Page 5 of 36 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 356

Thread: Germany export 4MWh E-Energy although 8 Nuclear-Power-Stations turned off

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vervelover View Post
    Funny, but on a different level than my argument.
    Let me re-answer your question; if there would be a dump of Chernobyl radiation near my town;
    1. I wouldn't give a shit;
    2. Just as much as I don't give a shit about the radio-active waste that's in my smoke-alarm, hanging above my head;
    3. Just as much as I don't give a flying fuck about all the Wi-Fi+cellular+radio+light radiation in my area combined (a cellular tower just 200m away from my bed);
    4. Just as much as that I don't give a flying fsck about smoking.

    You see; radiation is nothing but electromagnetic waves. I'm heavily bombarded by it 24/7. There's probably a download of Adobe Photoshop CS5 flying through my brain as I'm typing this.

    I am getting cancer on a daily basis, it's just that my immune system kills my damaged cells. The brain development damage resulting from the current Chernobyl levels of radiation, is less than when a teenager starts drinkling alcohol in the weekends. I am not shitting you. And currently; that "OMG ABOVE ADVICED LEVELS SOMETIMES"-radiation is far less likely to kill my immune system. It's just that there are more mutations and one of them could, might, somehow trick my immune system into believing that it's healthy. But with that amount of radiation; chances are higher you'll get hit by a car before you die.

    Yes, UN is certainly a source which you can trust, they'd never say bullshit, would they?
    Always good to question authority, but it's not in the UN's interest to bring out a communist favor, when its top contributor is the USA. How would they feel about that report? And then it's not just the UN that sais this. So all-in-all; you can trust it with your life.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    [QUOTE=V!NCENT;229842]2. Just as much as I don't give a shit about the radio-active waste that's in my smoke-alarm, hanging above my head;/QUOTE]

    just tell me why radioactive smoke alarms are against the law in Germany?
    but we all do have well working smoke alarms in Germany without radioactive materials.

    the answer is simple you are wrong its just stupid to build smoke alarms with radioactive materials.

    so there is no argument on smoke alarms... there is only stupidly.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    just tell me why radioactive smoke alarms are against the law in Germany?
    but we all do have well working smoke alarms in Germany without radioactive materials.
    Because they are not based on laser technology. What it means is that it is far less effective and potentialy (statistically) saving less lives than optic smoke alarms.

    Not because its radiation level is deadly.

    so there is no argument on smoke alarms... there is only stupidly.
    It's just lazyness.

    PS: When we installed this smoke alarm, at that time there was no optic smoke alarm to buy(simply had to be invented, yet). I'm just not upgrading my false sence of security.
    Last edited by V!NCENT; 09-30-2011 at 06:34 PM.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,001

    Default

    432 reactor stations.

    33 major accidents and incidents.
    7* major events

    Do the math. Both are under well under 10%.

    Problem is the backup solutions are still poor and inefficient. The Governments are ranting and raving about implementing greener and cleaner renewable energy.

    So, they are going with coal, the worst fossil fuel to choose from?!? So, why not call out these politicians for the hypocrites they are?

    Fact is, there's no good backup sources yet. Nuclear is still the best albeit not necessarily the safest but it depends who you ask and how you measure it by.

    Of course, it's a bad idea in places like Japan with the amount of tsunamis and earthquakes you have. Yeah, you have what you may consider terrorist sites but basically, the way people are getting their hands on explosives and countries are willing to sell dangerous substances, you are not out of the woods by eliminating nuclear energy.

    The major negative is potential or possibility for accidents. Therefore, to be objective, you have to compare the pros and the cons. The politicians don't do that. Many people don't either.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panix View Post
    432 reactor stations.

    33 major accidents and incidents.
    7* major events

    Do the math.
    First insightful counter-nuclear powerplant post.

    However... While nuclear has some very appearent and visual in-your-face accidents, other power plants are silent killers (not counting solar panels and windmils, etc.).

    Imagine the deathtoll of all hurricanes, floods, tempeture rises and sea level risings and melting ice capades and animal deaths, dissapearing coral... all that shit.

    Therefore, to be objective, you have to compare the pros and the cons. The politicians don't do that. Many people don't either.
    That's a universal truth, sadly...

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    First insightful counter-nuclear powerplant post.

    However... While nuclear has some very appearent and visual in-your-face accidents, other power plants are silent killers (not counting solar panels and windmils, etc.).

    Imagine the deathtoll of all hurricanes, floods, tempeture rises and sea level risings and melting ice capades and animal deaths, dissapearing coral... all that shit.


