Germany Is Scrapping It's Nukes

[RED DAVE]

Germany sets nuke exit date for 2022


BERLIN: Germany will shut all its nuclear reactors by 2022 and plans to cut power use by 10 percent by 2020, Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition agreed on Monday in a policy u-turn drawn up in a rush after the Fukushima disaster.

The decision, which may be even more ambitious than the nuclear exit planned when the Social Democrats and Greens were in power in 2000, as it takes eight of 17 nuclear plants offline now and six by 2021, could still face opposition from utilities.http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Germany+sets+nuke+exit+date+ for+2022&NewsID=289894

Even the bourgeoisie doesn't trust this shit anymore.

RED DAVE

[Tommy4ever]

Its a real shame that Germany is getting rid of its nuclear power. This can go one of two ways. Increased carbon emmissions and reliance on fossil fuels or power shortages. The former is bad the latter a disaster.

Well done Green lobby, I guess. :closedeyes:

[RED DAVE]

Its a real shame that Germany is getting rid of its nuclear power. This can go one of two ways. Increased carbon emmissions and reliance on fossil fuels or power shortages. The former is bad the latter a disaster.

Well done Green lobby, I guess. :closedeyes:I suggest you read the entire link because you vent your pro-nuke foolishness.

RED DAVE

[Tommy4ever]

I suggest you read the entire link because you vent your pro-nuke foolishness.

RED DAVE

I have heard this story elsewhere ....

Basically a rushed response by Merkel to the upswing in the popularity of the Green lobby has led to her rushing through a the closure of nuclear power plants at a damaging speed.

Yay?

[Dr Mindbender]

Even the bourgeoisie doesn't trust this shit anymore.

RED DAVE

Don't the greens have a big lobby in the German government?

I'm thinking this decision is ideological, not scientific.


"Prices must go up to account for permanently lower capacity. Neighboring Europe will have to price in the potential absence of German power in case of unfavorable supply situations," one trader said.


Strange a revolutionary is cheering this update when the only ones who will suffer will be working class people faced with higher utility bills.

EDIT: This thread belongs in S&E.

[hatzel]

Its a real shame that Germany is getting rid of its nuclear power. This can go one of two ways. Increased carbon emmissions and reliance on fossil fuels or power shortages. The former is bad the latter a disaster.

Something interesting from the article about this on the BBC website. I'll just quote it here. Emphasis my own:


Nearly a quarter of German's electricity comes from nuclear power so the question becomes: How do you make up the short-fall?

The official commission which has studied the issue reckons that electricity use can be cut by 10% in the next decade through more efficient machinery and buildings.

The intention is also to increase the share of wind energy. This, though, would mean re-jigging the electricity distribution system because much of the extra wind power would come from farms on the North Sea to replace atomic power stations in the south.

Protest groups are already vocal in the beautiful, forested centre of the country which, they fear, will become a north-south "energie autobahn" of pylons and high-voltage cables.

Some independent analysts believe that coal power will benefit if the wind plans don't deliver what is needed.

[Aurora]

BERLIN: Germany will shut all its nuclear reactors by 2022 and plans to cut power use by 10 percent by 2020
I don't think socialists should support decreasing energy consumption at all, the green lobby has been trying to introduce nonsense measures like this for quite awhile, arguing that we should cut back on our living standards rather than switch to cleaner energy sources.
Socialists should be putting forward that we need to produce more electricity to industrialize the underdeveloped countries and bring them up to the standard of the advanced capitalist countries.
Combined with this should be a recognition that the practical basis of socialism is the massive expansion of the productive forces.

If shutting down nuclear power plants means decreasing the living standards of the working class, then i oppose it.

[hatzel]

I don't think socialists should support decreasing energy consumption at all, the green lobby has been trying to introduce nonsense measures like this for quite awhile, arguing that we should cut back on our living standards rather than switch to cleaner energy sources.

As you'd surely know if you'd read what I posted directly above this comment, "[t]he official commission which has studied the issue reckons that electricity use can be cut by 10% in the next decade through more efficient machinery and buildings"...it's nothing to do with cutting back on our living standards, living in the dark without a fridge or anything like that. It's industry, before anything else, and it's through increasing efficiency, not decreasing output...if using a more energy-efficient TV set is cutting back on your living standards, then fine, so be it. Most people don't really care about that stuff, though...

[Dr Mindbender]

This move will also inevitably cost jobs so after reading the article i can confidently say fuck the anti nuke nonsense.

[Aurora]

As you'd surely know if you'd read what I posted directly above this comment

Your post wasn't there when i was typing and what you quoted was from a diferent article. But your right in this instance, it is quite common for greens to advocate living in the dark without a fridge though with Caroline Lucas MP in Britain reexamining rationing and the green party here and elsewhere trying to introduce carbon taxes.

[Hexen]

Are most of you insane? Nukes are the most deadliest toxic elements that is capable of making the world inhabitable beyond our life times just look what happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima if that taught you anything about nukes.

Hell the very existence of Nukes and Nuclear power is the antithesis of our entire existence which is something that should have never been invented. I have to say that Steam has much more cleaner energy than Nukes...

