with the reactor vessel breaking within the first seconds due to shock waves from the quake? The tsunami wasn't the reason although the media try everything to promote this as earthquakes can happen anywhere in the world. If we believe it was the tsunami they can say 'A tsunami can't happen here so we are save'.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join