Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 29.05.2019, 16:28
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 27,123
Groaned at 1,708 Times in 1,304 Posts
Thanked 31,474 Times in 15,051 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Val di Stava dam collapse killing 268 people, destroying 63 buildings and demolishing eight bridges.
So, only about 14% of those killed by the Vajont dam disaster:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam

Tom
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank st2lemans for this useful post:
  #42  
Old 29.05.2019, 17:13
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,865
Groaned at 215 Times in 182 Posts
Thanked 20,899 Times in 8,905 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: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
One of the videos I watch from the posted youtube link shows 161 deaths per Twh of power from Coal vs 0.04 for Nuclear.

I agree we should be keeping existing Nuclear Plants open as long as they are safe and looking at building Thorium Nuclear plants which can help deal with some of the waste from the Current Nuclear Plants
Not only deaths but also radioactive pollution is mich higher for coal than for nuclear. A nuclear plant only emits radioactive pollution when something goes seriously wrong. The radioactive residues from coal seams are being belched out of smoke stacks every day and cumulatively it is way way more

But if somebody randomly catches cancer, people dont tend to think of that so deaths by coal are probably under reported
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #43  
Old 29.05.2019, 20:19
robBob's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,978
Groaned at 39 Times in 26 Posts
Thanked 1,589 Times in 910 Posts
robBob has a reputation beyond reputerobBob has a reputation beyond reputerobBob has a reputation beyond reputerobBob has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

I for one can claim that my bio blueberries last much longer with nuclear around.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 29.05.2019, 20:26
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 13,397
Groaned at 269 Times in 175 Posts
Thanked 15,848 Times in 6,725 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: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Not only deaths but also radioactive pollution is mich higher for coal than for nuclear. A nuclear plant only emits radioactive pollution when something goes seriously wrong. The radioactive residues from coal seams are being belched out of smoke stacks every day and cumulatively it is way way more

But if somebody randomly catches cancer, people dont tend to think of that so deaths by coal are probably under reported
exactly. a solution for nuclear waste would be to incinerate it and release it into the atmosphere like we do with coal.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 30.05.2019, 10:55
robBob's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,978
Groaned at 39 Times in 26 Posts
Thanked 1,589 Times in 910 Posts
robBob has a reputation beyond reputerobBob has a reputation beyond reputerobBob has a reputation beyond reputerobBob has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
exactly. a solution for nuclear waste would be to incinerate it and release it into the atmosphere like we do with coal.
We've been doing that for years!

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/smoking.htm
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 30.05.2019, 11:36
venetian's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Zuerich
Posts: 130
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 146 Times in 75 Posts
venetian is considered knowledgeablevenetian is considered knowledgeablevenetian is considered knowledgeable
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
"the updated perception of risks and possibilities" usually known as scaremongering
Nuclear power was statistically the safest and cleaner in the past century - that's just numbers cast in stone. But the past is not 100% of the story, unfortunately.
I think it is important to consider what could go wrong, even if it leads to discuss some highly-unlikely event. And I don't think it is reasonable to just say "Bhopal or Kathrina generated more deaths than Fukushima, therefore nuclear is safe and you shouldn't even talk about possible accidents".

Is it so intellectually repugnant to think about what are the risks, to think about what has never happened before?

There are guys studying this as a job, e.g.: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/worst-c...urope/44977606
Swissnuclear described the study as "unrealistic event", that's fine, it's part of the debate. Someone makes a model, someone else criticises it. It would have been a bit sad if they just declared "ah, ignore that, it's scaremongering".

Cheers :-)
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 30.05.2019, 12:07
robBob's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,978
Groaned at 39 Times in 26 Posts
Thanked 1,589 Times in 910 Posts
robBob has a reputation beyond reputerobBob has a reputation beyond reputerobBob has a reputation beyond reputerobBob has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Basically, the only thing wrong with nuclear power is that one is using a cruise missile to ring a door bell.
There are simpler and safer ways to make a turbine spin.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 31.05.2019, 11:02
szhjcn's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,729
Groaned at 2 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 364 Times in 291 Posts
szhjcn has earned the respect of manyszhjcn has earned the respect of manyszhjcn has earned the respect of many
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Basically, the only thing wrong with nuclear power is that one is using a cruise missile to ring a door bell.
There are simpler and safer ways to make a turbine spin.
Thorium is a far safer solution, but was never adopted as the arms race required nuclear bombs which is not a product/bi-product of Thorium reactors.

