Siemens To Exit Nuclear Power Business 400
jones_supa wrote in with a link about the future of nuclear power in Germany. The story reads: "German industrial giant Siemens is turning the page on nuclear energy, the group's CEO Peter Löscher told the weekly Der Spiegel in an interview published on Sunday. The group's decision to withdraw from the nuclear industry reflects 'the very clear stance taken by Germany's society and political leadership.' Along with abandoning nuclear power, Germany wants to boost the share of the country's power needs generated by renewable energies to 35% by 2020 from 17% at present."
Lessor of two evils... (Score:2, Insightful)
This kind of thought is too bad for the Earth, because baring fossil fuels, there is really no other source that can provide the need of our modern society. The actual unblemished truth is that the popular âoerenewableâ sources can not supply but a minority proportion of the worldâ(TM)s needs for energy. The truth is: Itâ(TM)s either coal / oil, or nuclear energy.
And the sad thing is that today, as in right now, the nuclear technologies have never been safer, so much safer than any of the currently operational nuke plants, and much more relevant to this discussion, much more safe and indeed cleaner than any, ANY, of the alternatives.
Simply the truth, folks.
Re:Lessor of two evils... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's good that you mention the word "truth" three times, because with your complete lack of sources I would otherwise have worried that your post might be bullshit.
Russian gas (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats OK, The Germans can rely on their good friends in Russia for a cheap reliable supply of natural gas to fire their power stations for the next century or so while they work on alternatives. What could go wrong?
Re:Lessor of two evils... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why are you comparing nuclear energy to a "new" technology? It's been around more than half a century and it's still expensive, filthy and dangerous.
Siemens is getting out because nuclear energy has never been profitable without government subsidies and perhaps you haven't noticed, but not that many governments have money to burn ever since the corporations took over. Plus, the level 7 Fukushima disaster that forced 80,000 people from their homes and will probably cause the premature deaths of several times that number (see: guardian.co.uk) was not really great advertisement for the failed experiment that was energy from nuclear fission.
Face it, like the hydrogen dirigible, fission energy is a technology that was almost really good except for the fact that it was really bad. As Maxwell Smart might have said, "It missed it by that much."
Re:Lessor of two evils... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lessor of two evils... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well shit CmdrTaco, why not only permit ASCII only in the name field?
I've got a pretty good reason why not. How about "CmdrTaco doesn't work at slashdot anymore"?
Greenwash (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were making money hand over fist, they would not be exiting nuclear power. Because they decided to exit nuclear power, they take the opportunity to make it look like they're concerned about society.
This is not much different than companies saying "we're going green" and getting rid of postal-mail bills. They're "going green" because it saves them money. If it it was more expensive to send email than paper, you can be certain they would still be sending paper.
This is Slashdot . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunate, though. Slashdot is usually a great place to find opinions from those with first hand experience. However, when it comes to nuclear power, it might as well be a site for the nuclear lobby. Those with first hand experience are either too intimidated to post or accused of being liars when they do.
A step backwards... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll add my voice to the chorus of people supporting nuclear power as the only currently viable solution to meet the growing energy needs of the future. It's just madness at this stage to suggest that any other technology can be:
A) As environmentally friendly.
B) As cheap.
C) As reliable.
D) As adaptable (goes anywhere in the world).
Re:This is Slashdot . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Or just far to few to be of any relevance.
Re:A step backwards... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuclear power is interesting stuff so I suggest you get the enjoyment of learning about it instead of just mindlessly singing it's praises and making silly mistakes in the process.
Re:A step backwards... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll add my voice to the chorus of people supporting nuclear power as the only currently viable solution to meet the growing energy needs of the future. It's just madness at this stage to suggest that any other technology can be:
A) As environmentally friendly. B) As cheap. C) As reliable. D) As adaptable (goes anywhere in the world).
Nuclear power is ridiculously reliable, cheap, and environmentally friendly... in principle.
In practice, nuclear power plants are built by large groups of humans who are laboring in the presence of perverse incentives. Therefore, a nuclear power plant built by humans will cost about as much as the nearest competitor (natural gas), will be reliable for the time period that the relevant VPs expect to remain at their current post, and will be environmentally friendly in the sense that uranium mining, refining, and disposal are all hand-waved away.
Don't get me wrong, I am a pro-nuke zealot, and I want nuke plants built no matter what the risk. I am just pointing out that when it comes to this subject, you have forgotten your usual justified level of cynicism about humans.
Re:Lessor of two evils... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C. Accidentally change page? Return to the page and Ctrl+V. ;)
Though if you accidentally change pages, your own comment didn't have your attention; why should we give it any attention?