First Germany, now Belgium: Nuclear energy to be phased out by 2015

This is why the world sucks.
It's because of ignorance, and this is why science is stifled hundreds of times.

One bad thing goes wrong with science, and people want to scrap it.
Yet thousand of religious people, and religious group do a thousand bad things and people forgive it.


Project Orion was pretty much canceled because it was an atomic bomb, that would explode at the back of a ship plate to accelerate.

The radiation was so small, that we receive more radiation in a minute from the sun than the ship would of released in LEO.


This is a dumb move by Germany, I figured they were smarter than that. I guess I was wrong.

Not to mention that nuclear fuel is pretty efficient.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by TechUnique

 

We NEED to abolish nuclear power. It is not a quick or easy process in the slightest but it is definitely something that needs to be done. With escalating natural disasters (Yes natural disasters are actually increasing) this is a more important battle than ever.

Because a field of wind turbines or solar panels coated in toxic chemicals are far safer to have at the epicenter of an earthquake or hurricane.

More than enough damage has already been done, more damage is still to come and there are still more than enough nuclear power plants to wipe out most of the life on this planet.

Perhaps you'd like to ground this claim in, at the very minimum, some display of the ability to rationalize.

What Germany and Belgium are planning is brilliant news! I just hope it isn't too little too late.

The reality is that these power plants were already scheduled for heavy maintenance procedures, anyway - procedures akin to shutting the plant down and building a new one (essentially what is done when it comes time to change out the entire reactor core - not to be confused with changing out the fuel/control rods).

Imagine all the nuclear power plants in the world going into meltdown...
Not good.

... Why is that a plausible scenario? Nuclear melt-down is the least of our worries if some kind of natural disaster is causing all of that to happen. It's like putting plastic-wrap over your furniture to try and keep the rain off of them while a hurricane is baring down on you.... not really something to be worried about, given the circumstances.

Well to be fair we would have had free energy by now if it weren't for the rich and greedy.

.
.
.
To be fair?

If the richest people in the world wanted to make the world a better place for the people then they could. They could do it and still live like kings.

Because there is some kind of ... handicap... the prevents you from improving the standard and quality of your own life? You are incapable of making it on your own, so you require a hand-out?

I am just giving you a fair perspective. I - because of technology and my drive to learn - know how to make just about every type of power plant known to exist (or, at the very minimum, how to find the specifics of some of the more finicky varieties like fuel cells). I also know plenty of people - rich and not rich - who have the capability to assist me in making any variety of them, at a cost that I could afford given a bit of planning and focus on my part (and I am at the lower end of the income spectrum).

I also know a fair number of wealthy people who don't like to mess with fixing their computer or learning how to do something that I do know how to do - and I am also more than willing to do it for them, if they are willing to part with some of their holdings.

This is turning into more of an economic point, however.

Now - I am not going to assume you meant "free energy" in terms of the many scams out there that claim you can get "energy from the vacuum" using a few magnets and a hamster wheel (which, unfortunately, most people are too uneducated in the world of physics/electricity to not be wowed by such simple displays of known mechanics that do not do what they are being advertised as...) but if you did - I'll be back to put that nonsense back where it belongs.

But they don't want to help the people or the planet, they want to dominate and extort us both.

It's really not that way, at all. You just like to think about it that way because it vindicates your baseless demonizing of other people.

For all your nature-talk and zen fetishism, you really don't seem to have a very balanced self-perspective. I do not mean that as an attack - I mean that as an analysis of your sentience (or, rather, lack thereof).

Zzzz.
I can't be bothered to explain how you have misinterpreted me on some points again.
I've debated with you on this forum before and today I'd rather not rise to the baity matey.

I think some people need to consider the possibility that our current society could quite suddenly be devoid of electricity at some point in the coming years. Our sun is entering what will probably be quite a strong solar maximum which will bring with it a lot of increased solar activity. Plus the economy is about to tank, there are natural disasters increasing in what some would call a rapid manner..

Isn't Chernobyl and Fukushima enough devastation? Imagine if the whole world starts going nuts and/or the power grids mess up?