    That's a universal truth, sadly...
    there is at the moment no need for that, we can use gas-plants if we really cant push up the alternative energies fast enough, its more clean than coal. And its a myth that atom energie does not produce any co2.

    http://timeforchange.org/co2-emissio...ns-electricity

    so you have a minimal better co2-rate with atom energie then you would have with gas, that minimal amount more of co2 is no bad thing in the gain of no totaly gaus we will get each 10 years from atomic energie. In japan they are better takers, if such thing happens in france or so, you will have mass panic and nobody will live there ever. they will all run away to northern europe or someone else.

    And its not proven (why is that not teached in school if its proven) that co2- is bad for the earth, its just unlogical, because plants better groth. And if thats the price we have to pay I even get a fan of this co2-collecting technologie, (as much negative points and risks that has), at least if a country use that technolegy they will mostly have to deal with the problems alone when their fields stopp growing stuff and not countries that not save money in investing into alternative energie gets doomed.

    and whats the point there are claims that alternative technologie is a bit more expensive, some other say its cheaper, so ok jsut belive for a moment its a bit more epensive is that the only reason why we would use a very dangerous technologie like atomic doom reactors?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,478

    Default Q, you should drop this one.

    Here's a study, http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...-dPcWn9MZrvjQg

    Nuclear plants can be safe and generally are. We know how ionizing radiation works. We know the typical amounts we can, on average, survive without significant increase in risk of cancer over a typical lifetime (that later bit is important). The suits worn for the red zone workers (I'm assuming that's the name used for them) protects them against alpha particles and radioactive "dust", but not against beta particles or gamma rays but those are also not nearly as bad as the heavy alpha particles. So, the workers are actually pretty well protected (not to say that they CAN'T be overexposed, of course).
    Nuke is safe, and nothing is as energy dense that we can currently access, but they are insanely expensive to build and maintain (for good reason).
    BTW, coal (and the mining thereof) also release radioactive particles when burned, but only small amounts. So, lets keep this all in perspective and look at the tons of data not anecdotal reports.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Because they are not based on laser technology. What it means is that it is far less effective and potentialy (statistically) saving less lives than optic smoke alarms.
    Not because its radiation level is deadly.
    LOL modern systems do not need radioative materials. modern systems do have co2 detectors without radioactivity also modern one do have even more they have chip to detect multiple substances like co,co2,NOx, and stuff like that. also there are infrared optical systems based on analyzing the heat directly.

    radioactive materials are just obsolete.
    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    It's just lazyness.
    PS: When we installed this smoke alarm, at that time there was no optic smoke alarm to buy(simply had to be invented, yet). I'm just not upgrading my false sence of security.
    ok but smoke alarm with radioactive materials are just obsolete!

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panix View Post
    Do the math. Both are under well under 10%.
    LOL.. do you know the word "German Angst" we Germans only accept 100% safety



    Quote Originally Posted by Panix View Post
    Problem is the backup solutions are still poor and inefficient.
    one secret about germany compared to the Fukushima disaster is the fire fighters in japan do not have "Generators" to backup the cooling solutions in the nuclear power plant now the secret about germany is we have the backup!
    because why? we not only have the firefighters with generators we also do have the THW "technisches hilfswerk"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technisches_Hilfswerk
    And japan fail because they do not have a THW
    in Germany you will never ever get an energy collapse like the one in japan or the US ones.
    in germany every single Town no even a village no even every company do have a THW fighters.
    no joke. if in Germany the energy systems collapse the THW and the firefighters come with more generators you can count.
    right now we have 83,807 THW fighters stay on line with a Annual budget EUR 176.000.000 € to do Technical Emergency Relief

    and the USA do not have a THW ! and japan do not have a THW!


    QUOTE=Panix;229849]
    The Governments are ranting and raving about implementing greener and cleaner renewable energy.[/QUOTE]

    just imagine germany do have the best backup system on Technical Emergency Relief and if the Germans believe they can not handle this if the THW believe they can not handle this if the fire fighters believe they can not handle it be sure the germans are right if they quit nuclear power.

    and no the THW is not the firefighter stations its a complete second backup Emergency system.
    means the THW comes if the firefighters lose .

    compare it to your country do your country have a second backup ?


    THW means super large Emergency stuff.


    even larger stuff.
    Last edited by Qaridarium; 09-30-2011 at 10:56 PM.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    122

    Default Australia...

    Hey Vincent, you live in Australia?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •