/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3146196]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208

So Germany is getting rid of nuclear power by 2022. Apparently filling the gap with renewables. What does /sci/ think of this?

[Anonymous No.3146199]

sounds good to me

[Anonymous No.3146217]

So they won't be using the sun for any power anymore?

[Anonymous No.3146228]

This is the explanation you were seeking:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/16/us-germany-solar-idUSTRE55F1F620090616

[Anonymous No.3146232]

Well I know we are supposed to support Greens but...

[Anonymous No.3146243]

Its a good move if they're doing it gradually and presuming renewables advances fast enough in the coming years. Nuclear power is efficient, but nuclear waste isn't very nice.

[Anonymous No.3146257]

Good news for French and British energy producers.

[Anonymous No.3146304]

Germanfag here.

I'm fucking sick of all these hippies. The entire city I live in is full of "ATOMKRAFT NEIN DANKE" (no NPPs please) and "JUGEND GEGEN ATOMKRAFT" (youth against nuclear power).

The problem is that they have no fucking idea what they're talking about. They're all biased because of Fukushima, just one NPP in Japan that got problems after a motherfucking 8.9 earthquake.

Nuclear power gets demonized as if it's the worst thing on earth, but what they don't realize is that it's the "cleanest" fucking thing we have. You can't supply 80 million people with wind and rainbows, it just doesn't fucking work. It's the best thing we have right now. They're talking about protecting the environment when the only alternative would be 1/2 coal and the other half non-storable, unreliable hippie energy.

Good thing that it won't happen anyway. They plan on shutting down 3 old NPPs and they're already warning for brownouts and a widespread lack of power.

Also, even if we'd succeed on shutting them down, the French have like 30 NPPs DIRECTLY at the border to Germany. In wind direction.

[Anonymous No.3146315]

>>3146304
Ich kenne das fühl, bru.

[Anonymous No.3146318]

>>3146304
Nuclear Power is clean? Good to know. I always thought that we have a huge problem with the waste materials. But if you say that it´s clean.

[Anonymous No.3146328]

Germany will be filling the gap by burning coal and lignite (brown coal). There's no way the renewables will be able to keep up, and there is also no way that the German politicians will let power failures hit their country.

Good work German environmentalists - thanks to you more coal and lignite will be mined and burned.

[Anonymous No.3146329]

>mfw nuclear power plants are the best kind of power plants

[Anonymous No.3146331]

Enjoy your rolling blackouts Deutschfags

People should be banned from talking about things they know nothing about. We should be pouring money into new and better nuclear power like those Throium ones or getting Fusion up and running.

[Anonymous No.3146340]

>>3146304
The earthquake didn't even knock it out of commission, it was the tsunami that did it.

You might like this:

http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

Free online version of a book about tackling energy issues from an unbiased perspective. Of particular (amusing) note is the Figure found on page 168. Wind turbines kill more people per GW of electricity generated than Nuclear.

(link to 168 directly: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml))

[Anonymous No.3146355]

>>3146318

Nuclear waste? What is that? You mean the fuel for Gen IV reactors?

Compared to alternatives (even renewables), NP is the safest and cleanest power we have (per TWh produced - the ONLY meaningful comparison).

Also, thorium power.

[Anonymous No.3146361]

>>3146340
how exactly does one die because of a wind turbine? Planes that crash into wind turbines? Wind turbines that fall over? People who die in the production and the gathering of the raw materials for the steel?

[Anonymous No.3146385]

>>3146361
Yes, plus clumsy construction workers who slip and fall off a 150 meter turbine.
And minus the steel production bit

[Anonymous No.3146397]

In case of a nuclear disaster a place is doomed for decades. Why all nuclearfags are so cool with it?

[Anonymous No.3146401]

>>3146318

Yeah, it is the cleanest and safest source we have. Nuclear waste is not a big problem, just store it underground.

[Anonymous No.3146409]

so, can it be LFTR time now?

[Anonymous No.3146416]

>>3146397
Because it does less damage (containment) than a fucking oil refienery going up spewing all sorts of shit into the air ever will.

[Anonymous No.3146426]

The only problem I see with this is if more countries get swayed by this, turning off their NPPs and in the long run cutting the funding for future versions of nuclear power. If Germany wants to become dependant on France and Russia, sure, go ahead. I bet buying nuclear power from France and gas from Russia will solve all your problems! What's next, are you going to force your neighbouring countries to abolish nuclear power aswell?

