Germany shuts down nuke plant

[dArKeR]

Berlin - Germany began phasing out nuclear power on Friday when a 32-year-old power plant was switched off forever, the first step toward a historic shift in the energy supply of Europe's biggest economy.

Eighteen remaining plants are to be closed over the next two decades under an accord between utilities and the government that bears the stamp of the environmentalist Greens party, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's junior partner.

Germany's second-oldest nuclear plant at Stade in northern Germany, operated by the E.On Kernkraft utility, was powered down at about 08:30 (07:30 GMT), the Lower Saxony state environment ministry said.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1445510,00.html

[Kellanved]

1. This has little to do with the phasing out of nuclear power

The plant was a 32-year old rustbucket not making profit. It was overdue for shutdown anyway.

[David__77]

2. I hope new nuclear plants are constructed.

Europe has led the way in fission power and should continue to do so. It has allowed them a wider degree of energy independence--freedom from foreign control.

I know many people here are probably against nuclear power under all conditions, but I just encourage people to study the issue closely in any event.

[BeFree]

3. Study the issue?

All we need to know is that the resulting waste from nuke plants will be a major source of pollutant for thousands of years. And not just any pollutant source, mind you, but an extremely deadly source. Until such time as this problem can be taken care of, all nuke plants should be shut down.

Germany is leading the way, it seems. Good for them.

If Rome had had nuclear power plants, we'd be living (or dying?) with the waste today.

[truthspeaker]

4. true, BUT

Shutting down nuclear power plants will mean even more reliance on fossil fuel plants, so even more air and water pollution. I am disappointed with the German Greens for making this a black and white issue based on an emotional fear of radiation. If you're going to shut down fission plants you need an alternative, and they don't have one. Wind, solar, and tidal energy can supplement fossil fuels but they aren't enough to replace it. I really think our best bet is in doing more research into more efficient nuclear fission and, further along, fusion.

[BeFree]

5. Research, eh?

Think about this:

We have the technology. We can do it.
We can clean up our pollutants. Except for nuclear.
We can generate clean electricity - wind, solar, tidal.
We can be more economical with the way we use energy.

We just can't afford too.

Technology could save us.
But we can't afford it.
It's cheaper to pollute the future.

[Frangible]

6. Coal produces more nuclear waste than a nuclear plant

According to the DOE 100,000 tons of radioactive uranium and thorium have been released by coal plants in the US to-date.

Thorium and uranium both naturally occur with coal in high quantities.

1 gram of uranium contains the power of 2.2 tons of coal. That 2.2 tons of coal contains more than 1 gram of uranium.

Unlike nuclear plants which are strictly regulated, coal plants release uranium and thorium into the atmosphere, and it is estimated they are directly responsible for 40,000 deaths in the US annually.

Coal plants also release many toxic chemicals, which never break down and do not have half lifes.

You really want coal instead of nuclear?

Are you really, really, really sure you want coal instead of nuclear?

[BeFree]

8. Coal instead of nuclear?

We can clean up the pollutants from coal. We can't clean up the waste from nuclear. So, yeah, give me coal, and let's clean the emissions with available technology. But wait...we can't afford that, can we?

[truthspeaker]

9. are you sure we have the techonology to clean up the pollutants from coal?

If so it's the first I've heard of it. We have the techonology to scrub and reduce emissions, and we should use them and develop better ones, but airborne pollutants are damned hard to clean up.

At least the pollution from fission stays in one place.

[BeFree]

11. Cleaning coal pollutants

Ya never heard of such a thing?!?!?

Many a power generator has undertaken the technology of emission control at their coal fired plants. Just not all of them. Recently, the state of North Carolina passed a 'Clean Smokestacks' act which all major power producers agreed was the right thing to do.

As far as nuke pollution staying in one place... it radiates. For thousands of years. It doesn't stay in one place. It contaminates anything close to it and if that object moves, or is moved, the contamination goes with it. Not only can we not afford to clean it up we don't know how!

Oh wait... we are moving it.... to Nevada! Yep, we're gonna hide it underground there. All the tons of nuke waste will be moving about the country via our only available technology we have to control it. Surely you heard about that, right?

[Frangible]

13. nice try

Coal power *STILL* produces more nuclear waste than nuclear power. Where do you think the radioactive uranium and thorium in coal go?

A wizard with a wand makes the magically vanish?
The coal smokestacks remove them for existance?
A chemical magically makes them stop being radioactive?

No-- coal is a dirty, dirty source of power.

Nuclear power sucks too, as you say. But it sucks less than coal. And right now nuclear is the only real alternative to coal.

So when you say "no" to nuclear, you say "yes" to coal. "Yes" to more radioactive waste. "Yes" to more air pollution.

Nuclear power has issues, yes. But it has less issues than coal.

[Frangible]

10. So...

How exactly is it we have the technology to "clean up" radioactive thorium and uranium from coal, but not lesser amounts of each from nuclear?

[BeFree]

12. Simple...

We extract the radioactive particles from the coal before it is burned, and again after it is burned.

But the real solution is using the available technology to economize our uses, and develop solar, wind, and tidal sources. You have a problem with that?

[Frangible]

14. Ok...

And once we use toxic chemicals to seperate out the uranium and thorium compounds, what then? There will still be more radioactive waste than with nuclear power.

Why is radioactive waste from coal "good", and radioactive waste from nuclear power "bad"? U238 is U238.

I assure you, I don't have a problem with "green" power. But the fact is we cannot replace coal or nuclear in their entirety with green power sources yet.

As I said in my other post -- nuclear power sucks. It just happens to suck less than coal.

[BeFree]

15. Yeah,

Since nuke power is so safe, I think I'll go out and get me one.

Imagine... the countryside full of little nuke generators in everybody's backyard. Rest my case. Goodbye.

[Frangible]

17. Huh?

All I said was nuclear power was more environmentally friendly than coal power, and that's a fact based on statistics. Nuclear power doesn't involve a power station "in everybody's backyard."

If you don't like nuclear power, that's fine. Hell, you shouldn't like it. But I don't think it's completely unreasonable to hate it less than coal.

The ultimate problem is the long term environmental and human costs of nuclear, coal, fossil fuels, etc are not built into the costs of their power generation.

In the end, we all pay for the pollution, but it's cheaper up front.

[David__77]

7. Reprocess the spent fuel for one thing.

The US to my knowledge is an exception in not reprocessing our spent fuel, which creates more waste than there would otherwise have been. You're right that the waste is a problem, but it is absolutely imperative that we develop new energy resources. I think the trade-off is more than worth it--others disagree.

[Kellanved]

16. tell that to the people near Sellafield and La Hague

Those plants are huge polluters; and one of my reasons to oppose nuclear power. The main other reason is the price: it's far more expensive than any other power and only workable due to hidden subsidies. And I don't trust the old plants in Germany one bit.

Fossile energy sources are no alternative, not even with emmisions stored, much like nuclear waste, in old mines.

Off-Shore windparks seem to be a promising technology; time will tell.

[htuttle]

18. I've heard that Denmark had built a number of off-shore windparks...

Has Germany done so as well?

I believe that I heard that the ones in Denmark are generating a considerable percentage (historically speaking...) of their electricity now.

[Kellanved]

19. Germany is planning some

At the moment the main problem is to construct the infrastructure to use the wind power. Most "old" plants are in the south, so there aren't enough power-lines in the north. The other problem is to measure the ammount of power generated by the windparks at any given time (and the future) to plan the power generation by other means.

The plan is to generate 15% of Germany's power with off-shore installations.

[TrueStory]

21. Windparks - good for playing around but it can deliver only 1..2%

of todays energy needs.
- water is better from many points of view but the whole water-energy represents only 20..30% of todays energy needs (we are using far less of it)
- solar energy - a better choice. If we could fill the Sahara with solar cells that could deliver about 10 times the today's energy needs. There is only one problem: this would be to expensive.
- Oil will be around for some time more. In about 15 years it will reach the peek production and than slowly it will loose it's importance
- Natural Gas - after the Oil Age we will have some 10..20 years of Natural Gas Age
- Atomic Energy - good enough - if the Nuclear Plants are buried deep underground. The Uranium resources should be enough for several hundred years.
- Carbon - resources for several hundred years, but outdated
- Hidrogen fusion - clean energy source, this could solve all the energy problem - however it's not working yet. If we could convince the US to spend 400 billion a year for researching Hidrogen fusion instead of wasting it for military - that could solve many problems. Even thinking with NeoCon head: the 400 billion dollar / year army didn't earned to much - just a few drops of Iraqi oil. This is not a business case...

