Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

I read this :

The disaster has triggered a drop of more than 80 percent in Tokyo Electric's share price and forced the company to seek government aid as it faces compensation liabilities that some analysts say could top $100 billion.

100 BILLION DOLLARS???
call you ensurance, LOL!

who'll pay? (and it will be enough for every damage caused?)

I have a suspect..
the citizens will pay

wuo, I am very surprised by German news/plan close all their nuclear reactors till 2022.
I didnt read in that news what kind of new powerplants they want to build, but anyway, very intersting news, I didnt belive that they will make this ! :-)

I'm not surprised at all. But it's most unfortunate. It'll create a huge demand for other energy sources. We can only hope they'll not replace with coal or other fossils.

In other news: 2010 was a record braking year for world wide CO2-emissions. 5% rise from the year before. Pretty bleak news which highlights the short sightedness of the new German position.

Fortunately 10 years is a long time, and political turmoil blows over. The Germans have changed their decision before out of necessity, and they might well do it again.

We will see what the future brings, best scenario are regenerative energies like wind and solar, worst case are coal plants.

@Monty: Are you really saying that closing the nuclear plants is a bad decision?
(edited)

Does there any country that can already "live" without nuclear or coal ?

Germany does. We are exporting parts of our nuclear energy because we don't need it and we just use the rest because it's cheaper, but you cant legitimize nuclear power by cost argumentation.

Thus now, if Germany stop immediatly nuclear power export, they can still be operational with other energies ?

Pretty sure about that, but the problem is, it is more expensive for the four (or five) big electricity providers that they don't want to do it, and their lobby got quite a power.

Yes. I just cannot see 25% of Germany's energy demand replaced by renewables in 10 years.

Best scenario would be to import more nuclear energy from France - if the decision is not cancelles again.

There is no problem with that, even if I'm pretty sure that Germany is only using nuclear energy for 10-13% of its demands.
Turning off the nuclear plants in order to import nuclear energy from France defeats the whole purpose of the decision.

Monty: you do agree when it is possible to fullfill all energy needs by renewable energy (fusion, wind, sun whatever) it is the most desirable option?

If yes, then it is just to problem to get that far =p

If it was feasible, yes, sure... it would be the best solution. But it's just not. Not with today's technology. There are big problems with both price and practicability. Renewables with todays technology will not replace the demand for coal in a foreseable future. Maybe when you and I are old men.

Of course we can always hope in big achievements in renewables. But I believe big achievements in nuclear technology (regarding safety, price, waste and demand for fuel) is much more feasible than in renewables. To abandon nuclear power and go all in on renewables is a dangerous bet.

Yes, and the bigger problem is that noone of these "great people" responsible for energy-connected issues starts investing or even thinking about renewable energies before you let them no other choice. Their only argument is that it's more expensive (which is true, no doubt about that) and that they will think about it as soon as it gets cheaper, but it won't get cheaper before someone starts investing more money.
Bottom line, this decision was the best thing that could happen to Germany and maybe even Europe and the World (because someone has to start!), besides the fact that 2022 is still pretty far away and we could do it until 2015 if the people responsible would bet their finger out of their asses.

@ Monty: You're argumentation is exaclty what I'm talking about. And the second part of your posting is just really sad.
(edited)

Sometimes a dangerous bet is a solution.

Some time ago i read an article from the New York times of 189X (don't know exactly): the city counsel was worrying about horse poo with population growing. The stench of all those horses would become unbearable and city would be filthy.
They came up with some lame solutions and yet they succeeded. Thanks to the car.

Moral of the story: maybe some break through will cover our problems :)

But you must admit, that price matters somewhat. Even if we would wish it did not.

And the price is just one of the problems related to renewables. It's just not praticable. What characterize wind and solar (two of the main renewable sources today) is: Huge demand for land to harvest energy. And low reliability in supply with needs for either massive storage capability or back up, meaning fossil fuelled back up.

You may call my arguments sad. But it's the truth. Sad, but true.

Until I started researching on my own a few years back, I also believed 100% renewables in the near future was only a question of political will. It is, but I don't think you realize just how much political will it'll take. I don't think it's realistic.

...maybe some break through will cover our problems :)


Maybe it will. But that's exactly the bet I'm not happy to make. What if it doesn't?