That's a lot of potential meltdowns. I know nuclear power could have been used safely but it hasn't and it won't so it should stop.

It just seems logical to me.

This is great news. There is no safe amount of radiation for humans, and the risks involved are too high. Nuclear plants are around to refine uranium and plutonium weaponry, and I'm so happy most are "safe" and don't leak on a regular basis, but, the power they provide is literally a by-product of the refineries fusion processes.

Harper turned down the designs for Quantum Energy plants last summer, which were affordable at $330,000 per plant, and would have produced free, renewable energy. It was too dangerous for the politics involved was one of the official answers why not. Kiril Chukanov had been funded with a massive budget since 2006, and afterwards, was sealed out of his labs and workplaces, and denied access to any of his findings. So is the answer "Thorium", or could we go for a better source still which won't cost citizens a cent? Can't we apply robotocs to a quantum plant and operate them with a skeleton crew?

Sounds really, really economical, feasable, agreeable and absolutely possible to me.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TechUnique

That's a lot of potential meltdowns. I know nuclear power could have been used safely but it hasn't and it won't so it should stop

Modern nuclear reactors are not capable of entering a melt-down without physically dismantling the core.

The recent types in the U.S. That is. Older models, and ones built to the standards of other countries, may not necessarily be so.

Zzzz.
I can't be bothered to explain how you have misinterpreted me on some points again.

I have not misinterpreted you in the slightest.

I've debated with you on this forum before and today I'd rather not rise to the baity matey.

Your prerogative. I'm not the one claiming nuclear reactors are capable of destroying all life on the planet and employing doomsday scenarios in an attempt to validate fears of a worldwide nuclear reactor crisis.

Sewage treatment facilities are responsible for more deaths and damage to the environment than nuclear power plants - in normal operation; let alone when a hurricane or tsunami rolls through. Many beaches are closed to the public for months, even years following a major hurricane due to the amount of sewage (food for bacteria... and bacteria intended to be used for industrial purposes of breaking that sewage down) washed into the waters and sediment, where it sits for months and years - particularly in the Gulf.

Why select nuclear reactors for a fear of: "if the world is being systematically destroyed by forces beyond our control, we will woe the day we decided to build nuclear reactors instead of fields of wind turbines and solar panels or mystical free energy devices that don't work and rob the elderly of investments in their retirement or education investments for their grandchildren!?"

It's silly.

It just seems logical to me.

And people call me crazy for training in the use of blades specifically for the apocalypse in an effort to conserve ammunition (that will become scarce and eventually expire and become unreliable).

Never thought to use concerns of the apocalypse to justify environmental initiatives.

Originally posted by rationalistswagger


This is a dumb move by Germany, I figured they were smarter than that. I guess I was wrong.

The Max Planck Society already has new energy sources created.

They are the WWII Kaiser Wilhelm Society...renamed.

They now know more about atoms than anybody else on the planet thanks to Dr. Hell's new microscope. He just got a big science award for it by the way.

Not only will they build new power generation methods.....they'll devise weapons that'll kill Billions. Historical Trend they have in Science used for DEATH.

reply to post by TechUnique


They're phasing it out because the hoax's shelf life is reaching it's end.

No nukes. Never have been.

Originally posted by NowanKenubi
reply to post by TechUnique

 

I have long wondered why they didn't implement free energy devices like the one Tesla was working on, and still charge us for the use of the energy, instead of using fossil fuels and coals and nuclear energy...

That would be because they don't work.

Happy to have solved the mystery for you

Originally posted by Northwarden
This is great news. There is no safe amount of radiation for humans, ...

Apparently the guy who said that concealed data that says otherwise.

And given that we evolved under the gamma rays of the sun, and inhaling radon from the earth, it sound like a lod of bull dust anyway.

Originally posted by Pervius
Europe knows the world will soon get very very mad when they realize how many people will soon be dying of cancer from radiation emitted/polluted from nuclear reactors.

How about going mad at all the people already dying of cancer from the pollution from coal fired stations??

I wonder where they are going to replace the 53% of their electricity that comes from nukes from?? Yep - over half their power came from nukes in 2009 - Belgian electricity sector.

I think France will be doing a roaring trade exporting nuclear-generated electricity to Belgium and German for a few decades to come!!!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Northwarden
This is great news. There is no safe amount of radiation for humans, ...

Apparently the guy who said that concealed data that says otherwise.

And given that we evolved under the gamma rays of the sun, and inhaling radon from the earth, it sound like a lod of bull dust anyway.

Not to mention, constant exposure to cosmic rays, the Earth's magnetic field, and background radiation from naturally occuring fissionables in the ground. Oh yeah, how about the x-ray machine that has been in use for more than a hundred years, and has never been confirmed as having caused cancer or any other sort of disease in any one.

Nuclear reactors aren't going to kill us, politics might, but not nukes.

Reminds me of the way that the FDA tests products to see if they cause cancer, with saccharin they injected those poor rats (in one dose, mind you) with an amount that would require the drinking of a twelve-pack of saccharin sweetened soda a day for 24 years by the average person.

Overdose any creature with anything like that and more than 1/2 of those dosed would develop cancer.

So, how are they going to produce electricity then?

The real move would be to ban fossil fuels, and move private and commercial transportation using all-electric cars. That would be a thing. But doing it this way, will just roll all the bucks back to big bad oil/coal.

Originally posted by Maslo
Nuclear is among the safest ways to generate electricity when you look at deaths per TWh produced, simply because it is so effective, and the safety has the potential to get even better in the future. The only thing this will lead to is more fossil fuels and higher energy prices for Belgium.

I also believe it is just a matter of time before nuclear is again reintroduced, safe or not, just because there wont be any other practical alternative when fossil fuels begin to run out and electricity demand skyrockets.

Except most of the models were never really safe to begin with and where they are usually located(near earthquake zones and/or sea) makes things bad.

I am all for safe nuclear energy. Of course there is never any guarantee, but if we can diminish as many risks as possible, there is no reason why we need to relly on coal, diesel, wind, sea currents, etc. Earth is gettiing digged up a little too much in the name of profit and "necessity". The people who make short-sighted decisions need to be held responsible.

Originally posted by deckdel
So, how are they going to produce electricity then?

I don't know why this seems a big issue, firstly it's only two reactors being shut down it certainly wont cause any shortages. And secondly I imagine they will continue the same way most nations do and continue importing electricity, which incidently the US is the world leader in importing electricity, Germany are the 5th, Belgian 8th and UK 12th. It's the way the world works.
www.indexmundi.com...

Like I said earlier the cost here could be dramatically cut if they would turn off half their uneccessary street lighting. Just Wallonia itself paid 9.5 million euros last year for 105 gigawatt hours of electricity for street lighting alone, the number in the Flemish region would be much higher as they have total road lighting coverage.

reply to post by TechUnique


its about time too there must be surpressed tech
that would be more effective and cleaner

reply to post by maryhinge


Good luck getting all that suppresed tech out in the open. It is all classified higher than nuclear energy on purpose so that the natural resource tycoons get to scrape the last drop of oil/coal/uranium/etc.

To be fair though our economy hinges on KNOWN TECHNOLOGY and would need a dramatic change in design systems and radically new thinking. The changes should be gradual and long-sighted to cause as little turbulence as possible.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


i can see where your coming from but we need change now
to save ourselves and our planet
do you not agree?

reply to post by maryhinge


Of course I agree, but the rich people run the show.........

If OWS and the Tea Party could agree on basic issues perhaps we would force *real change*.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Good luck getting all that suppresed tech out in the open.

What suppressed tech?

The type of stuff you are talking about would make those who own and operate it on par with a demi-god. Defeating entropy would have so many industrial implications that I can't even begin to come up with all of the ways it can be used (even I have my limitations).

You're talking about the ability to manipulate matter and energy with no consequence.

It is all classified higher than nuclear energy on purpose so that the natural resource tycoons get to scrape the last drop of oil/coal/uranium/etc.

