German Government Shoots Country in Foot; Reloads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

"None" = "unknown"? News to me.

---

I said aside from those caused by massive stupidity, i.e. Chernobyl, there have been none associated with Three Mile Island of Fukushima. The actual deaths attributed to the Chernobyl accident range from about 60 to tens of thousands, depending on who you ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

His overall claim is that deaths related to nuclear power can be attributed to inexcusable human error or outright idiocy. A natural objection to that claim is that you can't completely get rid of human error or idiocy. To which a natural response is that that's true of everything we do and at that point it becomes a discussion of acceptable risks and stakes. That discussion is inevitably hampered by disagreements about what constitutes an acceptable risk given a particular stake. Should we colonise space? Clearly we should.

---

The scale of human error which lead to the Chernobyl accident is pretty impressive - the reaction was being run with many critical safety systems deliberately disabled for the purposes of some kind of test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I mean, even Fuzzy refuses to prognosticate beyond a couple of years, so how much can we really know about the technological state of Germany twenty years from now?

---

I'll make this prediction, Germany isn't going to be the one who figures out how to make alternative energy sources more profitable than the disliked alternatives, nor are they going to derive any major economic benefit from the switch-over if/when someone does, as that committee suggested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Yeah, sure. We had one of those "reliable" places as well. A former salt mine, to be exact.

Only it turns out that there's suddenly water leaking into this salt mine and they don't know from where.

---

Indeed, sometimes things goof. But the fact that it's so hard for our governments to just build a deep hole in the ground (or a second hole in case the first has an unexpected issue) is the bigger issue here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Indeed, sometimes things goof. But the fact that it's so hard for our governments to just build a deep hole in the ground (or a second hole in case the first has an unexpected issue) is the bigger issue here.

---

I'm not quite sure I'd trust private companies with the disposal of nuclear waste. They'd have to be regulated so massively that it wouldn't make a difference to a government-run installation.

We already have problems with our "normal" waste being shipped god-knows-where, not to mention the environmental disaster caused by recycling computer parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

t's just the same as people being afraid of flying because they don't want to die in a plane-crash. Nevermind the tiny amount of plane casualties versus automobile fatalities, nevermind the fact that flying is the safest means of travel, nevermind that even in 2001 flying was still by far the safest means to travel ... a plane crashes anywhere and its big news. So people think stupidly that planes are dangerous as accidents are the exception rather than the rule

---

This is actual not a valid argument, this a tricked out statistic and slogan to say that airplanes is the safest way of travel. They are taking a number of casualties and say hey less people die in airplane crashes every year then any other mode of transport. Completely ignoring the fact that much fewer people are exposed to a possibility of an airplane accident then a car crash. Furthermore airplane accidents have near enough 100% casualty rate, where there is a decent chance to survive a car or train accident. At best they calculate % per flights but until I see a statistics of death per total time spent in car vs same for airplane I am not that convinced as to the accurateness of this.

BTW I too think that rejecting one of the cleanest and safest sources of energy is plain stupid. Now having inspection of your safety procedure in view of what happened is a good idea, and if you have one built at the foot of an active volcano might want consider shutting that down.. but other then that meh.

That's simply not true, statistics I've seen are deaths/mile so actually that's taken into account Asmo.

Deaths/time is a bizarre idea, it should be per distance not time.

EDIT: Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_safety#Statistics

Planes have 0.05 deaths per billion kilometres, cars have 3.1 deaths per billion kilometres. This makes planes 62 times safer than cars. Even if you go by time rather than distance (why would you?) air is more than 4 times safer than car.

EDIT2: There's a famous saying, you're more likely to be killed driving to the airport than you are in the air. For most journeys this is correct.

Hmm guess I was wrong by kilometers is better then I thought , I still think by time spent in an airplane is a much better comparison measure to see chance of death for every minute spent in airplane:) There are other subjective factors that make people think that cars are safer not least of which is the fact that there is at least an illusion of control in a car, and most you do in fact have a chance to do something to save your life.

I once saw a per hour statistic (sorry I don't have a link anymore), plane still was safer then car. The only difference was that train was safer per hour. The safety of trains and planes are anyway very close while cars are far less save.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asmodian

Hmm guess I was wrong by kilometers is better then I thought , I still think by time spent in an airplane is a much better comparison measure to see chance of death for every minute spent in airplane:) There are other subjective factors that make people think that cars are safer not least of which is the fact that there is at least an illusion of control in a car, and most you do in fact have a chance to do something to save your life.

---

Why would time be more sensible than distance? The comparison between journeys will be how to get from starting point to destination. There's also the complicating factor that planes typically take a more direct route ("as the crow flies").

