I find the criticism torwards the Energiewende quite hard to understand, sure it is a very difficult problem but unless we find a fundamentally new energy source or nuclear fusion becomes viable the path Germany is on is without alternative. It's better to work on the problem now, developing knowledge that helps our economy and makes us a worldwide leader than holding it off unless we are near collapse due to oil prices or worse have to engage in a war about resources, especially since the latter is something Germany must not engage in.
> I find the criticism torwards the Energiewende quite hard to understand
It's not that complicated. Making a solar panel costs more energy than it produces for decades. So all Germany is doing is making China foot the CO2 bill.
China makes the solar panel with all the associated CO2 costs, Germany installs it and claims no CO2.
Globally they are doing nothing useful, except maybe pushing the costs down.
I especially find shutting down the nuclear plants stupid. The one and only technology that actually would work, and they are spurning it.
B) A lot of the manufacturing actually happens in Germany. It's just that recently, China is spinning up the competition. Market at work.
C) "costs more energy than it produces for decades". Even if that were true, it would still be a better deal. You provide no source for proof because there is none - Particularly considering technological progress, this will soon be even more laughable.
D) It's not about frigging CO2. That's part of the deal, but reducing it to that is dangerously close to obfuscation.
E) "except maybe pushing the cost down" - there is a gold mine of discovery and realization being brushed away with crushing ignorance there. "pushing the cost down" is quite the magic thing in the history of mankind, you know?
F) "The one and only technology" - Yeah right. Tell you what, there is an article linked at the top which talks about the actual, one and only technology. It's already working and being implemented.
A: Yes, and wind. Wind has a reasonably good energy ROI, but it's not possible to collect enough energy from it without covering the country in turbines, and people don't want that. Offshore is interesting, but the costs (financial and energy invested in building them) are much higher.
B: Market at work, sure, but the end result is the same: They are claiming low CO2 by simply sending the CO2 to China.
C: It is true - look it up if you like. It takes about 20 years to return the energy (forget about the money). And when you have: "the skies are often gray and his roofs aren't all optimally oriented" then those solar cells will never return their energy investment (they will degrade before they are able to do that). Germany is spending money to increase CO2 emissions - brilliant plan: waste money, increase CO2.
> Particularly considering technological progress, this will soon be even more laughable.
You make me laugh. People have been researching solar for decades, and it's always: "soon". I've seen those graphs on how the cost of hydrocarbon fuel is going up, and eventually will go higher than the cost of solar. I'm sure you've seen them too.
Looks great right? You know what they forget? The biggest expense in making solar cells is energy - that exact same hydrocarbon energy who's price increase is being celebrated. When that price goes up the cost of making a solar cell also goes up.
D: Maybe, but that's how it's being sold. And it doesn't help that most renewables are net negative on energy.
E: The research on solar is basically finished. You can't gain any more energy from it that is already being done. The only thing left is reducing the cost. Those super special solar cells that you read about? They use hard to find elements, and we simply don't have enough of those elements on earth to create enough solar cells! Crushing ignorance indeed - you know nothing about me, or how much I know about the field of solar. I know nothing about you either, but you certainly don't sound like you know much about it except for the breathless prognostications from science rags.
Photovoltaic: It's dead. It's pointless, it takes more energy to make them than they produce for a huge time. Solar thermal? Now we are talking, but no one hardly builds them since you need HUGE areas (instead of small incremental installations). You also need an excellent power grid, (but that could be done).
F: No it's not working, it's just costing them money, and increasing CO2 emissions for the rest of the world. Nuclear is it - everything else is just little "feel good" incremental bits. Maybe solar thermal.
Your claim about 20 years required to return the energy to produce a solar panel is false. Googling a bit after "energy returned on energy invested" (EROI) indicates that there aren't really any reliable ways to measure this number. Wikipedia quotes 1.5 for the US, which seems ridiculously low.
A conservative EROI of 6.5 would indicate that it takes about 4.5 years to earn back the energy to produce a panel, assuming static energy output and panel lifetime of 30 years. In short, the data I can find indicates that you are wrong.