You don't really get it. Natural resources will still play a massive role in the future of humanity - regardless of power generation capability. Plastics, as we use them, are made possible by the refinement of oil into fuels. No other industry out there has the capability to produce polymer chains directly or as a byproduct in a scale that could satisfy demand for plastics in even their more 'advanced' applications (such as computers and the like).

Metals will still be vastly important, as we don't yet have a very viable means of energy-to-matter conversion that could provide mass on the scale we need it for industry (a facility capable of doing that would be on the scale of a moon).

I don't think you truly grasp the implication of the technology you allege both works and is suppressed. It would, literally, propel us into an existence beyond our comprehension and would make the aliens discussed on this forum look horribly primitive and restricted by comparison.

To be fair though our economy hinges on KNOWN TECHNOLOGY and would need a dramatic change in design systems and radically new thinking. The changes should be gradual and long-sighted to cause as little turbulence as possible.

Pish posh. What you are using, now, took the world by storm. Solid state electronics were developed and lead to computing networks that encompassed the entire world inside of one human lifetime.

With the technology you claim is suppressed - we would be engineering planet-sized structures inside of a century - along with other things I can't possibly envision (anymore than the team developing the transistor could have envisioned the internet and the capability of modern computers).

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by LightAssassin

 

*conspiracy hat on*

Maybe they want to demonise nuclear energy simply because it is capable of providing cheap, clean and abundant energy for all humanity - making oil obsolete just like "free energy", but contrary to "free energy" hoaxes, it is real. Why do you think all advanced reactor concepts like IFR or LFTR get neglected, if not outright sabotaged by politicians and regulatory agencies, as well as big nuclear companies? 60 years of nuclear energy and we still use mostly LWR reactors, despite better designs being on the table for many decades.

They tried to bury the molten salt reactor concept after the WW2, and almost succeeded, if not for Kirk Sorensen. Now, with the internet, too many people know about it, China is researching TMSR, and they are losing.. I would not be surprised if they purposely neglected Fukushima safety (despite many warnings) to aid their propaganda. The same with Chernobyl (caused by operators "error") - many advanced reactors got cancelled after it, despite having nothing in common with the Chernobyl reactor design. Ask yourself, who benefited from it?

Maslo, you are absolutely right. What most Luddites don't seem to realize is that Nuclear Power is the worst and most dangerous alternative we have -- except for the rest of them.

It seems like there are two key points against nuclear power to this thread:

"It's bad, we need to get rid of and I don't know how we're going to replace the power"; and

"We Already Have Secret Magic Power Sources Designed By Either The Ancient Sumerians and/or Nikola Tesla and We could All Be Free!!! of Ever Needing to Pay for Energy Ever Again, but The Rich People are Hiding It from Us Because They are Bad Weenies Boo-Hoo-Hoo."

People, do you really think nuclear fission is more dangerous than petroleum? Think about it: we are pumping oil out of an ever-decreasing world-wide reservoir; American politics constrain here in the USA us from getting our own oil; what oil we do get comes more and more from people who don't like us very much; drilling, pumping, transporting, refining, and burning it all tends to foul our air, and quite probably is a huge driver in changing our climate drastically; and (from my own rather parochial view) has led my country into a series of imperialistic military adventures which we always seem to lose, while inciting most of the Muslim world against us, and depriving us of our kids and our money as well.

Do you think photovoltaics (PV) is a better solution? At ultimate efficiency, we can only get one kilowatt of solar energy from a square meter of ground surface, and when you think that the best way to store this modicum of electricity if still in lead-acid batteries which must be replaced every five years or so (main ingredients: lead and sulfuric acid). PV is still, after decades of engineering and government subsidies (which is just a tax package), PV is still pretty much a niche energy provider.

I am not a big nuclear energy fan (although, as a young man, I spent ten months living and working within a hundred meters of a nuclear reactor), but until someone here can show us a cost-effective replacement for it, I think nuclear power will have to stay. Further, if Germany and Belgium ever actually follow through on their poorly-thought-out plans to get rid of nuclear power without coming up with any serious replacement, they will be sorry indeed. The best that will happen to them is that they will become -- and stay -- addicted to Russian natural gas like my country is to Arab petroleum.