Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
View Poll Results: Do you think nuclear power is a necessity?
Yes, with the limited coal and natural resource, it is a necessity 62 72.09%
No, we need to look at other sources of energy 22 25.58%
I don't care 2 2.33%
Voters: 86. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 22.03.2011, 22:47
Upthehatters2008's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: In the kitchen at parties.
Posts: 4,540
Groaned at 204 Times in 120 Posts
Thanked 6,078 Times in 2,378 Posts
Upthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
My money's on carbon-neutral biomass generation
.
That's just a load of Chicken shit...
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Upthehatters2008 for this useful post:
  #62  
Old 22.03.2011, 22:52
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
Are the two mutually exclusive?

...

But now try explaining that to the man in the street. isn't it so much easier to teach him to bleat "nuclear bad, solar and wind good".
^^ What he said ^^^^
.
Quote:
View Post
That's just a load of Chicken shit...
...may well be, but it sure beats the CBS I had to put up with in a previous life. And pays the bills rather nicely...

I now look forward to going to work in the mornings, and to stay late in the evenings, to help change the world and make it a little bit better. I wonder how many people can honestly say that about what they do for a living
.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 23.03.2011, 00:20
dblacklion's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Zürich
Posts: 159
Groaned at 6 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 78 Times in 55 Posts
dblacklion has slipped a little
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

I have gone thru the threads, I dont see any huge alternatives to switch nuclears to any other. It is quite correct that the investment decisions are still quite political.

Today I and my collegues discussed this issue quite in details, well what we believe is there will be no "huge" reduction in nuclear energy investment decisions, maybe 10% (max) may switch to gas plants in Europe.

By the way, I received a report from a colleuge in Japan, that there were many mistakes have been done during the catastrophy. Well that is completely another story, currently there is 4th generation of nuclear plants are built and safety cautions are a long way better than the 1st & 2nd generations.

Solar and wind will continue independently from the accidents, but these solutions can never steal contracts from nuke & fossil or hydros. We made a rough calculation for Switzerland (while we were drinking in an Irish bar ) even you covered complete Switzerland surface above 2000m (basicly everything above clouds in Alpines) with solar panels you can only supply electricity for Kreis 1 in ZH. Sad but true..
So Wind & Solar are only peak plants to balance the national grid. and they are quite expensive in parity (the money you invest / the electricity you produce)

Hydro and Heatpumps are natural geographical advantages to produce. So not a matter of discussion.

In fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas, we are running out of coal and oil that is correct, but it is not true on gas. Oil is expected to be in 20-25 years, but gas more than 100 years.
Since the CO2 capture development is doing good process gas plant business have good chances to expand..
Then the only issue ==> NAtural Gas is only in certain countries, Russia, Norway, Iran, ex-Russian states i.e. Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Israel (found reserves 2 years ago), Asia and North Africa (guess explains the Libya war maybe

At the end of the day we came to the point that political issues.
None-of the country would like to state his energy policy is dependant on other country's willing. It is sooo "Political"


Conclusion==> We couldnt find any other solution, Could you?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank dblacklion for this useful post:
  #64  
Old 23.03.2011, 12:45
HollidayG's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kanton Zürich
Posts: 3,038
Groaned at 50 Times in 35 Posts
Thanked 1,180 Times in 738 Posts
HollidayG has an excellent reputationHollidayG has an excellent reputationHollidayG has an excellent reputationHollidayG has an excellent reputation
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

The plans for the 3 new reactors in Switzerland have been put on hold
temporarily( how temporary is this??? Who knows? ).

Our management, together with Axpo and BKW met with Doris Leuthard
to express support for the hold.

The existing nuclear power plants in Switzerland will be inspected for the failures and potential risks that happened at the Japanese plant.

Lastly, the existing reactors in Switzerland may be "retro-fitted" if the reports find any shortcomings.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank HollidayG for this useful post:
  #65  
Old 23.03.2011, 14:34
miss_bean's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 525
Groaned at 3 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 464 Times in 224 Posts
miss_bean has an excellent reputationmiss_bean has an excellent reputationmiss_bean has an excellent reputationmiss_bean has an excellent reputation
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Interesting article
Green energy boom

Swiss producers of alternative energies make big profits.
The nuclear crisis in Japan has shifted the focus to alternative forms of energy. In Switzerland, manufacturers of products for the solar and wind energy sectors are well placed to profit from the tide turning against atomic power.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/multimed...l?cid=29815370
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 23.03.2011, 14:47
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Zurich
Posts: 56
Groaned at 4 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 27 Times in 16 Posts
azurboy has made some interesting contributions
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
Yes unfortunately it's necessary in this society

