-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Germanys Renewable Sources Provide 85% Of Energy For The First Time
- Thread starter Xando
- Start date
I'm not an expert, but that may not be as far fetched as it seems:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste
Obviously dumping waste on the coast will never be allowed but seabed dumping perhaps could be some day.
I was just replying to someone who actually suggested this, not saying that ocean dumping is the ultimate solution.
DrROBschiz
Member
Oh my god
Nuclear Waste isnt some magical substance that nothing can be done about
It can be burned, consumed, processed
It just isnt.... Why dont we recycle all the stuff we throw into landfills?
Because our government doesnt push to develop technology that can do it on the cheap and can turn waste material back into usable RAW material
Nuclear waste storage is the same exact principal except that the majority of it is just cracked unspent Uranium with a very tiny amount of the bad stuff.
We arent up to our necks in unsolvable problems we have just chosen not to tackle them
Theonik
Member
Burying it in a concrete containment unit works quite well in a country like Germany with low seismic activity. It's not ideal but as long as proper disposal practices are observed it works.
Now, the actual answer is that it obviously is not so simple, however, this kind of problem is exactly what is being addressed right now with new types of reactor under-investment in the field has slowed down progress significantly.
Climate change would affect them anyway.
I suggested nothing. Asked what you are suggesting. Its easy to post thing without have a single clue of the country or the circumstances. We have a old mine, where we store the current waste. Its leaking. Will be quiet fun with all the atomic lye flowing around.
And the bavarian state government, who are under control of alps, the only really good place to store the waste, disagrees strongly to store the waste there. So its bullshit to just write that its Safe, reliable and feared due to ignorance. We dont have any good place to store it. Thats it. But please, continue to post phrases withouth knowing anything.
DrROBschiz
Member
This sounds horrible
Why make recyclable material this hard to reobtain for processing
Its so irritating that we have perpetuated this idea that Nuclear waste cannot be used
Yes we need a breakthrough reprocessing application but isnt that what engineers and physicists do?
The enemy of Nuclear power is not the hazards.. which are overblown. Its the economics, optics and lack of backing
More Info
https://www.nei.org/Issues-Policy/Used-Nuclear-Fuel-Management/Recycling-Used-Nuclear-Fuel
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...ecycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx
By that you refer to the economic viability, right?
Theonik
Member
Until we do there is need for an interim solution. You need to store the waste somewhere either way until you have the capability to recycle it properly. Concrete coffins work really well for that purpose. This is literally what we do now, BECAUSE we don't have the capability to do otherwise. That is not to say that will always be so.
DrROBschiz
Member
How did Solar and Wind get pushed to where they are?
You see the challenge and you do the science
To throw away the massive potential of Nuclear power is insanity in my mind
The money governments threw away out of ignorance and fear could have gone into the science and engineering to solve these core issues.
Thankfully we have plenty of great private entities coming around I just wish people would stop spouting misinformation
Thats actually a position I can understand and to some degree support - But I admit that I feel really uncomfortable with having nuclear plants around, which comes mostly from horrorstories from the media - I am aware, that these plants mostly work and are safe, I am just really horrified if really something happens. So I am fine with the plans to have mostly green energy around, even when this will take some decades to fully work out.
With how everyone pushes for clean energies (minimisation of CO2 emissions), renewable energies such as solar and wind are the future. While nuclear power might still fare better than coal in that regard, it still cannot compete with solar or wind.
Coupled with the enormous risks related to nuclear energy, it's a relatively simple choice, especially when also taking costs into consideration. Why invest billions into researching nuclear technology when there's no real need for that anymore?
Because having Cold Fusion around would be an big archivement for the future of mankind.
I think research is still needed.
Theonik
Member
Welcome to democracy.
Maedre
Banned
Oh the fission fans are here back again.
- Fission is expensive
- Fission is producing to much waste
- As someone who lived near THTR-300 and had friends and Family working there, the reactor wasn't effective enough
Did I mention that Fission is fucking expensive? There is a reason that there are not many reactors in construction. - If we would have the money that we took the last 50 years for Fission and put it in renewable we could be sustainable by now.