Unfortunately in Switzerland we have decided to phase out Nuclear Power stations, so no new ones will be built and once the end of life is reached, they will be decommistioned.

Just wonder once Thorium reactors are being used globally if we would consider this technology. Guess it would require another referendum.

As we get about 50% of our energy from Nuclear, it will be difficult to replace with renewable energy in the remaining lifetime of the power stations. So we will have to buy it in from other European countries, some of which will be using fossil fuels.

Nuclear is the best option to help reduce Global warming.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank szhjcn for this useful post:
  #49  
Old 31.05.2019, 11:16
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,865
Groaned at 215 Times in 182 Posts
Thanked 20,899 Times in 8,905 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: Keep nuclear power

History is not a one way street but a pendulum. Every good idea can turn into a bad idea when you get too much of it and the pendulum will swing back. Maybe not back to conventional nuclear power but to something that involves centralized large blocks of non polluting generation. Maybe it will be thorium. Maybe something else.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 31.05.2019, 12:12
Treverus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 11,378
Groaned at 282 Times in 240 Posts
Thanked 21,245 Times in 7,732 Posts
Treverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Some countries are reducing nuclear because of false concerns about safety. Byproducts from fossil fuels are believed to kill many thousands more people than nuclear ever did.
Quote:
View Post
My position is basically keep the nuclear power stations that are there running for as long as is safe to do so, but not to build any new ones.
Nuclear power is currently probably the cleanest source of fossil energy. However:

1. We have in the last 60 years not been able to sort out what to do with the dangerous waste the technology produces. The Americans are "storing" the waste in containers next to the power station, we Europeans pay the Russians to park them in leaky containers somewhere in Siberia…

2. A lot of the power stations we have in Europe are way beyond their originally intended life span. Why does that matter? Radiation does not just kill organisms, it weakens even reinforced concrete. So a power plant that has been used much longer than originally planned has a lot of structural risks. It is much more likely to leak radiation. When researchers had a good look at some of the older ones in Belgium did they find thousands of "microfractures" in the concrete around the reactor. The Swiss ones are some of the oldest running plants in the world. So I would claim the exact opposite of Loz - if we are serious about nuclear, lets scrap the 1960s reactors and build some new ones which are more efficient, a lot safer and cleaner... but try to get that idea through politically…

3. There is a fundamental risk with nuclear technology. I am not going into terrorism, but the allegedly fail-safe procedures that would cause only one incident per Millenium have failed repeatedly. We dont just have Tchernobyl, we have Fukushima and a few more… so while nuclear can help to reduce climate change is there always a risk for the next major Desaster.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 31.05.2019, 12:50
BasP72's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Adliswil (close to Zurich)
Posts: 1,684
Groaned at 67 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 1,384 Times in 680 Posts
BasP72 has a reputation beyond reputeBasP72 has a reputation beyond reputeBasP72 has a reputation beyond reputeBasP72 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Ive always wondered whether burning stuff is actually also nuclear energy... maybe fuel plus oxygen has less weight than the resulting water and co2, to the count of the produced energy ...?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 31.05.2019, 13:54
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Leimbach, Zürich
Posts: 5,874
Groaned at 332 Times in 265 Posts
Thanked 6,597 Times in 3,315 Posts
EdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Nuclear power is currently probably the cleanest source of fossil energy.
Nuclear power ain't fossil
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 31.05.2019, 14:55
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,865
Groaned at 215 Times in 182 Posts
Thanked 20,899 Times in 8,905 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: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
if we are serious about nuclear, lets scrap the 1960s reactors and build some new ones which are more efficient, a lot safer and cleaner... but try to get that idea through politically…
And why can't we get that idea through politically?

Because some people, who probably weren't too good at science themselves when they were at school, have pushed a populist agenda that was not about facts but just about scaremongering, meaning that one of the best solutions available cannot be discussed objectively without a lot of populist hysteria.

These very same people, however, are pretty much at the forefront of accusing others of being the populists and of spreading fake or misinterpreted facts.

But I digress.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #54  
Old 31.05.2019, 15:39
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,865
Groaned at 215 Times in 182 Posts
Thanked 20,899 Times in 8,905 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: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Ive always wondered whether burning stuff is actually also nuclear energy... maybe fuel plus oxygen has less weight than the resulting water and co2, to the count of the produced energy ...?
Well, you can argue that all this organic stuff wouldn't be able to grow in the first place if it weren't for all the nasty radiation we're getting from that huge evil nuclear reactor at the centre of the Solar System.

And neither would we have solar energy, or wind energy, or hydro energy .. or geothermal even.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 31.05.2019, 15:50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lausanne
Posts: 426
Groaned at 22 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 435 Times in 252 Posts
dandi has earned the respect of manydandi has earned the respect of manydandi has earned the respect of many
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Ive always wondered whether burning stuff is actually also nuclear energy... maybe fuel plus oxygen has less weight than the resulting water and co2, to the count of the produced energy ...?
Well, you know... E=Mc^2 and all that.... but then don't be confounding weight with mass, you'll get shortchanged when you go to the Moon
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 31.05.2019, 17:06
BasP72's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Adliswil (close to Zurich)
Posts: 1,684
Groaned at 67 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 1,384 Times in 680 Posts
BasP72 has a reputation beyond reputeBasP72 has a reputation beyond reputeBasP72 has a reputation beyond reputeBasP72 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Well, you know... E=Mc^2 and all that.... but then don't be confounding weight with mass, you'll get shortchanged when you go to the Moon
Being Dutch and all, at my age im happy i can remember the english words...
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 31.05.2019, 17:25
Treverus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 11,378
Groaned at 282 Times in 240 Posts
Thanked 21,245 Times in 7,732 Posts
Treverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
And why can't we get that idea through politically?

Because some people, who probably weren't too good at science themselves when they were at school, have pushed a populist agenda that was not about facts but just about scaremongering, meaning that one of the best solutions available cannot be discussed objectively without a lot of populist hysteria.

These very same people, however, are pretty much at the forefront of accusing others of being the populists and of spreading fake or misinterpreted facts.

But I digress.
I cannot speak for Switzerland but in Germany was it clearly not the Greens who made the decision… but the conservatives. I personally had the impression that the coal lobby was simply smarter at using their influence than the nuclear one… but that might just me. The nuclear lobby has the problem that they cannot answer where the trash should be stored. That makes them pretty unpopular with the people who live in the areas which are candidates for it. Coal exhausts on the other hand kill pretty much everyone evenly...
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 31.05.2019, 17:44
BasP72's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Adliswil (close to Zurich)
Posts: 1,684
Groaned at 67 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 1,384 Times in 680 Posts
BasP72 has a reputation beyond reputeBasP72 has a reputation beyond reputeBasP72 has a reputation beyond reputeBasP72 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
I cannot speak for Switzerland but in Germany was it clearly not the Greens who made the decision… but the conservatives. I personally had the impression that the coal lobby was simply smarter at using their influence than the nuclear one… but that might just me. The nuclear lobby has the problem that they cannot answer where the trash should be stored. That makes them pretty unpopular with the people who live in the areas which are candidates for it. Coal exhausts on the other hand kill pretty much everyone evenly...
Surely, any answer to where the trash is to be stored is better than, in the air all around us ?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 31.05.2019, 17:45
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,865
Groaned at 215 Times in 182 Posts
Thanked 20,899 Times in 8,905 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: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
I cannot speak for Switzerland but in Germany was it clearly not the Greens who made the decision… but the conservatives. I personally had the impression that the coal lobby was simply smarter at using their influence than the nuclear one… but that might just me. The nuclear lobby has the problem that they cannot answer where the trash should be stored. That makes them pretty unpopular with the people who live in the areas which are candidates for it. Coal exhausts on the other hand kill pretty much everyone evenly...
Even if technically the German Greens can claim that they were innocent, they did nevertehless lobby precisely for this for a long time and thus they contributed to the general atmosphere of fear and hysteria that made it possible, and they have basically hijacked all discussions on the topic, reducing what should be a complex and nuanced discussion to a bleating of good versus bad, and are winning that disussion by virtue of shouting the loudest.