Click on the link and you'll see why
http://nuclearfissionary.com/wp-cont...on-per-kwh.jpg

Those numbers are seriously biased!! It's now admitted that the decommission costs were ridiculously underestimated so far by pro-nuclear lobbies to make the Nuclear kW look cheaper!
Some studies now say that decommissioning a nuclear plant is more expansive than building them. And they don't even consider the fact that you're left with tons of contaminated material as a gift for the next generations...
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 23.03.2011, 14:52
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Zurich
Posts: 56
Groaned at 4 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 27 Times in 16 Posts
azurboy has made some interesting contributions
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

the first new source of energy are savings. It's not about generating more power, we can't! Oil will become too expensive to burn recklessly and alternative energies can't compensate so far. But allowing to build only top energy efficient buildings will already save a lot. And it's about changing our habits towards energy consumption.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 23.03.2011, 14:56
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Food for thought in the Guardian from George Monbiot - in case you don't know him he is one of the leading environmental writers/spokesmen in the UK.. Firmly and surprisingly (given his previous track record) now pro nuclear.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #69  
Old 31.03.2011, 13:28
Deep Purple's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 5,273
Groaned at 15 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 5,284 Times in 2,568 Posts
Deep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

The letter bomb in Olten today and the (unconnected) Greenpeace demonstration outside Alpiq got me thinking.

Would building new nuclear power stations be a better option than keeping the ageing ones in operation?

Whether we like it or not, we have the nuclear power stations and the radioactive waste is not going to suddenly disappear.

The incident in Japan has shown that the imporoved technology, compared to Chernobyl, has reduced the potential effects of this.

If the campaigners were successful and prevented the development of new nuclear power stations would the old ones be kept operating? This could potentially leave us at greater risk than having the advantage of the latest technology and safety measures.
__________________
"I'll say I can't tell you when, But if my spirit is strong, I know it can't be long, No questions I'm not alone, Somehow I'll find my way home" Rod
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Deep Purple for this useful post:
  #70  
Old 31.03.2011, 13:45
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Read here, this gets complicated very quickly btw, boffins at work..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

and here (mentions neutron flux, geek snigger)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiPER

and here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility

It's only a matter of time..

Fusion power would provide much more energy for a given weight of fuel than any technology currently in use,[32] and the fuel itself (primarily deuterium) exists abundantly in the Earth's ocean: about 1 in 6500 hydrogen atoms in seawater is deuterium.[33] Although this may seem a low proportion (about 0.015%), because nuclear fusion reactions are so much more energetic than chemical combustion and seawater is easier to access and more plentiful than fossil fuels, some experts estimate that fusion could supply the world's energy needs for millions of years.[34][35]

An important aspect of fusion energy in contrast to many other energy sources is that the cost of production does not suffer from diseconomies of scale.

The cost of wind energy, for example, goes up as the optimal locations are developed first, while further generators must be sited in less ideal conditions. With fusion energy, the production cost will not increase much, even if large numbers of plants are built. It has been suggested that even 100 times the current energy consumption of the world is possible.

Now would someone care to tell me why the governments of this world are not ploughing in billions to this?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #71  
Old 31.03.2011, 13:51
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

This was a interesting thought...

A scenario has been presented of the effect of the commercialization of fusion power on the future of human civilization.[36] ITER and later Demo are envisioned to bring online the first commercial nuclear fusion energy reactor by 2050. Using this as the starting point and the history of the uptake of nuclear fission reactors as a guide, the scenario depicts a not unreasonable rapid take up of nuclear fusion energy starting after the middle of this century. Because the development of fusion energy is such a complex technological task it is probable that there will be several decades when the constraints of energy shortage will be severely felt as shown by the flattening of the energy consumption from around 2040 to 2100. Such a period of stagnation seems unavoidable even with the envisaged development and rapid adoption of fusion energy. On the other hand without nuclear fusion energy the scenario depicts a severe downturn with world population shrinking below 5 billion and eventually even lower
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #72  
Old 31.03.2011, 14:00
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Then look at this video and consider peak oil/gas.



The guy wasn't wrong.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #73  
Old 31.03.2011, 14:51
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 3,848
Groaned at 78 Times in 57 Posts
Thanked 4,115 Times in 2,218 Posts
rainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
The letter bomb in Olten today and the (unconnected) Greenpeace demonstration outside Alpiq got me thinking.