[Kellanved]

22. it's already upwards of 3%

eom

[Endangered Specie]

25. if properly funded and worked

Nuclear power would be cheaper in the long run if the technologies were developed properly.

[Kellanved]

26. big "if"

At the moment nuclear power is just reckless.


No workable idea for final storage - no nation has a place that can be considered adequate (yet).

The risk is covered by the tax-payer for free - and there is a considerable risk. Although new reactor types might be far more safer than the existing, a worst-case scenario has been found for each new type. So far no "next generation" reactor type has held its promise; the fast breeder vanished (except the Japanese - I wouldn't want to life near that one), the gas cooled reactors ...

I see the results of Chernobyl often here: it's still dangerous to eat chestnuts or game. And that's over a thousand miles away.

[BeFree]

27. Chernobyl

Now there's a fine example of just how dangerous nukes are.
I thought someone said earlier that nuke wastes don't move around
yet you are effected at 1000 miles away?

People just don't get it, do they?

[wuushew]

28. American reactors CANNOT meltdown

by virture of their design. What happened at three-mile island should not be blown out of proportion. The amount of radiation released was greatly out of relation to the impact on the public psyche.

Granted the original post talked about an old German nuke plant which I applaud being shutdown.

[Vitruvius]

29. US reactors CAN melt down, and Three Mile Island damned near did -- twice.

The first time was during the accident -- a few more bungles, and the reactor core would have been melting its' way to China.

Even so, years later when they opened the reactor vessel, they found that large sections of the core had been reduced to rubble as a result of localized melting. If a critical mass had self-assembled in the rubble pile in the bottom of the reactor vessel, there would have been an overall melt-down. We came very, very close.

The second time was after shut-down; even after the chain reaction is stopped, the spontaneous decay of the "daughter products" continues to produce on the order of 10% of the max heat output of an operating reactor. Thus, the core cooling pumps must continue running even after a reactor is shut down, or the core will melt down.

The problem was that -- owing to the containment breach during the incident -- the TMI reactor building was too radioactive for humans to enter for some time after. The TMI core cooling pumps were in the reactor building. First one failed, then another -- until only one was left. If that one had failed, the TMI accident would have started up right where it was stopped when they finally shut it down; the 10%-of-max heat output would have melted the reactor core.

The AEC and the utility thoughtfully kept quiet about this little problem until years later, but many in the scientific and engineering community suspected it because the pumps in the hot building were being run 'way past their recommended maintenance intervals... In addition, the AEC and the utility simply would not answer questions on this matter.

Vitruvius

P.S: You are partly correct in that U.S. civilian reactors (such as TMI) are less likely to melt down than the Russian designs like Chernobyl; however, the AEC reactors used to produce bombstuff (e.g. plutonium and tritium) are of the same basic design as Chernobyl, and at least as dangerous.

Basically, Russian reactors are all capable of being used to produce bombstuff -- Russia is a poorer nation than we are and they need to get both electricity and bombstuff from the same reactors. Here, we make some less-unsafe reactors for civilian electricity production, crow about their safety, and ignore the dangers from the reactors we use to make bombstuff.

[Endangered Specie]

23. and if the romans used coal and oil plants

for 1 thousand years, Earth would resemble Venus. Pick your poison.

[TrueStory]

20. Nuclear plants should be built underground, very deep

and problem solved.
Even if there is an accident, no radioactivity cames out.
When the time cames to shut down the nuke plant, you just leave it.

[Endangered Specie]

24. I a pro nuclear and very environmentalistic

let me explain:

Nucleur waste is dangerous, yes, but no worse that what you get from coal fire plants. For about 20 lbs of nuc waste, you get the same energy from severel million cubic feet of coal smoke.

There are technoligies that are available that can reprocess spent fuel, and it could be reused dozens of times, leaving even less waste. If we commited to it, funded it and all, we could do it.

Hopefully, we will one day have fusion power plants, and better solar panels (put some on every roof in the world), but that day is a LONG way away, until then, we have two choices of pollutions: Extrodinary Massive amounts of smoke spread everywhereand all the crap that comes with it, or about a small mountains worth of solid waste, that we can easily lock away.