Nuclear power has never been economic or feasible in germany

[XDurionX]

So as it looks the german taxpayer will have to pay tens of billions of euros for deconstruction of our nuclear power plants (and that is still not factoring in the costs for storing nuclear waste for centuries let alone millenia). For decades the earnings have been privatized and now the losses and cost have to be absorbed by the tax payer. There goes the myth of cheap energy. Nuclear energy has never served anyone but the corporations employing nuclear power. It's better to make a painful break than draw out the agony, i guess. Glad we're rid of this shit. Opinions?

https://www.facebook.com/monitor.wdr...1961642176108/ (german source only, sorry).

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/...-14209053.html

[Independent voter]

We're planning on building nuclear plants in the hopes it will reduce our coal usage. Say what you want about nuclear but it doesn't contribute much to green house gasses.

[Spectral]

As near as I can tell, things were basically fine until the country decided to have a collective panic attack about the matter post-Fukushima.

[XDurionX]

We're planning on building nuclear plants in the hopes it will reduce our coal usage. Say what you want about nuclear but it doesn't contribute much to green house gasses.

That seems to be the only advantage, though. And its hard to believe that temporary co2 emissions hit harder than millenia of radiation. I don't know about the USA, but we still don't have a ultimate disposal place for our waste. Where will you store your waste after Yucca Mountain has been stopped?

[Vapo]

YEs burn fossil fuels instead, or invest into developing nuclear energy unlike last 60 years..

[Ghostpanther]

We're planning on building nuclear plants in the hopes it will reduce our coal usage. Say what you want about nuclear but it doesn't contribute much to green house gasses.

And as long as it is contained well from leaking, meltdown, it does not kill birds ether.

[Summer]

That seems to be the only advantage, though. And its hard to believe that temporary co2 emissions hit harder than millenia of radiation. I don't know about the USA, but we still don't have a ultimate disposal place for our waste. Where will you store your waste after Yucca Mountain has been stopped?

Global warming is pretty heavy shit shit globally. That millennia of radiation can be succesfully isolated and even at a worst case scenario of releases the effects will be very local. Finland for example is starting to deposit our waste in deep underground repositories soon (a few years).

Another thing is that if you're afraid of the radiation, coal use actually has radioactive releases as well: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nuclear-waste/ though admittedly that's written in a bit of a sensationalist way :P

[Deleted]

As near as I can tell, things were basically fine until the country decided to have a collective panic attack about the matter post-Fukushima.

No, even before the storage of the nuclear waste was state business.
They have been looking for a final solution about that waste for roughly a decade. Of course noone wants to have that in his neighbourhood.

And as long as it is contained well from leaking, meltdown, it does not kill birds ether.

"If everything goes well there will be no problems."

Thanks, didn't know that. I thought we where planing on iradiating the whole planet.

[TwoNineMarine]

The advantage is it doesn't emit really any emissions. The difficulty, like you explained, is finding a good place to store the waste.

If that could be handled and the plants made immune to natural disaster then life would be good.

[I Push Buttons]

No, even before the storage of the nuclear waste was state business.
They have been looking for a final solution about that waste for roughly a decade. Of course noone wants to have that in his neighbourhood.

Germany and final solutions don't mix too well, it seems.

[XDurionX]

Global warming is pretty heavy shit shit globally. That millennia of radiation can be succesfully isolated and even at a worst case scenario of releases the effects will be very local. Finland for example is starting to deposit our waste in deep underground repositories soon (a few years).

Another thing is that if you're afraid of the radiation, coal use actually has radioactive releases as well: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nuclear-waste/ though admittedly that's written in a bit of a sensationalist way :P

We agree that coal certainly is not the solution and hopefully it will be the next thing germany leaves behind. But the average american still contributes 50% more CO2 emissions than the average german (16,5 tons per capita/year vs. 9.4; numbers from 2013 and will likely have changed, but couldn't find anything more recent.

[Summer]

The advantage is it doesn't emit really any emissions. The difficulty, like you explained, is finding a good place to store the waste.

If that could be handled and the plants made immune to natural disaster then life would be good.

About the accidents, here's some mortality data:

Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 100,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 10,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Hydro – U.S. 0.01 (7% U.S. electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

Nuclear – U.S. 0.01

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon.../#4f66967349d2

[unbound]

Yeah, corporations have been pretty successful all over the world pushing their costs and screwups onto the taxpayer. Happened in the US in 2008 and until more voters get a clue, it'll keep happening.

For clarity, the corporation can afford it, but they successfully fought off the commission which told them back in April that needed to pony up over 23 billion euros for the effort (a bit more than half of the cost).

[TwoNineMarine]

About the accidents, here's some mortality data:

Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 100,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 10,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Hydro – U.S. 0.01 (7% U.S. electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

Nuclear – U.S. 0.01

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon.../#4f66967349d2

True.

The only aspect of that that you could argue is that none of the other sources can render entire environments useless if something goes bad.

I think nuclear energy is excellent but it certainly needs to be improved upon and made safer.

[XDurionX]

True.

The only aspect of that that you could argue is that none of the other sources can render entire environments useless if something goes bad.

I think nuclear energy is excellent but it certainly needs to be improved upon and made safer.

And it's really hard to quantify the long term consequences. We will only know in 50 years how many of the fukushima workers will have died of cancer, for example. The collapse of a coal mine has a much more direct impact.

[Deleted]

There goes the myth of cheap energy.

Compare to what? The owners of coal-fired do not have to pay for the global warming. Glad we have a "dismantling tax" on power produced by nuclear power.....

[TwoNineMarine]

And it's really hard to quantify the long term consequences. We will only know in 50 years how many of the fukushima workers will have died of cancer, for example. The collapse of a coal mine has a much more direct impact.

Absolutely.

The upside is nuclear energy is perfectly safe if controlled. A friend of mine replaces the rods in them as his job. Totally safe. The issue of course occurs when things are no longer controlled.

[XDurionX]

Compare to what? The owners of coal-fired do not have to pay for the global warming. Glad we have a "dismantling tax" on power produced by nuclear power.....

Actually, co2 emissions cost money. That price is arguably too low, though.

http://www.finanzen.net/rohstoffe/co2-emissionsrechte

We forced the nuclear corporations to pay for dismantling as well, but as expected they were capable of weaseling out.

[Blobfish]

Australia has Lots of Thorium and rather go digging for Thorium in Silithus,
Thorium reactors due to Thorium's safety is the way to go.

[Deleted]

Germany and final solutions don't mix too well, it seems.

Burning jews is a ineffective way to generate power, so Germans jews have noting to fear about the Germans final solutions on generate power.

- - - Updated - - -

That price is arguably too low, though.

Hence they do not pay the real price....