Take a trip from Melbourne to Perth:
By plane - 2730km
By road - 3430km

Chance of death by either journey:
By plane - 0.0000137%
By car - 0.0010633%

Doing the same journey (Manchester to Perth) - By car its recommended you take five days to make the journey, by plane its 3.5 hours. But its the same journey. Dying by car is more than 77 times more likely than dying by plane.

well i just I think it would dilute the car accidents somewhat making the comparison more fair (even thou it will still be comparing apples and oranges) because plane travel is simply not feasible short distances. And I am guessing a significant proportion of car accidents happens when people are driving these short distances, example driving home drunk from a party etc.
So I think flying from geneva to paris may not actualy be that much safer as flying there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Brick and stone houses are much more radioactive than wooden ones. But the latter get smashed easier by tornados and hurricanes - and big bad wolves. What is a mortal to do? I like nuclear power and I think the Germans are making a mistake. I do recall reading Germany was heading this way before the Japanese earthquake/ tsunami, however. And I was scratching my head then too. Oh well. We all know orbital's the only way to go, even if the short sighted can't seem to justify the start up costs.... What is a mortal to do? What, I say? What I ask?

---

Personally I like nuclear, but mining and handling uranium isn't pretty either. Energy policies will have to remain hap-hazard and retarded so long as we're a bunch of nation states combating over it :/

"Orbital" is the was to go? In what pipe dreams of yours, Chaloobi?

First of all, it's hideously expensive to get stuff up there. Then you have to find a way to transfer the energy back down efficiently. Not to mention the problem of where to put the damn things in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

"Orbital" is the was to go? In what pipe dreams of yours, Chaloobi?

First of all, it's hideously expensive to get stuff up there. Then you have to find a way to transfer the energy back down efficiently. Not to mention the problem of where to put the damn things in the first place.

---

What's your pipe dream, land-based photovoltaic cells and their rare earths requirements? That's the direction Germany has been going, isn't it?

Khend isn't necessarily defending the German government panel, but that's a valid point. These renewable sources are nice, but they simply don't scale effectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

I'm not quite sure I'd trust private companies with the disposal of nuclear waste. They'd have to be regulated so massively that it wouldn't make a difference to a government-run installation.

We already have problems with our "normal" waste being shipped god-knows-where, not to mention the environmental disaster caused by recycling computer parts.

---

Who said anything about private companies? A government mandated consortium is the most likely solution. My point is these storage facilities are basically giant, guarded holes in the ground that are often in isolated areas. But, at least in the US, digging them seems to be needlessly politicized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Personally I like nuclear, but mining and handling uranium isn't pretty either. Energy policies will have to remain hap-hazard and retarded so long as we're a bunch of nation states combating over it :/

---

Uranium mining isn't that ugly, certainly not any more than petroleum mining and refining.

Touche. I'm a country bumpkin, remember? My interactions with energy production tend to revolve around burning wood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

What's your pipe dream, land-based photovoltaic cells and their rare earths requirements? That's the direction Germany has been going, isn't it?

---

The following discussion is even more poisoned than ours but there're some posts in there discussing how close you can come with non-nuclear energy:

http://arstechnica.com/phpbb/viewtop...f=26&t=1142932

I think it's safe to say that the tech is progressing fast in these areas.




Btw, I keep reading a funny claim in these angry nuclear power discussions, namely that we already have the tech and the expertise to exploit geothermal on a global scale... but that tech and that expertise is almost exclusively in the hands of the oild industry. True?

AFAIK there is not much expertise in any hands about using geothermal energy on a large scale. IIRC there are some experiments, but nothing big.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Who said anything about private companies? A government mandated consortium is the most likely solution. My point is these storage facilities are basically giant, guarded holes in the ground that are often in isolated areas. But, at least in the US, digging them seems to be needlessly politicized.

---

Well, to have tonnes of highly toxic material in your area causes a rather strong NIMBY feeling. Probably rightly so, because what guarantees that it will still be safe in 50 or 100 years? It's not easy to make a 'giant, guarded hole' that will remain safe for thousands of years. And even if it is securely guarded and well kept now, who says that in 50 years your government will say screw it, we're not paying for the security anymore, good luck with it? It has to be secured longer than our current civilization...

And the biggest lesson from things like Fukushima is maybe that even with strict regulations it will not always be adhered to as strict as you'd want. People get lax, and human errors persist. And with nuclear plants that can get ugly. And I don't expect nuclear storage would be any better.

Oh, and nuclear power is really expensive, too. Really expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Oh, and nuclear power is really expensive, too. Really expensive.