[Anonymous No.3146431]

>>3146426
THIS!

[Anonymous No.3146475]

>>3146355

That graph looks inaccurate. Hydroelectric has killed hundreds of thousands of people in the form of bursting dams. I'm sure it's bar should be higher.

[Anonymous No.3146476]

>>3146361 how exactly does one die because of a wind turbine?

Manufacturing enough wind turbines requires a fuckton of materials, a fuckton of land, a fuckton of maintenance and a fuckton of pollution from the general manufacturing process.

Good job you stupid backwards hippies!

Nuclear power requires so much less for so much more.

[Anonymous No.3146483]

>>3146361
It only takes a death or two to get wind up there, as it produces so little power.

[Anonymous No.3146491]

Stupid.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain

[Anonymous No.3146500]

This is an important step for world security.

Consider what an awkward position we were in with respect to Iraq, India, and Pakistan and their nuclear programs.

How can we say, "Nuclear power is the future of clean, safe energy!" and also say to struggling third-world countries, "You can't have it because you might make weapons!" ?

Any nuclear power plant is a triple nuclear weapons proliferation risk: once because it can be used intentionally in the production of nuclear weapons, twice because it produces waste that can be stolen and used in the production of nuclear weapons, and three times because it feeds the arguments that nuclear technology has peaceful purposes, and must, in fairness, be allowed to all sovereign nations, especially poor ones.

Now that the most highly developed nations are backing off from nuclear power, we can put much more pressure on unstable countries to end their nuclear programs, with the argument that nuclear technology is only practical for military purposes.

[Anonymous No.3146504]

or rocket it to the sun

[­ No.3146508]

Anti nuclear people really have no idea what their talking about.

The problem with fukushima is it was a poorly designed plant with little safety measures. Nuclear power is the best way to generate lots of power and do it while being green in the process. Fuck even hydroelectric releases methane into the atmosphere.

Uranium is resource we have and we should use it, save the oil for cars and houses and keep nuclear fuel away from bombs.

But BWR's and other light water reactors are crap and theres no reason we should be using them when we have designs like CANDU.

[Anonymous No.3146509]

>>3146500
We do the intelligent thing and say they can't use nuclear power based off a uranium fuel cycle and develop thorium as a fuel source and breeder reactors to use up "nuclear waste". Problem solved.

[Anonymous No.3146521]

>>3146508
>theres no reason we should be using them when we have designs like CANDU.
The CANDU? You mean the worst nuclear weapons proliferation disaster since the Manhattan Project?

International sales of that single "civilian" design resulted in two completely fucked up, unstable, and untrustworthy countries becoming nuclear powers.

[­ No.3146540]

>>3146521

read your facts bud. Thats a common misconception that was based off the NRX design not CANDU.

[Anonymous No.3146549]

>>3146509
That is not "the intelligent thing", that is "the pathetically ignorant and stupid thing".

Yes, I know you've read that the waste from thorium reactors will whiten your teeth as you sleep, but this is typical fringe lunacy.

If you do your homework, you'll find that thorium reactor technology, while not *ideal* for nuclear weapons production, is entirely *serviceable* for that purpose. Necessarily moreso than many uranium reactor designs, since every thorium reactor is a breeder reactor by definition.

[Anonymous No.3146544]

Germany is the world's technology leader once again.
We build the best cars, we produce the best scientiests, we build the best machinery.
And now we show you pro-nukies - who are stuck with 1950s technology - how to electrify a nation without nuclear plants. Not that's it's that revolutionary; the Italians have banned nuclear plants for decades.
Btw, germany has always been dependant on russian gas. We even imported it from the motherfucking SOVIET UNION. We paid, they delivered - for 50 GODDAMN FUCKING years.
Nothing's gonna happen. At least the Soviets weren't as bitchin' as you amerifats. Enjoy your green glow.

[­ No.3146557]

Canada also said fuck you to india and they wouldn't do any nuclear deals with them due to their weapons. But india now copied the CANDU design and is using it for power.

CANDU is far safer than light water reactors if you care enough to do some research.

[Anonymous No.3146561]

>>3146540
>herp derp I can't even read
If you're even halfway literate, you should be able to figure out that I wasn't talking about anything like the Chalk River meltdown.

[Anonymous No.3146565]

>>3146557
>But india now copied the CANDU design and is using it for power and weapons production.
fixed

[­ No.3146570]

>>3146544
>>3146544

lol germany really hasnt said how their going to get the rest of the power. Sure wind and solar are cool but good luck doing that large scale to replace 17 reactors.

