First Germany, now Belgium: Nuclear energy to be phased out by 2015

reply to post by Aim64C


I am not attempting to use them anyway, Buddy. Some scientists are looking at numbers from the CDC. That's all. If you disagree, why not just say so? Why get nasty to a stranger? We are all in the dark on how bad this might get and I will look at any and all info. Even yours. With an open mind. OK?
In the mean time we have 3000 CPM in Fukushima City.
www.youtube.com...
And 7.121 mSv/h in Fukushima city. Now, how can this be justified?
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Aircooled

 

www.veteranstoday.com...
And the latest video from Arnie Gundersen.
vimeo.com...

Completely useless.

Increased deaths? ... From what established average? Statistics cannot be used in the manner you are attempting to use them.

Go spam your nonsense somewhere else.

I found that had statistical relevance, even if it was linked to a variety of other factors (knowing that systems don't exist in isolation from each other). Aircooled didn't link it directly to the nuclear disaster, or to tests, he was pointing to a depressing trend and implying this as a valid vector / source to cencern with.

Today in the RSOE is another point of concern.

The U.N. nuclear agency is reporting “very low” — but higher than usual — levels of radiation in the Czech Republic and elsewhere in Europe. The International Atomic Energy Agency says the “very low levels of iodine-131 have been measured in the atmosphere over the Czech Republic” and elsewhere on the continent. Its statement on Friday said the current levels do not seem to pose a public health risk. IAEA says the cause is not known, but it is not the result of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, which spread radiation across the globe in March. The agency says the radioisotope will lose much of its radiation in about eight days and that the agency is investigating.

hisz.rsoe.hu...

Area : Czech Republic and undefinied other EU countries
Damage Level : Unknown

hisz.rsoe.hu...

They claim it wasn't Fukishima, but that the source is not known. Yet it's widespread across Europe, and had to have occurred within the past eight days, correct? There was a cloud of Iodine-131 hovering around Scotland from Fukishima as it was charted after the disaster, we had projection after projection showing how it could spread that far, was hitting the west coast, etc. I guess some of you could try to blame car pollution or fossil fuels for confirmed fallout, but most of us will point to the industry.

Alaskan fisheries won’t test fish for radioactivity (ADN)

A portable radiation monitor on emergency deployment to Dutch Harbor by the EPA recorded the highest levels of iodine-131 of any of the 100-plus monitors in the EPA’s RadNet system. Those readings were taken March 19, of 2.42 picocuries per cubic meter of air, and March 20, of 2.8 picocuries. Among 14 samples collected through April 2, no I-131 was detected three times, and there never was more than a tenth the level of the two elevated samples.

blog.seattlepi.com...

The danger presented from an earlier thread presented the possibility of Alaskan cod caught during those times were freeze-preserved with the radiation intact, then shipped off to Germany as part of the anti-nuclear politics mentioned below. Once unfrozen, it would end up in the consumers pan before having any chance to reach a half-life.

Tyson Fick, spokesman for the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, said he's urging fishermen and consumers "to settle down a bit" and look at the science conducted by federal agencies.

Fick said he believed Alaska fish, in particular in Germany and Austria, have got caught up in anti-nuclear politics. In fact, the Green Party in Germany, campaigning in regional elections, used the nuclear issue late last month to take over the state government in prosperous Baden-Wurttemberg, where conservatives had ruled for more than 50 years. There's a lot of Alaska pollock sold as fish sticks throughout Germany, and fear of them could be trouble, Fick said.

www.adn.com...

The only problem with that projection is TEPCO has now dumped over 20 million gallons of radioactive seawater and continues to do so.

Tepco has also indicated that they are running out of on-site storage space and may need to start dumping even more radioactive waste into the Pacific ocean.

I guess that this is not a surprise after the FDA said there is no concern to human life from eating fish with radiation 24 times the FDA limit for radiation in fish or given the fact that the EPA has just switched from their own standard of radiation which allows for cancer fatalities in 1 out of a million over to an FDA standard which allows for fatalities from cancer in 1 in 2,200, a clear attempt to continue the myth that radiation that has been detected is still below levels of concern.

theintelhub.com...
originally posted by thorfourwinds
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The great thing about Europe is I'll bet there are lots of folks with dosimeters. Hopefully we will see lots of civilian readings on u-tube soon.


And the link.
enenews.com... ima

An update on the state of the Pacific ocean.


www.youtube.com...
Let's face it. If we don't phase out nuclear, it will phase us out.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Silverlok

 

Moreover it takes HUGE , HUGE amount of stainless steel and aluminum ( and concrete and plastic and copper and , and and and ) to build a reactor (which cost billions) and it's attendant SFP's and cold storage facillities

1. Some reactor designs need a lot less material than conventional designs.

2. It is false. Why do you think renewables are so pricey? Its because it takes a huge amount of materials and resources for every TWh produced. Nuclear has an advantage here, not a disadvantage. Nuclear plant does not need much more materials than conventional fossil fuel plants.

edit on 8/11/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/11/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Since fuku, and Japan shutting all it's reactors down, are you still pushing this .......argument?......

reply to post by Silverlok

Since fuku, and Japan shutting all it's reactors down, are you still pushing this .......argument?......

Someone sharing my last name (though relationship is unknown) once said something very wise:

Stupid people will always be stupid. Nothing you say or do will ever make them stop being stupid or prevent them from doing stupid things.

For that reason, people believe nuclear energy to be a pertinent danger.

If you do not understand why this is a fact; it would behoove you to do a little research. Not googling: "Why nuclear reactors are bad" - but, instead, googling "Nuclear Reactor Design" - and other similar pursuits of education.

If, afterward, you do not understand why the fearmongering over nuclear power is just that... then there's simply no hope for you. Just accept the fact that there are big boy conversations that you will never be qualified to participate in.

reply to post by Silverlok

Since fuku, and Japan shutting all it's reactors down, are you still pushing this .......argument?......

Yes, my points about nuclear material needs and costs stands, Fukushima or not.

As for nuclear in general, Fukushima threat is mostly an empty fear-mongering, and it was an old reactor design, newer ones are much safer. We need nuclear to fight climate change and peak oil. We need nuclear to fight an order of magnitude more dangerous fossil fuels.

reply to post by Silverlok

and Japan shutting all it's reactors down

It already resulted in great increase of japanese CO2 emissions, and the need to buy all the fuel to replace the reactors turned their trade surplus into a trade deficit:
Japan trade deficit hits record as fuel imports rise

Phasing out nuclear means one thing - fossil energy.

reply to post by Maslo


Part of the reason Japan started invading in WW2 was over fossil fuels. Nuclear is the cheapest and most viable alternative to fossil fuels; hence why Japan is dependant on nuclear power. So where will a Japan without the planned scale up of nuclear power leave them? Perhaps they will get much more aggressive and take an interventionist approach.

Brought to you by "environmentalists" - war and fossil fuel use.

I usually keep out of discussions like this because there's no way to convince people like this. I've also been pursing an education in electrical engineering, so my opinion will eventually matter more than theirs. I guess that's why pro-nukes do not have a voice the anti-nukes have, yet nuclear reactors continue to get built where it makes sense. They are busy engineering. Anti-nukes are busy doing all sorts of useful things like uh, writing books for profit, posting on the internet, etc...

reply to post by Silverlok

Moreover it takes HUGE , HUGE amount of stainless steel and aluminum ( and concrete and plastic and copper and , and and and

The steel and concrete required for a nuclear reactor is actually massively smaller than that required for most renewables. And lower than coal. Higher than natural gas but I doubt you're speaking in favour of fracking, but then again since nothing you have said has made sense that wouldn't surprise me.

to build a reactor (which cost billions)

And also supplies over a gigawatt of electrical power with a capacity factor of over 90%, for over 60 years.

nd it's attendant SFP's and cold storage facillities so the waste production is there in amounts so far out of proportion to ANY other energy production source

You're kidding me right?

for example if a sidewinder plows into a solar farm , there are a few weeks of watching the winds in a localized area , but if a sidewinder plows into a nuker then we have immediate kill zones and decades of wind watching and huge and ever expanding areas of "effection"

Yes, and opposed to nuclear power a coal power station will create a continuous a massive ecological disaster. And pity solar farms like you mentioned cannot replace nukes. One has a 15% CF the other has a 90% CF. Also, the affected areas from a nuclear accident tend to shrink over time as the hottest and most active isotopes decay away quickly. Which means even if we have an accident 25 years it will eventually reach an equilibrium point after 2-3 accidents where no more net land will have to be evacuated - so much for your "it's only a matter of time before the world becomes uninhabited" or whatever.

The zone around Chernobyl will be shrunk. The zone around Fukushima will too.

Since fuku, and Japan shutting all it's reactors down, are you still pushing this .......argument?......

Well are they phasing out nuclear power for valid reasons or because of ideas like yours? Also 46 reactors start up in the next 2 years, mostly in India, China, Korea and Russia. Interesting that countries that need more electrical power the most are the ones building nuclear reactors. And Japan isn't phasing out nuclear power

I think it is some kind of concpiracy.
they are being Made to stop useing Nuc power.
Why?

today it is easy to make buildings earth quake strong.
you can make a lot of money with nuc power.

is this why they wont to stop Iran?
and what happend to the whas it a plasm genarator?
I remember that from a long time ago.
ever so aften it gets in the news.