You are misreading that number. It's not years, it's how much energy is returned compared to invested. i.e. 6.5 times as much energy returned as invested over the entire life of the device.
For comparison hydrocarbon fuels have numbers in the 30 range, and nuclear is 60 and up (depending on how long the plant lasts). So 6.5 is quite poor. And they list no numbers on expected lifespan - lifespan is the number one thing that controls the EROI on solar.
Also, these numbers usually use very sunny areas and ideal angles to calculate the return. In Germany the results will be much worse.
You sure I'm reading that number wrong? EROI=6.5, expected panel lifetime 30 years => 30/6.5=4.6 years to earn back the energy required to create the panel. Expected panel lifetime of 20 years gives a payback time of 3 years.
For instance, panel lifetime of 20 years and EROI of 1 would give your number, 20 years, to pay back the energy required to produce one panel. Regardless, your original claim of 20 years to get back the original energy investment is greatly exaggerated.
If the EROI is indeed 6.5 then yes you are correct.
But last time I looked at EROI they always cherry picked the best results. (Bright sun, perfect angle, clean new panels, etc.) They also usually ignored installation costs (inverter, wires, framework). Additionally as the cells age they produce less energy.
In more typical installations the number I remember was 20 years after including everything. Although it you told me it was really 10 years I wouldn't argue much.
Under 5 years seems unlikely to me. I'll tell you how I know:
Market forces. With a ROI (not EROI - but obviously they are strongly related) of under 5 years you will have people installing the panels as an investment, with no subsidies needed. Yet you don't see that happening, and I suspect it's because the ROI is worse than 5 years.
This is a bit of a backward argument of course, but the fact that you need subsidies to get people to install solar panels tell me the ROI is not good enough.
I would support subsidies only for one purpose: To initially stimulate the market, in order that scale would reduce prices long term. But subsidies long term are wrong.
I agree with you that if you only get an EROI of 6.5, that's in itself just barely worth it. But to be fair, things are changing really fast. The United States has just added import taxes on Chinese solar panels, to prop up the US solar industry, from 30 to 250 percent depending on the manufacturer. This seems to me a really obvious sign that solar cells are getting a _lot_ cheaper. This might or might not change the energy question, but the economic viability of solar cells is getting better. Can't find the source on this, but I read somewhere that the newest Chinese solar panels are clearly economically viable even without subsidies.
Thats an overly useless calculation. The whole point of this exercise is: not all energy is created equal. You can waste many many millions of kWh of Norways free power and then ship the panel to Germany where it will replace energy generated through coal or nuclear. It might not make up for the energy you wasted back in Norway, but that was never the point to begin with.
I mean if you have free power, then yes converting it into something else even inefficiently is good. But what free power?
I know there are some geothermal plants in Iceland that capture otherwise wasted power and use it to refine aluminium, but I've never heard of countries with free power.
Norway generates 99 percent of its power through hydroelectricity. Its power is free in that there's no CO2 involved and no fossil fuels. Of course its not free; there's more to electricity than just generating it, but the prices seem cheap enough that the per capital consumption is three times that of other European states.
Norway happens to be a large producer of solar panels, too, so this example is pretty spot on.
No, because, as has been pointed out to you in another branch of this discussion, it is actually economically reasonable to build a solar cell that will yield more power than you put into building it.
Seriously dude, get over your obsession about solar panels and accept the fact that you simply didn't have your facts straight.
A) I live in that country and I can tell you that we're quite OK with it.
B) Still don't like your oversimplification in terms of CO2 - and we "send around CO2" all the time. I simply don't think it matters.
C) Again, solar power isn't far enough ahead right now, most of the money is in wind development. Oh, and then there are, you know, a lot of other renewable energy sources that you ignore as you're a little to taken with how well you think you can bash solar.
D) Well, that's certainly a reason to buy into the argument, then, I guess.
