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 th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The actual unblemished truth is that the popular "renewable" sources can not supply but a minority proportion of the world's needs for energy.
[citation needed]
TFA:
Germany wants to boost the share of the country's power needs generated by renewable energies to 35 percent by 2020 from 17 percent at present.
Seems that Germany thinks is possible to cover more than 1/3 of its energy needs from renewables, in only 8 years from now. This on top of Germany already producing less than half CO2/capita [google.com] than some other developed nation.
Re: (Score:2)
35% is still a minority. What about the other 65% ?
This [blogspot.com] graph of ERCOT wind production versus demand illustrates the major problem with renewables. Although it is summer, when wind production is low, this is a real power grid with a huge number of large wind turbines. Notice that peak demand coincides almost exactly with minimum production. Notice also that "minimum production" basically means "zero production".
And while it's true that solar could fill the gap nicely, we will have to (optimistically) li
Re:Lessor of two evils... (Score:4, Interesting)
Solar PV pricing per watt has fallen dramatically in the last 2 years; at commercial scale it's at or near $1.20/watt. That's one reason why Solyndra folded as they were developing a non-silicon alternative but they can no longer compete on price. Germany installed a ton of solar back when the cost for PV was much higher.
California has 8 GW on the roadmap ( http://votesolar.org/2011/09/who-says-solar-is-too-expensive/ [votesolar.org] ) slightly more than half of which will cost less than the natural gas equivalent.
Re:Lessor of two evils... (Score:5, Informative)
Problem is that it takes more energy to produce a solar panel than the panel takes in over its lifetime.
BULLSHIT
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/794/ [ecogeek.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that it takes more energy to produce a solar panel than the panel takes in over its lifetime.
Hasn't been true for at least a couple of decades.
Re: (Score:2)
This on top of Germany already producing less than half CO2/capita [google.com] than some other developed nation.
That won't last as they shut down the remaining nuclear plants. Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 23% of national electricity consumption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're going to be owned by the Russians in no time.
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.
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.
Re:This is Slashdot . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Or just far to few to be of any relevance.
Yeah, ~35M people is far to[sic] irrelevant . . . (Score:2)
Re:This is Slashdot . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a combined power plant experience of just about 15 years. 11 of that was nuclear power, the rest has been coal. I live about 5 miles from a nuclear plant.
In my personal opinion, we need more nuclear plants in the USA. Build the alternative power sources. Supplement what you can. Nuclear power is what we need right now until everything else becomes viable, if ever.
BAU Bias (Score:3)
Unfortunately, things do not always go according to plan and your experience seems somewhat lacking in that department. How about I compromise and say that you are free to build all the nuclear plants you like, as long as the technology is deemed safe enough that you can actually get private insurance co
Re: (Score:2)
Not a single nuclear plant could operate without government backing. No private insurance company could ever cover such risk. Nuclear plants are just like large banks and absolutely require government backing so that the whole country can share the pain when they screw up.
Sorry, not willing to put much more time in a response to someone who did not even bother to create a Slashdot account. . . Why don't you create an account?
Re:This is Slashdot . . . (Score:5, Informative)
There has been two truly serious (someone gets hurt) accidents in the 60-year history of nuclear power: Chernobyl and Fukushima. Chernobyl killed 31 people; Fukushima has yet to kill anyone. Both were caused by a combination of corruption and exceptional circumstances. Contrast this with the 100,000 people who die yearly as a result of coal power working exactly as it's designed to: nuclear power wins hands down on pretty much every metric, even if we count the evacuees of Chernobyl and Fukushima as casualties.
So, while "first hand experience" of things going wrong makes for nice propaganda for Greenpeace, there simply aren't that many people with it. Decisions should be based on actual statistics, not on who can come up with the most moving sob story. Unless, of course, you don't actually care about making the best or even a good decision, but only on adhering to your ideology (Greenpeace) or getting re-elected (Germany).
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, Uranium ore has to be gutted from the Earth just like every other non-renewable resource. The yields of uranium ore are certainly decreasing over time, just like oil wells are havin
Re: (Score:2)
Renewable energy sources are more than enought to cover the entire world's energy needs. They are expensive, inefficient and their output is very variable, but they are certainly capable of producing 100% or the energy the world uses right now.
Re: (Score:2)
there is really no other source that can provide the need of our modern society.
Please define "need[s]" in this context.
This confusion of wants with needs has perhaps been the cause of countless wars in the Middle East.
Re: (Score:2)
This confusion of wants with needs has perhaps been the cause of countless wars in the Middle East.