- This funds should have gone in Fusion and renewable.
DrROBschiz
Member
Im all for the planned retirement of LWR plants and its likely the old way of doing thing and the LWR industry will fade
What I don't want to see is Nuclears potential squandered once again
We had LWR's providing power at scale while only tapping roughly 3% consumption of the energy potential in the fuel
could you imagine... if we could do better
What I don't want to see is Nuclears potential squandered once again
We had LWR's providing power at scale while only tapping roughly 3% consumption of the energy potential in the fuel
could you imagine... if we could do better
You're ignoring the massive subsidies nuclear power got in germany aswell as that germany is on the forefront of nuclear fusion research.
I guess some people just need to move on when new technology becomes available. Technology that costs less and doesn't have the same risks. I mean, the technology might be interesting as a researcher and technician, but when it's no longer commercially viable and when there are better alternatives available, nostalgic feelings for nuclear power alone simply aren't enough.
KillerMan91
Member
DrROBschiz
Member
They are great tech with great applications. Especially now that economics and costs are hitting a sweet spot
You still have to solve the battery issue but we are tracking to find solutions there too.
We still need to push the science forward on Nuclear. The applications for energy density in such small packages has such far reaching potential.
And it may be key to our survival as a species
Solar and wind are great tools in the toolbox but they arent the end game
As I said, maybe not as much that there isn't room for improvement (I'm talking fission here), but it's just super expensive for relatively little gains. Better invest in other forms of energy production that are still in their infancy and as such pretty easy to push those further without having to put billions upon billons $€£s without much to show for it, while also trying to get fusion off the ground.
This is so wrong its crazy. Isn't much room for improvement??
I suggest you look again
What you consider green may not actually be green. Taking the production and life cycle of an electric vehicle for example, it can actually produce more pollution than a traditional car in it's life cycle. Battery technology is wasteful as hell and that's the thing that solar and wind rely on as well.
Thats why we need research on battery technology as well - And not only because I want to use my iPhone longer then 10 hours. With embracing electro cars, this is going to be a big problem that needs to be tackled and researched.
DrROBschiz
Member
I agree that fusion deserves the bulk of our attention going forward and who knows if the private entities investing in advanced fission will get off the ground
Lets just remember that the LWR design only ever reached a TINY fraction of whats possible with fission
There is definitely a massive gap for improvement and it might be worth looking into for various economic applications outside of just making power. Including recycling Nuclear waste into power, creating valuable isotopes, desalination plants etc...
I don't disagree. But people keep crying about climate change and current pollution while fission could have solved that already by now.
Woo-Fu
Banned
Because it literally can't be counted.
Yeah but.. i bet you're fine with dams.
Dams which have a track record that's infinitely worse than nuclear: Chernobyl is nothing when compared to Banqiao.
I dont worry about dams because I am not sure we even have some in germany.
And if there are I am far enough away to be not affected
Muppet of a Man
Member
The funny thing is that all the "nuclear waste" produced by LWRs is actually 85+% unspent nuclear fuel. For analogies sake, it's like using 1.5 gallons in a 10 gallon gas tank and dumping the other 8.5 gallons in the trash.
MSRs and Burner Reactors could largely utilize the rest of the 85+% unspent nuclear fuel that is currently being buried.
We just need to invest to actually make these things a reality. They've been demonstrated to work as far back as the 1950's. We just need to stop with the political bullshit and actually build them.
MSRs and Burner Reactors could largely utilize the rest of the 85+% unspent nuclear fuel that is currently being buried.
We just need to invest to actually make these things a reality. They've been demonstrated to work as far back as the 1950's. We just need to stop with the political bullshit and actually build them.