E) Oh look, solar again. I sure hope the person you were replying to was rather directly indicating that it's not the only thing to talk about or this would make you seem quite overzealous by now.
F) Again, it's an investment and a sound one at that, based on the history of how technology develops in that area. A walking where the ball will be, not where it is right now (coal and, indeed, nuclear) kind of situation.
I'm curious, though - what's your assessment on how much further nuclear energy has gotten in dealing with its toxic waste problem in the half a century it has been around?
>I find the criticism torwards the Energiewende quite hard to understand, sure it is a very difficult problem but unless we find a fundamentally new energy source or nuclear fusion becomes viable the path Germany is on is without alternative.
There's one obvious alternative: Build and run nuclear power plants. We have enough uranium to supply our energy needs for centuries, and the overall environmental impact is better than that of renewables.
Nuclear technology is extremely risky and prohibitively expensive even if we ignore the cost of accidents and waste disposal covered largely by governments because not a single company controlled by sane people would ever build a nuclear power plant otherwise.
That being said it is not at all clear whether there is enough uranium for a couple or even one century, especially given the massive increase in demand that we will see in the next couple of years.
Even if we assume it is cheap and will last for centuries it is still not a long term solution, which is what Germany is aiming for.
Fortunately other nuclear fuels exists, such as Thorium. They are also less dangerous and more plentiful, therefore we should invest in them. You shouldn't equate nuclear technology with the kind of fission reactors that were developed during the cold war with the twin goal of generating energy and supplying material for nuclear bombs.
> We have enough uranium to supply our energy needs for centuries
That's incredibly short sighted. And not just the measure of 'centuries' (even if that were true, it's still arguably just postpone the problem). Energy demand is going up, sharply, as more countries join our standard of living. We will, definitely, need technologies that are as clean as possible to meet the demand, eventually. No amount of pollution that is avoidable is acceptable at the scale we are going to witness. Which brings us to
> the overall environmental impact is better than that of renewables
I've stopped buying this argument and I'm sick of seeing it again and again - it's complete and utter Bullshit. The only way we have come up in terms of "dealing" with the highly toxic waste that nuclear energy produces (letting alone the often brushed over but equally horrifying ecological cost of mining the fuel) is to store it away "somewhere". The kicker is: We have not figured out that "somewhere". In Germany, there is exactly one site that is being developed for this. We literally ship the containers there and they sit in a holding facility above the salt mine because we have not even figured out how to get the fuel from the shipment containers into the storage containers. Oh, and the storage containers haven't been fully developed either. This is a catastrophe just waiting to happen.
Years and years of politics playing nice with (and pushing money into) the nuclear industry have produced no results that a reasonable person could support. What the government had done was basically doubling down on what is often - in this thread as well - requested: To let the market figure it out. Oh they have figured it out alright. Just not the part about it also being reasonable. Or even sane.
And this is only for the waste that was produced so far. The technology and storage capacity for centuries of waste simply doesn't exist. At all.
Story time: They actually did have the "solving" of this in mostly private hands for a long time - a semi-government agency (under strong, yet curiously absent oversight) conducted "experiments" on how to store the waste in a different salt mine [1]. They "experimented" with things like whether they roll or "throw down" barrels into caves. When they "noticed" that they had a problem with huge amounts of radioactive water rising up everywhere, they "solved" it by pumping it down into a deeper cavity. That whole agency was abolished and replaced and put under proper (and horrified) oversight when the extent of the disaster came to light in a huge scandal.
They have been "working on" trying to clean up this mess since nineteen frigging ninety five. They haven't even figured out how to drill into the closed off cavities to get the improperly stored fuel out of there, for crying out loud! All while cancer rates are going off around the site.
So yeah, great environmental impact. Go sell your snake oil somewhere else.
Very few things piss me off as much as nuclear defenders selling their technology as reasonable. Zero Carbon Emissions, Woo! Give me a break.
> Energy demand is going up ... no amount of pollution that is avoidable is acceptable
Exactly. And renewables produce HUGE amounts of pollution compared to nuclear. It's not even close. Nuclear wins the pollution battle by such a large amount that's it's not even a race. Everything else is a joke.