You misspelled "Organized Religion".
Re: (Score:2)
This confusion of wants with needs has perhaps been the cause of countless wars in the Middle East.
You misspelled "Organized Religion".
There have been many wars in the middle-east. I agree that some have been due to religious conflicts. But I also believe many would have not occurred, or at least not involved the Western powers, if it were not for an unwillingness to forgo cheap oil.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't worry. Solar power is going to save us all, provided they get $0.30/kWh subsidies.
China: Villagers protest at Zhejiang solar panel plant
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14963354 [bbc.co.uk]
Oh wait, wind will save us all, provided it doesn't get too hot or cold or windy or calm. That gets wind power 30% efficiency.
OK, hydroelectric will save us all. OK, that's maxed out already.
And while we protest, record number of coal and natural gas power plants are getting built. Fraking and ground water pollution
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, there are Environmentalists and then there are "Environmentalists"...
Re: (Score:2)
...nuclear technologies have never been safer...
That's a truism right there. At the same time, the solar energy industry has stagnated in Germany, I believe the topic was posted here on Slashdot about a week ago. So what's going on in Germany?
BTW, interesting correlation between your user ID and chronological placement of comment.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Move to New Zealand the. We're producing the vast majority of our electricity from hydro power.
I think its about 70% renewable
Re: (Score:2)
We do have a pretty high ratio of dammable rivers : population
Re: (Score:2)
To support what the OP says about the safety of nuclear power, this paper compares the mortality risk from a major radiation accident to that from other environmental factors including air pollution. It concludes that living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone poses a lower mortality risk that does living in the air pollution of central London.
Are passive smoking, air pollution and obesity a greater mortality risk than major radiation incidents [nih.gov]
A rare nuclear accident is .... an accident. Air pollution is b
Re: (Score:2)
There is no single solution to the problem and what often gets left out of the discussion is curbing energy needs so that the false dichotomy of fossil fuels or nuclear appears to be the only choice. Just as no one is addressing the non-renewable aspects of fossil fuels in a serious way (I've only ever heard Buckminster Fuller address it in a realistic fashion) also no one seems to have a real answer in regard to storing the ridiculously long lasting radioactive by-products of energy produced by uranium fi
You've got that a bit wrong and here's why (Score:2)
Elsewhere there is hope, but you've really been sold on bullshit instead of reality if you think nuclear stands way ahead of everything else in all situations. In reality a mixture instead of a monoculture works a lot better than some fanboy fantasy.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In case you, without thinking, change the page and lose your whole post before it's finished. External editors can use auto-save.
Oh come on. You get warned on any modern browser if you change away from comments. Who doesn't use tabs these days.
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?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (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"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Phrases like "there is really no other source" "The actual unblemished truth" "The truth is:" "nuclear technologies have never been safer" are essentially meaningless tautologies or outright lies, but are presented here to deflect real discussion, such as why it was economically sensible of Siemens to stop buildin
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Its not like we have a choice here folks, and if the NIMBYs would quit acting like asses, which BTW I propose any NIMBY that blocks power creation?
It's not NIMBYs that get in the way of nuclear power, it's bankers.
The financial industry understands that constructing new reactors is not a good investment, which is why they charge a premium for loans. In the US, Congress uses public money to pay that bill (and further subsidies at the rate of 1.8 cents per KW-Hr for the first 3 years of operation), otherwise nobody would bother building them.
Re: (Score:3)
Hi there. If you covered 2% of the uninhabited portions of the Sahara with solar PV, you could supply all of the world's energy requirements. Before responding, hairyfeet, stop and think about what that implies.
Investment? (Score:3, Informative)
If you covered 2% of the uninhabited portions of the Sahara with solar PV,
How much would that cost?
You need how many panels? Let's take this one, for example [shopenergia.com]. $400 for 185W, 1.25 m2 surface. Those 2% of the Sahara will be covered by a total of 158 billion panels, costing a total of 63 trillion dollars..
That's the cost for the panels alone. Now you must install them, they are spread over a wide area of desert. You need to build access roads, you need to maintain them. You need to build special fences to avoid sandstorms. How will you keep those panels clean? Wash them? Where do yo
Re: (Score:2)
In a related question, why does anyone still do this? As far as I know, all the modern browsers have spell check built in and I can't think of any other reasons off the top of my head.
Spellcheck? yes Grammar correction? No
Re: (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 disast
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just the few first line:
>>With the situation at the stricken reactors of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant now relatively stable,
Nope... sorry... 3 reactor are basically in unknown state of china syndrome. There is just no way to know how bad it really is.
People touting the "no direct death" or "less death than coal" are just delusionnal cherry picking stats in the timespan of their coice, ignoring most of the collateral damage or just plain window licking morons... It's the same as the chernobyl
Re: (Score:3)
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.
well, first off, heat engines were around a lot earlier than the internal combustion engine, and we have been turning oils into heat and gas for a lot longer than turning heavy rocks into heat. unless your "new" technology is win turbines or solar power? in which the technology has been available somewhat for the last 100 years?
secondly, your description of this "new" technology could be applied to any power plant.
expensive : is a relative term, expensive compared to what? because the biggest cost of nucle
Re: (Score:2)
will probably cause the premature deaths of several times that number
[citation needed]
(see: guardian.co.uk)
[lol]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Nor has coal, requiring government protections from lawsuits (a subsidy, even if not as easily measured) to remain profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree absolutely. Coal is worse than fission.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
"Level 7" "disaster" is meaningless. Here, it just means that a lot of people were inconvenienced and some long term remediation has to occur.
There are two things to note. First, Fukushima is at the same "level" as a nuclear accident which melts the entire Western hemisphere. One should wonder why the nuclear industry has a scale where the top rung of the scale covers such a vast range of accidents.
Second, Fukushima wasn't a disaster in any sense. There's only been as I understand a few deaths tied to
Re: (Score:2)
Just so. As I said, negative advertising. Bad public relations.
I'm sure you know as well as I do that perception trumps reality every time.
I don't believe you can say that with any real confidence. It took 25 years for the radiation from that Antarctica plant to kill people horribly. But it's the fear of that which will drive perception.
The people who are pushi
Re: (Score:2)
Just so. As I said, negative advertising. Bad public relations.
I'm sure you know as well as I do that perception trumps reality every time.
Wait, so your claim that Fukushima "will probably cause the premature deaths of several times that number" is just "negative advertising" or "bad public relations"?
Re: (Score:2)
Complaining that nuclear cannot be profitable without government subsidies is just a little ironic given that every "green" "renewable" source has the same fate.
But that you say things like the governments have no money since the corporations took over, and joining that with actually trying to reference the Guardian... well, you're just a kook anyway.
Same goes for oil, gas, and coal--if it's owned by the people and held in trust by the state, as is typical for minerals and oil, but only a small fraction is charged in royalty to the extractor, that Is also a form of subsidy.
Re: (Score:3)
Same goes for oil, gas, and coal--if it's owned by the people and held in trust by the state, as is typical for minerals and oil, but only a small fraction is charged in royalty to the extractor, that Is also a form of subsidy.
How does the state decide who gets to be the extractor? If it's auctioned off (which is usually the case for oil), then that indicates that the resource in question is being sold at market rate, hence no subsidy.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Science and engineering may be "getting better" (debatable) but corporate governance is certainly getting much much worse. As long as private industry is going to be involved in nuclear energy, it's only going to get more dangerous.
If you want to talk about nationalized nuclear plants, we might come to an accommodation. But privately-owned and operated pla
Re: (Score:3)
Science and engineering may be "getting better" (debatable) but corporate governance is certainly getting much much worse. As long as private industry is going to be involved in nuclear energy, it's only going to get more dangerous.
There's an existing solution to the problem. If businesses are really getting more haphazard and dangerous, then enforce the regulation on the books. It's not complicated or a deep mystery.
As to nationalized plants, they have a habit of cutting corners and waiving regulations. That's what happens when the same entity is responsible for operating the plant and vetting the safety and reliability of the plant.
For example, there was a vast cleanup problem in the wake of the US nuclear program. Russia, Bri
Re: (Score:2)
Impossible. As long as you put something as important as energy into the centralized hands of a few corporations, they are going to exert outsized influence on governments so that meaningful regulation never happens.
Those corporations prefer byzantine, ineffective regulation which make it look like the government is being horribly hard on them, when in fact those r
Re: (Score:3)
Impossible. As long as you put something as important as energy into the centralized hands of a few corporations, they are going to exert outsized influence on governments so that meaningful regulation never happens.
Then do the "impossible". Also put in heavy penalties, such as jail time and huge fines, for those who would attempt to exert "outsized influence". As I said, the solution already exists. It's dumb to pretend that we're too helpless to implement it.
Re: (Score:2)
"What is the Guardian?"
In trhe UK it is a national newspaper. I presume this is what the gp is referring to.