Would building new nuclear power stations be a better option than keeping the ageing ones in operation?
Nuclear power (as in "fision") is only viable (in the economic sense) because:

- the public pays for building the damned facilities
- the public pays for eventual deconstruction
- the public pays for terminal storage of waste (a problem not yet solved and arguably unsolveable)
- the public is accountable for all damages from disasters (in Germany, utilities are accountable for a sum in in the single-digit billion EUR range, the rest is supposedly paid by the taxpayer)
- all the profits go to the corporate entities running the facilities

If the companies running the reactors would actually have to insure the risk of running them, they'd quickly realize that nobody was stupid enough to insure it (at reasonable rates) and thus the whole "business case" would be dead in a blink.

The public should simply be given the two alternatives:
- keep the current system running, with the risk of making potentially large parts of the country uninhabiltable for say 50000 years?
- stop it and deal with the consequences (price of electricity goes up several orders of magnitudes, not just percent).

One can live without (or with very little) electricity (yeah, I'm writing this on a computer...) - for a very long time.
Not very nice, but it's doable.
But it's not possible to survive very long in a radioactively contaminated environment for a very long time without severe consequences for oneself and the generations to come.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank rainer_d for this useful post:
  #74  
Old 31.03.2011, 15:27
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
Nuclear power (as in "fision") is only viable (in the economic sense) because:

- the public pays for building the damned facilities
- the public pays for eventual deconstruction
- the public pays for terminal storage of waste (a problem not yet solved and arguably unsolveable)
- the public is accountable for all damages from disasters (in Germany, utilities are accountable for a sum in in the single-digit billion EUR range, the rest is supposedly paid by the taxpayer)
- all the profits go to the corporate entities running the facilities

If the companies running the reactors would actually have to insure the risk of running them, they'd quickly realize that nobody was stupid enough to insure it (at reasonable rates) and thus the whole "business case" would be dead in a blink.

The public should simply be given the two alternatives:
- keep the current system running, with the risk of making potentially large parts of the country uninhabiltable for say 50000 years?
- stop it and deal with the consequences (price of electricity goes up several orders of magnitudes, not just percent).

One can live without (or with very little) electricity (yeah, I'm writing this on a computer...) - for a very long time.
Not very nice, but it's doable.
But it's not possible to survive very long in a radioactively contaminated environment for a very long time without severe consequences for oneself and the generations to come.
I think you're blowing this out of proportion. On average there is one severe nuclear accident every 20 years. The last one was a 1st generation reactor that was hit by a magnitude 9 earthquake and a 20ft tsunami and still in the main is intact. (More death/damage was probably caused in Iraq by the allies.)

If we look at the previous one Chernobyl it was caused due to human error and incompetence.

How many issues have France had with their huge reliance on nuclear power?

The majority of reactors today are much safer than those of the past and yes while nuclear waste is always a problem there is a much greater issue.


I agree lets all cut back on nuclear but when the gas/oil runs out what are you going to do then?

Don't think a wind turbine which outputs enough energy to power a kettle will fill the gap. Solar is okay in the Sahara but not much use in Europe. There's only so many rivers you can dam for hydroelectric.

Don't forget food costs are linked to energy, so I reckon people will die of starvation before the pc turns off as food prices go to crazy levels. This is not just an electricity issue, but one of global dwindling energy supplies.

We are fast running out of time, people will not know what hit them in 20 years.

So while this debate goes on, no one from the anti nuclear camp can answer the question. "So where is that energy going to come from instead?"

Don't forget that eco alternatives people keep banging on about are hardly "clean" either, they require energy, materials and cost to build, and the return on investment can be very low over the life span of these technologies.

The consiquences are that we all go back to the stone age unless someone does something very soon about energy supply, so it's not a question of the method of delivery it's a question of building as many nuclear plants, solar/wind farms, geothermal and hydroelectic sources as possible and reducing oil/gas consumption.

We need to build a diverse energy supply structure in the short term and prey nuclear fusion appears by 2050.

We have no choice nuclear is going no where and there are no viable alternatives if we choose to maintain our current lifestyles and dependance on energy.

Last edited by Cata1yst; 31.03.2011 at 15:53.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #75  
Old 31.03.2011, 18:00
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 3,848
Groaned at 78 Times in 57 Posts
Thanked 4,115 Times in 2,218 Posts
rainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
I think you're blowing this out of proportion.
...
We have no choice nuclear is going no where and there are no viable alternatives if we choose to maintain our current lifestyles and dependance on energy.

As I said: if nuclear energy was as save as the proponents always claim, it should be easy to find an insurer for the associated risks.
Reality is: nobody wants to insure the risk, because even if the risk is small, the resulting damages are astronomical.
Thus, with your line of thinking, we are just putting our heads into the sand, hoping that "someone else will pay at some point".
In Germany, this is commonly referred to as "Sankt Florians Prinzip":
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sankt-Florian-Prinzip

And, for the record, I don't bet on fusion, either.
Fusion has its own set of problems (not the least of these is the fact that nuclear waste is generated there, too) and while the concept sounds great, there's no sure way to say if the reactors will be commerically viable one day - or at all.
It sure _sounds_ like a nice idea. But so do a lot of concepts around variations of "conventional" nuclear reactors (breeder reactor, THHTR etc.pp.).
I should say that I "believed" in fusion, too, at some point. That was when I was 13 or so and read about it in a popular-science books/mags.

So, what's left?
IMO, the only alternative right now is being absolutely relentless on saving energy.
And the only way you get people being frugal with anything is by making it expensive (or, in this case - just pricing it correctly, because, as I pointed out, currently a lot of opportunity costs are just factored out of the price of most forms of energy, not just nuclear energy).

Of course, this has profound consequences on how we live and how and what/when/where we work. And on what goods we consume.

But let's be honest: while we are (literally) waiting an Alien spaceship visiting us and "donating" us with technology for some sort of "free energy 4ever", we could face reality and get our act together to make this place viable for a couple of more centuries.
Our "current lifestyle", as you put it, has been known to be unsustainable for over 40 years (Club of Rome anybody?).

If you check my old posts, I once wrote:
"Enjoy the party, while it lasts."
It seems, we've just gotten a noticeable bit closer to closing hour.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 31.03.2011, 18:01
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 338 Times in 274 Posts
Thanked 26,263 Times in 11,000 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
I think you're blowing this out of proportion. On average there is one severe nuclear accident every 20 years. The last one was a 1st generation reactor that was hit by a magnitude 9 earthquake and a 20ft tsunami and still in the main is intact. (More death/damage was probably caused in Iraq by the allies.)
In fact statisically speaking, nuclear power kills far fewer people than coal power. It kills far fwere people than oil. It kills far fewer people than gas. It is even safer than solar panels.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/sum...s-per-twh.html

That doesn't stop the greenies having a meltdown in their logic reactors though the moment the topic is mentioned.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #77  
Old 31.03.2011, 18:11
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 338 Times in 274 Posts
Thanked 26,263 Times in 11,000 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
As I said: if nuclear energy was as save as the proponents always claim, it should be easy to find an insurer for the associated risks.
And tell me, who is insuring against the risks of coal power, against the 45 tons of uranium that smokestacks are putting into the atmosphere every year? Of course if somebody dies of lung cancer you can't prove anything and therefore you don't need an insurance. But is that a level playing field?
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 31.03.2011, 18:20
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 3,848
Groaned at 78 Times in 57 Posts
Thanked 4,115 Times in 2,218 Posts
rainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
In fact statisically speaking, nuclear power kills far fewer people than coal power. It kills far fwere people than oil. It kills far fewer people than gas. It is even safer than solar panels.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/sum...s-per-twh.html

Probably true.
But having to leave the house you built for the next 5000 years is also quite a big impact, right?
I'd even be willing to bet that we will get very few direct casualities (and not many indirect) from the Fukushima "incident" - but that's no real consolation for the 200k that have to be relocated, right? After all, this is not the USSR where nobody owned houses and everything was provided by the state.
Granted, they still live - but so would we if we just stopped living in cloud-cuckoo-land and started to consume less energy.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 31.03.2011, 18:21
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,952
Groaned at 295 Times in 199 Posts
Thanked 19,020 Times in 8,000 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

the disposal of nuclear waste is also a bit of a red herring. maybe we should just grind it down and disperse it into the atmosphere - that's what we do with every other kind of power generation...
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 31.03.2011, 18:22
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 3,848
Groaned at 78 Times in 57 Posts
Thanked 4,115 Times in 2,218 Posts
rainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
And tell me, who is insuring against the risks of coal power, against the 45 tons of uranium that smokestacks are putting into the atmosphere every year?
Well, it's basically the same bunch of companies, the same lobby-group.
At least in Germany.
So, no surprises there.
;-)
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are Curtains A Necessity? Mrs. Doolittle Housing in general 25 30.07.2011 23:37
Swiss nuclear deterrent Phil_MCR Swiss politics/news 36 27.05.2010 21:52
Google To Go Nuclear flavio International affairs/politics 4 02.04.2010 03:09
The nuclear threat Castro General off-topic 8 11.08.2009 17:21


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:39.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0