Do you know how much waste nuclear produces? Very very little - it's tiny. The entire waste from a person's lifetime of energy use could fit in a teacup. Do you know how much waste every other energy source produces? Huge, huge, staggeringly large amounts.
> letting alone the often brushed over but equally horrifying ecological cost of mining the fuel
Horrifying? Really? You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you realize how little uranium you need? Compared to just mining iron, (never mind coal, or oil, or natural gas) the amount is a rounding error globally. Everything you do has consequences, the idea is to pick the best one.
We don't have to solve the storage problem. What we will eventually do is burn the waste, and gain energy from it. You burn the nuclear all the way down to iron and lead. We can't do it today, no, but if people would stop running screaming from nuclear we could. The technology is known, we just need the engineering.
> renewables produce HUGE amounts of pollution compared to nuclear. It's not even close.
There is hardly anything as destructively polluting as nuclear waste. It's not a even race indeed.
And yes, I know how "little" waste nuclear produces, they drive it around on rails every couple of years.
> We don't have to solve the storage problem. What we will eventually do is burn the waste, and gain energy from it.
Sure, I'd totally bet on that. When do you think that will happen?
> Horrifying? Really?
Yes. Really.[1]
> Do you realize how little uranium you need?
Again, yes.
> Compared to just mining iron, (never mind coal, or oil, or natural gas) the amount is a rounding error globally.
Ah great, relativism, always enjoy that coming up.
> Everything you do has consequences, the idea is to pick the best one.
Yup, and I'd rather NOT pick the one were we put money into a dead-end technology that has the potential of devastating pollution at worst and hardly solvable storage problems at best and instead invest that money in technology that will actually be of use in the future and for the rest of mankind.
> There is hardly anything as destructively polluting as nuclear waste.
Oh really? Fly ash is much worse, since it's also radioactive, and there is a LOT more of it. The pollution sent up smoke stacks is also much worse since it's actively spread to people, and there is a lot of it.
In contrast nuclear waste is very small, and stays far away from anyone.
> they drive it around on rails every couple of years.
A pollution source that can be shipped on rails? And you only need to do it every few years? Does it get more ideal?
> When do you think that will happen?
Not for a long long time. Doesn't matter, in the meantime we'll just stick the nuclear waste somewhere where there are no people.
> Yes. Really.[1]
Did you actually read that link yourself? I did - it sounds very low risk to me. Why would you link to something that supports my position?
> Ah great, relativism, always enjoy that coming up.
I'm glad you enjoy that since that's exactly what we are talking about: "Relatively speaking, since none are perfect, which energy source is best?"
> Yup, and I'd rather NOT pick the one were we put money into a dead-end technology that has the potential of devastating pollution at worst and hardly solvable storage problems at best and instead invest that money in technology that will actually be of use in the future and for the rest of mankind.
And I'd rather not spend money on technology that doesn't work, probably can not work, and definitely is terrible while we wait. Instead of the "potential of devastating pollution" you have devastating pollution right now - and you just want to ignore that? I'll take potential over actual any day.
Renewables will be of no use in the future since they can not ever produce enough energy. It doesn't matter how badly you want them to, they just can't do it. It's a dead-end technology. Nuclear power is not a dead end technology - it's the cleanest power we have, and more engineering can make it even cleaner.
> Fly ash is much worse, since it's also radioactive
My apologies, I was indeed talking about radioactive waste in general being hard to top in terms of pollution. It goes without saying that I'm not terribly happy with how this country is getting into coal lately. So yes, fly ash is definitely a concern as well. I just happen to think waste from nuclear fuel is easier to "not produce" right now.
> A pollution source that can be shipped on rails? And you only need to do it every few years? Does it get more ideal?
Yes, they ship it around and it radiates. Remember - in the US, they recently had to scrap plans for that one site because it meant the fuel had to travel there a long way. I was also off a little - it's pretty much an every year event, but I guess that's still not a threshold trigger for you.
Still, again, the real problem here is that nobody really knows where to ship this to and what to do with it once it's there. And how safe it will be the next couple hundred thousand years.
> Not for a long long time. Doesn't matter, in the meantime we'll just stick the nuclear waste somewhere where there are no people.
See - I'm just not really satisfied with that answer and I guess I don't see how anybody can be. Sorry.
> Why would you link to something that supports my position?
You were asking me to qualify 'horrifying' - seems like we have a different measure there. I find any radiation exposure leading to death by lung cancer horrifying.
> I'm glad you enjoy that since that's exactly what we are talking about: "Relatively speaking, since none are perfect, which energy source is best?"
Nope, sorry, that's not the same. Comparing two things is one thing - Relativism is something else entirely. That branch discussion was about discussing how extracting fuel from the earth is polluting. You qualified that by saying: Hey, there are a lot of things that are polluting, like iron/coal/oil/gas. Yes - I understand that - but that's not adding to the discussion.
It is inherently a better idea to not use fuel in the first place. No matter which one, you have to keep digging it up to keep it going and that's bad. It's also the crucial difference between renewable and fossil sources of energy. No matter how "little" fuel you need: on the long scale, it will fail with 100% certainty, eventually.
> And I'd rather not spend money on technology that doesn't work, probably can not work, and definitely is terrible while we wait.
Now I'm not even sure we read the same article anymore. That's not really a defensible statement in light of how widely used this technology already is. Or are you still hung up on solar?
> Nuclear power is not a dead end technology - it's the cleanest power we have, and more engineering can make it even cleaner.
Dead-end in terms of: "What technological progress does this provide on the side?". Sure, making it "cleaner" may be one form of progress, but I think "green" energy simply has more potential for innovation and collateral technological benefit for everybody.
> radioactive waste in general being hard to top in terms of pollution
What? It's extremely easy to top radioactive waste. Every single pollution tops radioactive waste since radioactive waste sits in a storage cask, and the other types of pollution go in the air I breathe. Your position makes no sense.
> I just happen to think waste from nuclear fuel is easier to "not produce" right now.
So instead you want more fly ash? Picking "don't make electricity" is not an option.
> what to do with it once it's there
Don't do anything with it, just leave it there. When technology improves, use it for fuel.
> I find any radiation exposure leading to death by lung cancer horrifying.
And I guess coal dust doesn't bother you? Or ozone leading to lung cancer? Or particulate matter (PM2.5)? It has to be radiation I guess.
> It is inherently a better idea to not use fuel in the first place ... you have to keep digging it up to keep it going ... crucial difference between renewable and fossil sources of energy
Not exactly. Renewable fuels are not actually renewable since you need to build the machine to get that energy, and that building material is not free. Nor is the land area free - I prefer to use land for other things, not cover the earth in energy harvesting machines.
You need to include everything when looking at an energy source, not just the "fuel".
> No matter how "little" fuel you need: on the long scale, it will fail with 100% certainty, eventually.
I think an energy source that will last more than 1000 years is good enough. And consider that we use barely 5% of the energy in uranium, and using that measure we have enough for more than 1000 years.
Use all the energy in uranium and it'll last 20,000 years. Then we can start using thorium, and we have even more of that than we do uranium. By that time we can start mining asteroids.
> how widely used this technology already is
Maybe I missed something but what technology are you talking about?
> Every single pollution tops radioactive waste since radioactive waste sits in a storage cask
Of course, preferably, every type of pollution should sit in a storage cask. I was under the impression that we were discussing the potential of pollution of different pollutants. If we compare storage casks, we get to actually compare how dangerous they are. In that comparison, radioactive waste should win the battle for what is most dangerous.
> So instead you want more fly ash? Picking "don't make electricity" is not an option.
Fly Ash is mostly produced by coal plants. Where did I say I support those? Capturing fly ash in other processes is comparatively simple when you do it right - although writing that may just spin into another discussion of why you think it's actually the other way round and it's radiation that is more easily contained and managed.