Although for millions of us around the world, The Guardian was Shoghi Effendi Rabbani (1897-1957) head of the Baha'i Faith 1921-1957
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I forgive you. I'm big that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up the World Almanac statistics for automobile fatalities in Manhattan from 1908-1912, over 250 people killed by hand cranked automobiles. Consider the total of those caused by civilian nuclear power plant radiation accidents: five. Good thing we no longer have the hand cranked automobiles, more dangerous than a nuke plant by far, eh? Even this year a guy was run over by a Model T at a car show, those killer hand-cranked machines still slaughtering.
Re: (Score:2)
just because something is radioactive, doesn't make it not "clean".
That's the reason. SUUUURE! (Score:2)
It's not that they fear (or already know about) more security holes in their SIMATIC and the ensuing fallout from it. Nooooo...
Re: (Score:2)
That's just stupid. SIMATIC is used to automate things, it's not designed to be used only in nuclear power plants. They aren't going to stop making these machines.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can use that in other plants too. But let's be honest, what's the harm if somewhere a mail sorter doesn't work? So mail gets delivered a day late. Here's some money, shut up, nobody who mattered noticed anyway, and we'll cover the three complaints you'll get.
It's kinda hard to hush up something like Fukushima. You do NOT want your name associated with the answer to the question "Now, how the HELL could something like that happen?"
Re: (Score:2)
And who built Fukushima? Oh right, GE. Doesn't seem to have hurt their reputation any.
I grant you, the public is stupid. But people with brains, call them 'european elites' if you want, or just the people who should actually be making decisions about these things realize a 40 year old set of reactors hit by a magnitude 9 earthquake and a tsunami is a very different problem than a reactor designed today.
Re: (Score:2)
ensuing fallout
*RIMSHOT*
Re: (Score:2)
This is about stuxnet.
Or, rather, about their lawyers' assessment of the potential apocalyptic ramifications of Stuxnet and imitators.
So what? (Score:3)
Importing power from France is like importing it from one US State to another. The distances are short, Germany can be nuke-free, and can purchase electricity without building expensive infrastructure it doesn't need.
Germany may as well pay France as dump billions into constructing and maintaining reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how the European Union works. Germany is not going to rely on France to provide them electricity, they are going to make plans to produce themselves all the power they need - and export to other countries, if they can.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-20/french-power-exports-to-germany-rise-amid-record-low-dam-output.html [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. They can't because:
1) Demand is growing.
2) Wind/solar power needs backup.
And German industry knows it, that's why many new coal power plants are being built.
That's why it's highly doubtful that 35% of renewable energy production will be sustained.
On Germany.. (Score:2)
I do not fault Germany for wanting to increase their reliance on renewable resources for power generation. However, I do fault them for wanting to phase out nuclear power, since it is really the only viable generating method for the future-at-large.
Think about how much coal and how many coal plants will be required to replace their nuclear plants. I'd rather run the tiny tiny chance of an accident at a nuclear plant than the very large risk that I'll be coughing up black spit and dying at 35 from lung can
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?
wow (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
At first I thought the German government lost it and were overreacting about Japan. But now a company who does business world wide is dropping nuclear power I'm asking myself: is there too much lead in the water over there or is the country just fucking crazy on their own?
I take it you've never studied this past century's world history?
Or . . . (Score:2)
No Problem - Helpful Information for Germans Here (Score:2)
This information will be *invaluable* for Germans as they enter their new era of energy:
Oui, je vais pencher pour votre énergie nucléaire. Me pénétrer sans pitié. (Yes, I will bend over for your nuclear power. Penetrate me without mercy)
Laissez-moi le plaisir de votre pénis grenouille. (Let me pleasure your frog penis.)
German policy costs at least 25000 lives/year (Score:2, Interesting)
Based on deaths per TWh [ibm.com](which includes Chernobyl for nuclear), it takes about 160 lives to generate one TWh by coal and 0.04 lives per TWh by nucle
Re:German policy costs at least 25000 lives/year (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Coal mining deaths are measured in workers per 100,000 ton and the world currently burns roughly 1 billion short-tons per year.
Use nuclear power . . . (Score:3)
Nuclear Slashdot propaganda at its finest . . .
Re: (Score:2)
"There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was."
The problem is, that the study you give is totally bogus, not alone because of that one lie. Sure all reactors are safer than the one just blew - until they blow. Just check the "core damage frequency" - even the "official" number is a tad big (if all energy in earth is done by nuclear, one reactor will blow every 100 years - history has shown the number to be few orders of magnitude bigger).