---

This is the bit that bugs me. It's expensive. The barriers to entry are many and high. It ends up being an expensive project in which it's difficult to innovate and where a great deal of the costs (of production, maintenance, waste disposal, etc.) are borne by... yeah, who?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

What's your pipe dream, land-based photovoltaic cells and their rare earths requirements? That's the direction Germany has been going, isn't it?

---

Here's a little pointer: Rare earths aren't rare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Btw, I keep reading a funny claim in these angry nuclear power discussions, namely that we already have the tech and the expertise to exploit geothermal on a global scale... but that tech and that expertise is almost exclusively in the hands of the oild industry. True?

---

Depends on what is meant by it. Geothermal can run into. . . complications. And you know, it says nothing regarding comparative costs. But the current fossil-fuel power companies are and have been at the forefront in exploring alternative power. Almost all the early development for solar power was driven by companies like Exxon. Over 20-25 years they're the ones who pushed to bring it from research and specialized-environment use *i.e. for NASA* to mass-production and bring its costs down to be comparable with current fuel sources. The giants of the energy industry may be self-interested but they're neither stupid nor diabolical. If something has potential it's way better to be in on it than to risk someone else managing to block you out of it. There are a lot of failed companies that failed because they tried to sit on something only to have a competitor run with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Here's a little pointer: Rare earths aren't rare.

---

They're abundant in the crust, but that doesn't mean they're accessible. That's what you and others keep pointing out when people say there's still a lot of untapped or under-tapped oil and such, right?

There's much better chances of finding rare earths in the asteroids compared to oil. But that's a bit too long term for our current iPod civilization.

I guess the shorter-term issue is that we need to stop donating all our rare earths to developing countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

There's much better chances of finding rare earths in the asteroids compared to oil.

---

Certainly true, but Khend's reaction to Chaloobi's interest in orbital infrastructure seems to suggest that he rejects anything extra-atmospheric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

They're abundant in the crust, but that doesn't mean they're accessible. That's what you and others keep pointing out when people say there's still a lot of untapped or under-tapped oil and such, right?

---

Uh, please don't lump me in with the "untapped oil" crowd. The term "rare earths" is actually a misnomer - they really are only "rare" in comparison to, say, silica.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Certainly true, but Khend's reaction to Chaloobi's interest in orbital infrastructure seems to suggest that he rejects anything extra-atmospheric.

---

I simply don't see any advantages. You have to spend a shitload of energy to get the stuff up there. And you also have big problems getting the produced energy down again. Not to mention that repairs and maintenance will be a bitch. And you'd have a bit of a problem if those huge solar panels (and they'd need to be huge!) ever decided to descend uncontrollably (and it's not like that did not happen before, now, did it?)

Unless we develop stuff like an orbital lift or similar methods to get stuff up there on the cheap, I simply don't see the point.

I mean, it does appeal to the sci-fi side of me - but then I do think that we'd be better off shooting other things up there than solar panels. Moon base? Manned Mars mission? Roping in some asteroids? Count me in. Several square kilometers of solar panels? Not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

I'll make this prediction, Germany isn't going to be the one who figures out how to make alternative energy sources more profitable than the disliked alternatives, nor are they going to derive any major economic benefit from the switch-over if/when someone does, as that committee suggested.

---

But if Germany can become a self-sufficient country, or a neutral importer/exporter of energy......that means a huge advantage economically and politically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

But if Germany can become a self-sufficient country, or a neutral importer/exporter of energy......that means a huge advantage economically and politically.

---

Cutting their generation capacity by . . . what was it, 17%? helps them with that how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

This is the bit that bugs me. It's expensive. The barriers to entry are many and high. It ends up being an expensive project in which it's difficult to innovate and where a great deal of the costs (of production, maintenance, waste disposal, etc.) are borne by... yeah, who?

---

And yet we've had several generations of reactor design that have evolved and incorporated new innovations.

Power generation in general is highly expensive and regulated. It hasn't prevented power generation from being a lucrative and viable business. Usually the government guarantees solid rates in exchange for regional monopolies. This provides cover for investors to pour money into power generation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

And yet we've had several generations of reactor design that have evolved and incorporated new innovations.

Power generation in general is highly expensive and regulated. It hasn't prevented power generation from being a lucrative and viable business. Usually the government guarantees solid rates in exchange for regional monopolies. This provides cover for investors to pour money into power generation.

---

The safest designs are however so expensive it's been very hard to find investors. Didn't a US plan for new power plants fail to find investors some time last year? And waste disposal has no real solution yet, so no actual price tag either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Cutting their generation capacity by . . . what was it, 17%? helps them with that how?

---

Their ideal and optimistic goal was cutting consumption by 60%. Their current electricity is 22% nuclear. Plenty of room between shooting for the moon and reaching a star.