> Don't do anything with it, just leave it there. When technology improves, use it for fuel.
No, that's the point - it's not even "there", it's in holding facilities right now, because we still haven't decided what this "there" actually is.
Also - if you ask me to grant you that we will develop this improved technology - why is it different for alternative, renewable sources of energy?
> And I guess coal dust doesn't bother you? Or ozone leading to lung cancer? Or particulate matter (PM2.5)? It has to be radiation I guess.
Well, that's again putting words in my mouth. Pollution bothers me - there. Radioactive pollution bothers me most. That's all there is to it. I should be allowed to not be OK with multiple types of pollution, right?
> Not exactly. Renewable fuels are not actually renewable since you need to build the machine to get that energy, and that building material is not free. Nor is the land area free - I prefer to use land for other things, not cover the earth in energy harvesting machines.
Note that I wrote "renewable source", not "renewable fuel". Once you've built a wind turbine, it kind of keeps going (save for repairs along the way). You don't have to rebuild it at the rate that you have to go back to the mine to dig up more fuel. Which you have to do for energy from fossil fuels - for which you also have to build the facilities.
> Use all the energy in uranium and it'll last 20,000 years. Then we can start using thorium, and we have even more of that than we do uranium. By that time we can start mining asteroids.
Not sure how to respond to that other than that it sounds very old fashioned and boring and I'm still not convinced it will hold pace. Not to mention that it is in no way a justification, just an excuse to use the fuel. Renewable sources of energy are also just "lying around" ready to be "mined" by us. And they are, to me, universally less concerning in terms of environmental impact when compared to nuclear energy.
> Maybe I missed something but what technology are you talking about?
The article talks about 17% usage of renewable energy sources in Germany for 2010 - most of it in wind, followed by hydro and your dreaded solar at a distant third place. In any case - I would think that's substantial enough to render your original assertion moot.
You didn't - except that by blocking nuclear power you end up with it by default, so you have to accept that you are implicitly supporting it.
> why is it different for alternative, renewable sources of energy?
Because there aren't any. Sun and wind can do a portion, and I'm glad for it (except photovoltaics).
But what about the rest? There is no renewable source of energy than can do the rest of the job, so we need something, and it's either natural gas, coal, or nuclear.
> Pollution bothers me - there. Radioactive pollution bothers me most.
But why?! Yes, I know the potential is worse. But the actually is better! Why do you look at the potential instead of the actuality?
> sounds very old fashioned and boring
???
> Renewable sources of energy are also just "lying around" ready to be "mined" by us.
But there is not enough of it. Not unless we cover the earth with energy collectors, and I don't want that. I assume you don't either.
> most of it in wind, followed by hydro and your dreaded solar at a distant third place. In any case - I would think that's substantial enough to render your original assertion moot.
It's not moot though. Hydro is maxed out. Wind could probably take a larger share - but then what? What about the final 70%?
> so you have to accept that you are implicitly supporting it.
Nope, I don't have to do that. You don't just get to claim I'm in a catch 22.
Actually, this appears to be what the article echoes as well: Everybody is telling Germany they can't do it, but they just do it anyways.
> But what about the rest?
Increase in efficiency of what is existing, smarter use of the energy that we have. That should get us quite a long way.
> Yes, I know the potential is worse. But the actually is better!
Which is why I don't think we have to increase 'potential' to make sure that the 'actually' stays that way.
> Not unless we cover the earth with energy collectors, and I don't want that. I assume you don't either.
No, totally terrible plan - creating all those jobs and encouraging all that innovation. I've already said it before in this thread - I'm very much OK with setting up as many collectors as it takes.
> but then what? What about the final 70%?
In the short term, Germany is gunning for 35% - once we are there, we will reassess. I don't claim to be able to predict the future like you apparently do, but I sure know which path sounds better. To me, at least.