I have not heard of a single sol
Re: (Score:2)
"There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was."
It's worth noting here that Russia still operates a small number of the reactors of this class. I gather the last one is scheduled to shutdown around 2020 or so.
The problem is, that the study you give is totally bogus, not alone because of that one lie. Sure all reactors are safer than the one just blew - until they blow. Just check the "core damage frequency" - even the "official" number is a tad big (if all energy in earth is done by nuclear, one reactor will blow every 100 years - history has shown the number to be few orders of magnitude bigger).
There are reactor designs that don't "blow". The fact that you treat all reactors as equal in their potential for disaster merely indicates that you don't understand the problem.
I have not heard of a single solar installation fatality - neither has the guy who did the "study". That is why he compared any "rooftop worker" to be equal to solar installation - WTF?
Nor would you. Someone falling off a roof isn't news.
Then the time scales are very different. Why not calculate nuclear research done during 40-50's for nuclear energy death toll? Because it would make it look horrible.
And it would be completely irrelevant to modern nuclear power since the designs have, despite your rambling to the contr
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Also like hotels that don't want to go to the cost of washing towels everyday - so write a long card justifying that it saves the environment - when really they are just doing it to save money.
You are right, nuclear is expensive (Score:2)
It is funny how Slashdot has so much contempt towards the finance industry when the nuclear industry is so similar in structure. Both take on risks that require government "backing
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: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.
scared off (Score:2)
Fukushima was a very unfortunate incident that was allowed to occur. People around the world are left thinking "well if the Japanese can't do nuclear safely, then nobody can".
Fact is, those plants were shoddily maintained, of old design, and sited very poorly.
In fact the location in which they were put, and both the design and location of the backup system beggars belief.
TEPCO have done the world a great disservice.
title goes here (Score:5, Funny)
Siemens always left me with a bad taste in my mouth
Nope... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll support no nukes thanks. Not for any hippie bullshit reasons.. But just because the worst case failure modes for nuclear is so bad. And humans and nature have a long established history of fucking things up.
Yeah coal is bad. Only because we refuse to clean the output or put any modern technology into mineing it. Another fine example of humans fucking something up. There's no reason coal mineing could not be 100% automated. And theres no reason coal output can't be 0 emissions output 100% cle
Nuclear Fusion (Score:3)
Please, if we are going to have a witch hunt on fission .. let's at least put some money into nuclear fusion research. Yes Nuclear Fusion research has been progressing slow .. and yes some approaches to fusion have turned out to be much harder that previously anticipate (IEC, laser based fusion) however we shouldn't give up. There was a time when people who tried to build airplanes were ridiculed .. hell even one of the wright brothers sent a letter saying "airplanes will someday fly, but not for a thousand years" .. that was in 1901. Three years later, they built a working airplane.
They didn't give up and they followed the science. Until the idea of nuclear fusion has been falsified by a consensus of scientists, basic research into it should be funded.
Now you may ask why government should fund it and not private investors. It's because the huge development time involved doesn't make it feasible for private investors. For example, if they build a large tokamak or laser facility .. the design specifications would have to be based on parameters known today. So to ensure others cannot copy their invention (in case someone leaks the innovative ideas), they would have to patent it. But then the patent clock of 20 years will start today .. and by the time the plant is built they will only have 5 years to recoup their investment cost. Meanwhile others who didn't have to do all the hard research will be able to make great profits. Extending patent terms will not resolve this issue because then you have the issue of other people not doing work in the field and also you may be giving extended patent terms to technologies that are esential to fusion but may stifle advancements in other fields if their patents were valid for long periods --for example if the fusion plant required advanced magnets ... magnets are used in electric car motors as well. The other problems is that it provides a strategic advantage over enemy or potential enemy nations for the US to have leadership in all aspects of the technology. For example, the USA had to invest in rocket technology because the Soviet government was dumping huge amounts of capital into it --> and leadership in the space race was essential for victory in the Cold War. One other reason is that it's in the public interest that a corporation not have control of the fundamental technology.
So there are plenty of reasons why the USA should invest in fundamental technology. However the USA should not invest in the commercialization aspect of the technology (unless it's in the form of a loan for a capital intensive project like building the first few fusion plants).
Re: (Score:3)
It has taken years to build, but it is currently being brought fully online, and we should see a successful fusion experiment later this year, or early next year, and with any luck - commercial reactors based on this design will start being built in the US within the decade.