It's been said that they well end up having to import power from other countries, and most likely that will be nuclear. So their going to anti nuclear hippies but at the same time import nuclear power.

[­ No.3146582]

>>3146561
>>3146561

No i'm talking about india

wiki quote:

"In terms of safeguards against nuclear weapons proliferation, CANDUs meet a similar level of international certification as other reactors. There is a common misconception that plutonium for India's first nuclear detonation, Operation Smiling Buddha in 1974, was produced in a CANDU design. In fact, it was produced in the unsafeguarded Canada-supplied CIRUS reactor whose design is based on the NRX, a Canadian research reactor."

/thread

[Anonymous No.3146584]

>>3146570
I can tell you how it's done.
First of all, germany is exporting electricity. We produce more than we need. Shutting down a few plants will only equalize production and consumption.

Secondly, our renewables are increasing exponentially every year; the growth is astounding.

Thirdly, we will build natural gas plants. This will even out possible consumption spikes or deficits.

[Anonymous No.3146585]

>>3146521
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor#Nuclear_nonproliferation

[Anonymous No.3146611]

>>3146361 how exactly does one die because of a wind turbine?

Manufacturing enough wind turbines requires a fuckton of materials, a fuckton of land, a fuckton of maintenance and a fuckton of pollution from the general manufacturing process.

Good job you stupid backwards hippies!

Nuclear power requires so much less for so much more.

[Anonymous No.3146618]

>>3146544 Italians have banned nuclear plants for decades

And look at all of the progress they've made. World leaders in uh... and..

[Anonymous No.3146620]

Swefag here. We decided to do this like 20 years ago. We had already build a couple of nuclear power plants, but then entered a compromise saying that the power plants would only be used for as long as they were efficient and safe to operate. This would be up until 2010. The idea was that in such a long time as 20 years we would surely have developed and built enough renewable energy that we didn't need any more nuclear power. What this entailed was that no form of future planning maintenance was ever performed in these power plants, just the basic essential maintenance.
I don't know when it dawned upon them, or when they actually started to care about what was happening. But the winters of 2010 and 2011 were two of sudden drastic increases of electric bills for almost every household. And when this started to surface in the media, after a couple of weeks of reporters poking and prodding politicians and power companies(including a state owned one), the public gets the story of what I outlined above. The nation has run down power plants and it needs the resources to make up for 20 years of neglected maintenance and a change in plans of not shutting them down, since we now realize that we actually needs these things seeings as renewable energy isn't growing on trees.

[­ No.3146625]

>>3146584
>>3146584

I have issues with all these natural gas plants popping up all over the world.

They create greenhouse gasses and are no where near as clean as nuclear. Yes there cheap to build but they use a resource we need for cars and houses that everyone says were running out of. Why waste that for power when we can use uranium and at the same time use up uranium resources so theres less out there for weapons.

[­ No.3146631]

Also CANDU reactors are being tested with the use of thorium.

[Anonymous No.3146658]

>>3146582
>>3146585
ZOMG, so it wasn't the CANDU 1.0 reactor, but the CANDU 0.9 reactor.

Claiming the CIRUS isn't a CANDU when assigning blame is splitting hairs. The CANDU is essentially the power-generating version of the CIRUS research reactor, and shares the traits which made it suitable for weapons production.

Furthermore, there is little doubt that the tritium for the first Indian nuclear weapon was produced in the CANDU reactors. And there is no doubt that a country which possesses a CANDU reactor and the means to operate it has the ability to produce plutonium.

[­ No.3146686]

>>3146658

They don't have candu reactors as canada refused to deal with them because they detonated a nuclear bomb. They stole our design, but you're implying they couldnt just have used any other reactor design.

And no an NRX design is nothing even close to a candu design as an NRX is light water cooled. They are completely different designs and it is not a CANDU. Just because it's from the same country doesnt mean there the same. Do some research before coming back.

[Anonymous No.3146715]

>>3146618

The progress is not related with nuclear energy.
The problems here in Italy are related to other things (mainly politics and organized crime) but hopefully with the fall of Berlusconi the things may begin to change.

Btw, nuclear energy is not a convenient choice, only for the lobbies it is.
Green and decentralized energy is the way for a better future.

[­ No.3146716]

They don't have candu reactors as canada refused to deal with them because they detonated a nuclear bomb. They stole our design, but you're implying they couldnt just have used any other reactor design.