That is precisely the definition of populism.

The discussion about storage of waste has been similarly afflicted by hysteria. The Greens have been instrumental in continuously raising the bar by inventing new conditions, so that in the end no site anywhere is suitable for storage. The result is that waste is being stored in temporary solutions which are actually less safe.

Radioactivity is a natural thing. Lots of rocks and soils and other things around us are radioactive. A lot of mildly radioactive waste is only marginally more radioactive than this natural stuff and will over time fall to within the limits of natural radiation. Only a small part is highly radiocative and I am sure that with some goodwill a suitable safe and secure long term storage can be found. Especially if you explain to people that the alternative, coal, is much more dangerous than the coal lobby makes out.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 31.05.2019, 20:25
Treverus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 11,378
Groaned at 282 Times in 240 Posts
Thanked 21,245 Times in 7,732 Posts
Treverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Even if technically the German Greens can claim that they were innocent, they did nevertehless lobby precisely for this for a long time and thus they contributed to the general atmosphere of fear and hysteria that made it possible, and they have basically hijacked all discussions on the topic, reducing what should be a complex and nuanced discussion to a bleating of good versus bad, and are winning that disussion by virtue of shouting the loudest.

That is precisely the definition of populism.

The discussion about storage of waste has been similarly afflicted by hysteria. The Greens have been instrumental in continuously raising the bar by inventing new conditions, so that in the end no site anywhere is suitable for storage. The result is that waste is being stored in temporary solutions which are actually less safe.

Radioactivity is a natural thing. Lots of rocks and soils and other things around us are radioactive. A lot of mildly radioactive waste is only marginally more radioactive than this natural stuff and will over time fall to within the limits of natural radiation. Only a small part is highly radiocative and I am sure that with some goodwill a suitable safe and secure long term storage can be found. Especially if you explain to people that the alternative, coal, is much more dangerous than the coal lobby makes out.

Yeah sure... lots of idiots are protesting against trash that is so mildly radioactive that it just blends in with nature. Quick question: When the first castor transports from France reached northern Germany did the protesters throw eggs at them. That "used up" fuel is encased in glass with metal around it. the glass layer is a heat isolator... They are so "mildly" radioactive that they still produce 120C heat on the outside of that isolation... so the eggs get fried instantly. How natural... (nowadays do they wrap them in some tarps to prevent the egging.)


When I look out of my window do I see the artificial cloud produced by the French plant put right on the border here... and yes, I am worried. Mostly because the EdF constantly has issues with their reactors. And I know that even the Japanese dont manage to run those plants safely... so I dont actually want to know whats happening inside a French or Belgian power plant. Let alone any eastern block ones still running. Its not some hysteria or theory... we had plenty of security issues in those reactors the past decades and its not really a good plan to reduce climate change but risk another Tchernobyl. I am not against nuclear in principle, but when I see how easily the life span of plants got extended "on paper" do I wonder if security really always comes first.
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
Excursion to nuclear power-station Mariia Travel/day trips/free time 0 05.08.2015 20:27
Beznau nuclear plant e.kazemi Other/general 96 07.12.2012 22:24
can I re-apply for a new UK licence so I can keep my CH separate? keep my shelldo10 Transportation/driving 24 09.11.2012 18:17
Is nuclear power a necessity ?? miss_bean International affairs/politics 95 30.05.2011 18:49
Swiss nuclear smuggling. hoppy Swiss politics/news 1 25.10.2010 14:59


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:51.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0