Until someone has the STONES to get behind the technology and master it so that solar/wind/surf based energy is reliable, let's not get rid of atomic energy--fission or the dream of the future fusion.

Design cascading reactors to be used in the same area so that as reactor 1's fuel is spent the by products can be used in reactor 2, then 2 to 3, 3 to 4 and so on.

Let's end fossil fuels, not atomic fuel. See that Brown Asian Cloud, that's what we want to get rid of as quickly as possible.

Learning from the errors of design in the past will create better nuclear reactors of the future.

Derek

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Silverlok

 

and Japan shutting all it's reactors down

It already resulted in great increase of japanese CO2 emissions, and the need to buy all the fuel to replace the reactors turned their trade surplus into a trade deficit:
Japan trade deficit hits record as fuel imports rise

Phasing out nuclear means one thing - fossil energy.

of the 1500 nuclear reactors in the world they produce less than 6% of the worlds power .Every reactor costs BILLIONS to make and has a life span less than that of the average apartment complex they were meant to power
plus..

and this is a big one...

FUKU is only 4 reactors out of 1500...each represents .003% of the total in the world which means that .012% of an industry that "provides" less than 6% of the worlds energy has polluted the entire northern hemisphere...effecting billions

reply to post by Silverlok


As opposed to, say, the oil, coal and gas that produces about 90% of the world's electricity, has plants that are even shorter lived than nuclear ones, and produces pollution covering the whole world that contribute to the early deaths of as many as 3.3 million people per annum??

What has been the actual effect of Fukushima on human life, and how does that compare to the roughly 3.9 million lives shortened by air pollution since it happened??

reply to post by Silverlok

of the 1500 nuclear reactors in the world they produce less than 6% of the worlds power

Correct and incorrect.

They produce between 13% and 14% of the world's total electrical power. Only 6% of the world's total energy production.

As of December 2009, the world had 436 reactors.

So, you are also quite incorrect on the number of nuclear reactors - by a factor of more than three.

en.wikipedia.org...

Every reactor costs BILLIONS to make and has a life span less than that of the average apartment complex they were meant to power

This is also incorrect.

No new reactors have been built in the U.S. since 1966. How, then, does one account for the 18% of all U.S. electrical power being produced by nuclear reactors?

Simple - the cost of fuel and chamber maintenance is very minimal. Nuclear reactors are difficult to set up, but have an average ROI of ten years in a competitive environment and are, essentially, "money machines" after that. They have a fraction of the maintenance costs of conventional power plants and have an indefinite lifetime given proper maintenance.

FUKU is only 4 reactors out of 1500...each represents .003% of the total in the world which means that .012% of an industry that "provides" less than 6% of the worlds energy has polluted the entire northern hemisphere...effecting billions

I'm really curious to see what dumb ass you're getting this information from.

What evidence do you have to back this sort of claim up? Or do you just pass it along because it's convenient rhetoric for your point of view?

reply to post by Aim64C

wow this thread is amazingly informative..and clearly informed :

how many military and unlicensed "research" reactors are there?(oh say like the mini one at kodak, or the multiple military ones in the deserts of California Nevada and Arizona, not to mention the failed experimental sodium cooled reactors that were on the California cost ), eh smarty pants?

and how many of the military reactors used "hotter" fuel ( if you even know what I mean ) ?

how many countries actually report there clandestine nuclear activities?

additionally show me ONE link that supports your claims of how much nuclear power ( which is electricity, the only thing wew are talking about is more than 6 %, additionally show me where in your thought process the removal and control of waste materials produces into your cost estimates of nukes goodness




edit

less stars than posts! ....alm....I guess you want to dance , too bad I'm a wall flower I suppose

it is also good for clarity to define .u.s. vs world use of nuclear power when ONE is quoting stats, delineation being an interesting stumbling block to obvious obfuscation

a reply to: LightAssassin

Drilling stable holes deep into living rock isn't as easy as it sounds. I've heard the deep geothermal projects are not working out as planned. I'd like to see some research on that.

My personal experience of ground source heat pumps has been disastrous. Almost every ground source heat pump in this area has failed one way or another.

Solar panels have considerable environmental impact during manufacture, distribution and decommissioning. My experience is they work great on sunny days.

A wave power researcher in Cornwall recently said, "Everything we build ends up smashed on the beach".

Here we have the Severn Estuary,

Its high tidal range means it has been at the centre of discussions in the UK regarding renewable energy.

www.westerndailypress.co.uk...

There's so many millions of tons of mud suspended in the water a tidal lagoon would silt up immediately just as the Oldbury nuclear power station cooling water lagoon silted up, only ever operating at 10% capacity with a dredger in full time attendance.

To quote the great Kevin Blanch, "End All Nuclear!" But don't fall for the fairyland option.