And no an NRX design is not the same as a CANDU design. The only similarity being the use of a d2o moderator.

[Anonymous No.3146722]

So, how about you build the renewables FIRST and then shut off the nuclear plants?
Dunno, sounds kinda fucking monumentally stupid to shut off 7 fucking reactors without anything to replace the capacity.
Not like i expect the hippies to think even for a minute, but why is the rest of the country so retarded, too?

[Anonymous No.3146726]

>>3146196
Please OP, demonstrate your awesome skills are nuclear waste disposal.

>else stfu and stop being a technocratic baby

[Anonymous No.3146729]

german here.
Please excuse the retardation of my fellow countrymen.
I would like to reassure you that not all of us are pants-on-head retarded.

[­ No.3146734]

>>3146715
>>3146715

> implying nuclear isnt one of the greenest ways of producing power.

All this hippie wind and solar mindset is great and all but as of now it is far to impractical to be used large scale to replace nuclear. Solar is way too expensive and doesn't have the technology to be used large scale. Wind has been under lots of controversy for causing cancer and admitting a high frequency sound that drives people insane. You also need hundreds of windmills to come anywhere near the MWe output of a single nuclear reactor. Therefore wind is just as expensive and also creates almost 0 jobs once their built which has a huge negative impact on the economy.

Right now we need nuclear to replace coal and gas fired plants.

[Anonymous No.3146738]

>>3146729
You're forgiven
>for two pints of ale.

[Anonymous No.3146739]

>demonstrate your awesome skills are nuclear waste disposal.
1. Dig a really deep hole in stable granite bedrock
2. Throw all the nuclear waste in there
3. Seal it up.
4. Problem solved

[Anonymous No.3146741]

>>3146734
>greenest
>nuclear fuel

>Not quite getting environmentalism

[Anonymous No.3146753]

>>3146686
>They don't have candu reactors
This is false. India has 2 and Pakistan has 1, all three supplied by Canada, and all purchased before they did nuclear weapons tests. India has made 13 additional copies from the two purchased examples.

>And no an NRX design is nothing even close to a candu design as an NRX is light water cooled.
They are both heavy-water MODERATED and light-water COOLED.

In both cases, the heavy-water moderator serves as the first-stage coolant which carries heat to the light-water heat sink. The difference is that the moderator temperature is higher in the CANDU, so energy can be efficiently extracted from the temperature difference between the two.

>Do some research
It is to laugh.

[­ No.3146764]

>>3146741

considering its more environmentally friendly than hydro and wind minus the spent fuel.

It's just a matter of storing the waste which is being worked on now.

They were working on a huge underground vault at the bruce station, not sure if thats still in the works or not.


Good luck generating enough power from wind a solar to power the world.

[Anonymous No.3146765]

>They are both heavy-water MODERATED and light-water COOLED.
Actually, CANDUs first loop is heavy water, too

[Anonymous No.3146787]

>>3146764
If you ignore temporal scales, then sure.

[­ No.3146791]

>>3146765

yes candu has 2 D2O systems

PHT - primary heat transport which takes the energy to the steam generators.

Moderator - slows down the reaction creating more collisions, which allows us to use natural uranium rather than enriching the uranium.

Candu systems use natural uranium which has 0.7% u235 vs enriched uranium having over 2% of 235. Candu systems can use the waste from other reactor designs and still create power due to the ability to run on less 235.

Which is why candu is far superior to other uranium designs.

[Anonymous No.3146803]

Basically, millions of uneducated [on this subject] hippies have been swayed by the sensationalist media reports about Fukushima, and are suddenly against any sort of nuclear power.

Germany is going to be hard pressed to fill the gap left by nuclear energy without increasing fossil fuel use.

[­ No.3146812]

>>3146803
>>3146803

Agreed, people need to do some basic research and stop letting the media control their minds.

[Anonymous No.3146822]

>>3146196
>Apparently filling the gap with renewables

No, they are actually planning to buy nuclear power from france.

\thread

[Anonymous No.3146832]

>>3146812
>>3146803
Yes yes, they should all read the report on how _______ has solved the nuclear waste issue. And everything is safe. Adn what happened at Japan is a fluke, and not endemic to current nuclear reactors. And any future nuclear reactor construction would never cut any corners, because people who buiild them just love science and technology...

...?

[Anonymous No.3146911]

>has solved the nuclear waste issue
It's already solved, see here: >>3146739