Frankfurter
Member
Why do you think they are not being built? Let's say they were cheap, safe and would be able to use most of those 85% of unspent nuclear fuel. Don't you think China, the UK, Brazil etc. would built one of these instead of the "traditional" ones they do right now?
jakonovski
Member
Has anyone touched on the price of nuclear fuel? Specifically what will happen in the scenario where nuclear power becomes several times more prevalent. IIRC, known uranium deposits will run out in a century at our current rate of consumption.
There's your problem.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Its about risk and worst case scenarios.
No matter how small the risk is, it becomes irresponsible as the possible damages increase.
A plan crashing down, even if it hits a city, is damage limited to a degree we can deal with.
But nuclear power could, as unlikely as it may be, render entire countries unlivable.
Taking these risks can be considered irresponsible as long as we can't guarantee 100% safety, which is impossible.
Just a pair of hundreds or so
The only way a nuclear power plant failure renders "entire countries unlivable" is armed forces taking control of it, pulverize all the fuel, and make enough dirty bombs to carpet bomb said countries.
Chernobyl was the worst case for 60s designs, and is impossible now.
Fukushima (which did, as it bears endless repeating, negligible damage when compared to the Tohoku earthquake+tsunami that caused it) is near the worst case for another type of 60s design, is under ridicolously conservative exclusion zones, and at best it made a 20km area unlivable for half a century.
Meanwhile, burning coal has a good chance of literally making the planet unlivable for human beings. What's the real risk here?
The real damage of the Fukushima incident is that Japan shut down it's whole nuclear power system for years, and burned coal to produce that energy.
OK, then we have some.
I see still no reason to give a shit, there is no one in my surrounding that can hurt me and I doubt that there is some kind of fallout of a damn that can float hundreds of kilometers through the air.
There are absolutely countries that are heavily investing in nuclear.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/india.aspx
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...s/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-fuel-cycle.aspx
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...ofiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx
This site tells you about a whole bunch of countries nuclear power status and strategy. You can see India and China here are working on everything from thorium to molten salt reactors, and are building state of the art facilities
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima were actual worst case scenarios. Fukushima came dangerously close being way worse. to the point where they would have had to evacuate Tokio hundreds of miles away.
Natural disasters, acts of terrorism or war and even freak accidents are just not predictable enough to call the technology fail safe.
The technology, in its current form, given the risks and the lack of a permanent solution for the radioactive waste, is just irresponsible.
There are better ways to get rid of fossil fuels.
We can have a debate which one has higher priority, coal or nuclear, but eventually we have to get rid of both.
By your standard, we shouldn't use planes because bombardiers exist.
Or dams, obviously.
Or biological \ nuclear weapons existing at all.
Or centralized potable water systems.
Even if terrorists took control of a NPP station (lol), actually melting it down before the army rolls in would require a degree of competency that's probably enough to bring down a government.
Fukushima was a reactor meltdown with uncontrolled leaks. That's as bad as it realistically gets.
If waste is your jam, there's closed-cycle thorium reactors.
The issue is always the same: Nuclear is asked to do things at a degree of safety that's completely beyond everything else, even in light of actually lesser risks.
The whole "But terrorists" on nuclear power plants? There's a billion better targets for terrorists than trying to blow up something that doesn't blow up.
Let us rephrase:
You're not even aware of the presence of dams. Let's not pretend you have any knowledge of whatever your place of living is downriver to any relevant dam. (Unless you're at an elevated location, it probably is.)
Deadly radiation does not travel "Hundreds of kilometers", it barely travels kilometers.
Any active coal plant has comparable effects on health as fukushima does within it's exclusion zone, yet coal plants have no exclusion zones - despite very comparable danger levels.
Unimaginable risks are not willing to fuck up the planet as we've been doing in the 40 years since Chernobyl waiting for a solar+wind world that keeps not happening nearly fast enough.
At this point, i've mostly given up because nuclear is slow to get built, and we're past the brink for what it could do. But let's not kid ourselves that humanity has made a good decision turning away from nuclear in the 80s and 90s.
Nuclear power hysteria is the stupidest issue that has made us fuck up our planet, and perhaps the greatest failing of democracy as a whole.