U.S. citizen here. The storage site is on hold (not scrapped) only because of fear-mongering folks like yourself. There is no technological reason to fear the rail shipment of nuclear waste. It is not difficult to engineer enclosures that will withstand the most energetic possible train wreck. And obviously they are well shielded for radiation.
> There is no technological reason to fear the rail shipment of nuclear waste. It is not difficult to engineer enclosures that will withstand the most energetic possible train wreck.
Actually, it is difficult and there is considerable dissent over whether the currently used technology is safe enough or as safe as advertised. [1][2]
> And obviously they are well shielded for radiation.
They are shielded, but how well is another that is up for debate. I'm kind of hardlining it saying that any radiation is a problem - the containers are certainly not 100% shielded. Not finding any amount of radiation acceptable is where I seem to be losing most of the people who understand themselves to be pragmatic supporters of nuclear energy in this discussion.
> Not finding any amount of radiation acceptable is where I seem to be losing most of the people who understand themselves to be pragmatic supporters of nuclear energy in this discussion.
Because background radiation means we are always exposed to it. So setting a no tolerance policy doesn't make sense.
The nuclear plants are not the only source of highly toxic nuclear waste -- medicine, science and industry have also a fine share, and they are often dealing with much more dangerous isotopes that are in the nuclear waste.
The storage problem comes fact any attempt of reason immediately sinks in an overall panic; and the by-design scaleable long-run solution is pretty simple -- to put them from where we have mined them. Oklo reactors proved such storage can last billions of years.
I was trying to imply that conceptually there is no difference between 1kg and 10000kg of nuclear waste if the only that we do about it is to sit and cry that it would kill as all -- this way it certainly will finally end up smuggled and dumped on a random landfill. And it is just impossible to make humanity stop using any radioactive material.
There are many good and realistic ideas how to use nuclear material way better than now and how to inactive and store it in a perfectly safe way, but this science is marginally supported (compared with "green" competitor) and decision makers are intimidated to avoid its implementation.
Oh, ok then. I thought this was a business discussion - cost input vs. benefit output. Instead, it seems like we're arguing for what would give us the perfect energy perpetuum mobile.
Obviously, "pollution created" is a negative benefit output and "energy produced" is a positive one.
I guess the actual problem in our discussion is that you have a profoundly different understanding of pollution since my cutoff is pretty much at "any nuclear waste".
> since my cutoff is pretty much at "any nuclear waste"
Really? So I guess there is not much point in talking to you further. (Although I guess other people are also reading these threads.)
It might help your case if you explained why, but I'm betting it's irrational fear, not anything you could explain.
Me, I prefer to measure my pollution in terms of damage caused, not fear. There is a pollution action day in my city right now because of people like you, and I'm not happy about it. I want them to shut down all hydrocarbon electric plants (save the hydrocarbons for cars), and switch everything to nuclear.
Nah, fear isn't really the issue here, I would say that I have a rather calculated understanding of why I find radioactive waste so problematic (and since you asked, you'll have to endulge the full explanation).
For me, it comes down to what kind of pollution we are talking about and radioactive pollution is particularly nasty to me as it represents a chaotic pollution that is just exceptionally hard to deal with.
Let's say the simplest, non-chaotic, kind of pollution is "dirt on your shoe" - you know where it came from (that thing you just stepped in), you know where it is (you see it on your shoe), what it does (hardly anything, except look bad) and how to get it out (wash it off).
With radioactive pollution, knowing where the pollution is coming from can already be a tough job - if you have a known leak, sure, that's where it's coming from. But often, you have to use a Geiger counter to detect it in the first place and often times, you then still have to figure out where the actual source is.
Where it went is mostly a statistical science, which is only comforting if your arm chair is not close to the accident in question. If it is, it's highly distressing.
Next up, it's still completely up for graps what it does - for humans, it can be anything from a challenged immune system to instant death, depending on the dose. (Although the latter is reserved for those rare occurances where you happen to hang out with the direct fallout of an exploding atom bomb, I believe.) Most of the time, in an accident, you only determine how bad it was after the fact. At minimum, it always carries a risk of mucking with your DNA or giving you a higher chance of cancer down the road (we have differed on how "horrifying" this prospect is, before).
How to get it out is where it gets even worse - most of the time, you scrap together everything that you determined to be affected in step two and put it in sealed containers, which isn't helpful if that thing is 'most of your own cells' (although the people around you will differ on that opinion). Your most likely prospect in terms of any kind of unusual exposure is to die slightly earlier and a lot shittier than you had anticipated.
In conclusion, I would say that it's more of a "we simply don't fully understand what we unleash, so let's develop what we do understand" concern. Not a "omg, a castor drove through Italy, I'm gonna get cancer tomorrow" fear.
> There is a pollution action day in my city right now because of people like you, and I'm not happy about it. I want them to shut down all hydrocarbon electric plants (save the hydrocarbons for cars), and switch everything to nuclear.
That almost made me LOL - Why is it "because of people like [me]"? Maybe it's time for me to get off your lawn?
> and since you asked, you'll have to endulge the full explanation
That's fine.
And I read your explanation, and while it is coherent, I don't agree with it, and I find it to be fear based, not science based.
Of all pollutions radiation is by far the easiest to detect and track (which is why people hate it so much - it's very easy to find). Other types of pollution are much harder to track, so less is made known about them, and they get less attention - but they cause more damage!
And that's in a nutshell my position: Other pollution is worse. I accept that there will always be some pollution, and I seek the best.
I like that we can find radiation so easily: It means we can clean it when necessary. Other pollutions can't be found so easily, so no one is told when they get exposed to it. Since they are never told, they never worry - but it still causes damage!
I do my best to keep track of other pollutions, I subscribe to air quality alerts. If radiation was released in amounts that cause the exact same damage as the bad air, you could bet people would be screaming. Yet, non-radiation pollutions (mostly) get a pass unless they get really bad.
I tell people that the air quality is bad today and I get mocked, or more often just indifference. Do people not care? I should tell people there is lots of radiation in the air instead..... :)
> At minimum, it always carries a risk of mucking with your DNA or giving you a higher chance of cancer down the road (we have differed on how "horrifying" this prospect is, before).
You misunderstood me. Cancer is bad - my point was that nuclear power is less likely to cause cancer in both, the general public, and the miners. So nuclear power is not horrifying - it's a blessing since it causes less cancer.
Pollution from other energy sources also causes cancer, and causes more of it than nuclear power. Nuclear power gets the headlines, sure, but the day to day poison is everything else.
> Why is it "because of people like [me]"?
When I said "people like" I meant "people opposed to nuclear power", which you are (seem to be), and therefor you are like them.
> Maybe it's time for me to get off your lawn?
If it was just you then fine. But it's a lot more people than just you, and most of them have an even worse fear/knowledge ratio than you, and are impossible to argue with.
> Other types of pollution are much harder to track
I was trying to explain to you why I find radioactive pollution unacceptable, replying by telling me that there are worse types of pollution does not really add to the discussion.
You seem hell-bent on making this discussion into one about choosing the lesser evil. But the article is about the exact opposite - it's about getting out of that cycle and investing in a true alternative.
> Pollution from other energy sources also causes cancer, and causes more of it than nuclear power. Nuclear power gets the headlines, sure, but the day to day poison is everything else.
I find wind turbines to cause very little cancer.
> When I said "people like" I meant "people opposed to nuclear power", which you are (seem to be), and therefor you are like them.
No, I understand that, but why do you want them off your lawn? By their opposition to nuclear they automatically made the air worse and cause pollution action days? Strikes me as a tad simplistic.
I think you touch on a rather important point. Germany has to make these technologies work, because the alternative is having to rely on gas from Poland and Russia and nuclear energy from France, oil also from Russia and coal from somewhere not nice either. I'm not a big fan in government spending on less efficient technologies, except that in this case I believe the wars and uncomfortable partnerships that can be avoided this way will make it pay for itself.