[Dr Mindbender]

Are most of you insane? Nukes are the most deadliest toxic elements that is capible of making the world inhabitable
W-_sABor77E


beyond our life times just look what happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima if that taught you anything about nukes.
Chernobyl i will grant you, all Fukushima taught us was the lack of wisdom of leaving a 40 year old reactor without upgrading near a tectonic fault line.

[Hexen]

Chernobyl i will grant you, all Fukushima taught us was the lack of wisdom of leaving a 40 year old reactor without upgrading near a tectonic fault line.


My main point is we've be better off without Nukes invented in the first place.

Also Pro-Nuke supporters have no common sense about the safety of this world and it's inhabitance.

[Dr Mindbender]

I have to say that Steam has much more cleaner energy than Nukes... http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2127552)
Mate have you any idea of the size of the fucking boiler that would be needed to power an entire city?



My main point is we've be better off without Nukes invented in the first place.

Also Pro-Nuke supporters have no common sense about the safety of this world and it's inhabitance.

Based on what? Nope nuclear bombs dont count before you mention those.

Do you have anything to back those claims up or is it just yet another an irrational knee jerk anti nuke strawman?

The fact is- Nuclear power is actually cleaner AND safer than Oil, gas or petrol burning. More accidents happen with the 3 latter energy sources. with all of the associated atmospheric emissions.

Nuclear power is renewable, cost effective and practical in terms of social and environmental considerations (public utilty requirements and land use).

Nuclear power provides us with a feasible propulsion means to explore space.

[Hexen]

The fact is- Nuclear power is actually cleaner AND safer than Oil, gas or petrol burning. More accidents happen with the 3 latter energy sources.

Not until a natural disaster happens makes those locations uninhabitable not to mention radiation spreads across the world which is probably the source of all those cancer deaths. "cleaner and safer" my ass which I heard this nonsense before and I can't understand why and how.

[Dr Mindbender]

Not until a natural disaster happens makes those locations uninhabitable not to mention radiation spreads across the world which is probably the source of all those cancer deaths. "cleaner and safer" my ass which I heard this nonsense before and I can't understand why and how.

First of all, the nuclear accidents you hear about are isolated cases (which sort of undermines your point about radiation leakages) and are dramatised by people with a political agenda to make nuclear power sound like a bogeyman. Out of all the nuclear accidents, Only chernobyl is the one which could even be considered a negative indictment against it. Three mile island resulted in no casualties or fatalities, while Fukushima only served to highlight the inadequate choice of site and maintenance procedures. Oil and gas stations explode with far greater frequency and loss of life yet strangely you never hear a chorus of voices wanted to shut these down. Saftey isnt a binary value as others have said. If we were to scrap all power sources because of any hazard implications, the lobby cheering this reductionist nonsense would bring us back to the dark ages. The real enemy is bourgeoisie cutbacks and mismanagement not the nuke.

[Kamos]

Are most of you insane? Nukes are the most deadliest toxic elements that is capable of making the world inhabitable beyond our life times just look what happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima if that taught you anything about nukes.

Hell the very existence of Nukes and Nuclear power is the antithesis of our entire existence which is something that should have never been invented. I have to say that Steam has much more cleaner energy than Nukes...

Because greenhouse effect leading to global warming leading to the Netherlands and other coastal countries sinking into the ground (irreversibly) is REALLY much better than a catastrophe every now and then that kills some people and contaminates some land (perhaps). You're not a supergenius, and people who are actually supergeniuses have already given the subject plenty of thought before deducing that nuclear > anything else right now.

[Zav]

Modern nuclear reactors are much safer than the older ones such as at Chernobyl and Fukushima, to be sure, but their main problem is nuclear waste. There is no efficient way to get rid of it, and it has a half-life of very much longer than humans will probably be around. It just sits around with the potential to poison the surrounding land. Wind and solar power come from renewable resources, are very efficient, and produce no such waste. Tidal and river power systems (NOT dams) are less efficient, but still more than coal and oil-powered plants, and also do not produce waste. The pro-nuke argument is flawed at best. Those who worry that their standard of living will decrease (most seem to be American or European) need to recognise that there are about 7 billion people on the planet right now, and such lavish lifestyles cannot be granted to everyone without utterly destroying the planet. We on RevLeft are, for the most part, Communists, am I not correct? How do we plan to combat scarcity when we drive large cars to only go down the street, buy products imported from China or who knows where, live in inefficient homes, and eat food that has been genetically modified to withstand being drowned in Round-Up that travels hundreds of kilometers to get to you? We cannot. The Green Revolution is just as important as the Red, and we need to realise this if we ever want Communism or Anarchy to occur for our grandchildren to enjoy. I am not suggesting living in third world conditions, but rather living smaller and much more locally so that there will be a planet to live on and equal rights and enough supplies for everyone.

[Dr Mindbender]

their main problem is nuclear waste. There is no efficient way to get rid of it
http://www.elcivics.com/transportation_space_rocket.jpg

?

[graymouser]

The pro-nuke folks here understand that nuclear power is far from carbon neutral, right? Uranium does not dance to nuclear plants on its own will, in the form of fully refined fuel rods. Nor do spent rods or heavy water sequester themselves and leave the plant under their own power. Uranium mining is a dangerous business, and the process of extracting nuclear fuel from the earth has a carbon cost that will only rise as the relatively rich uranium deposits that are currently being used are depleted and mines with relatively low density are tapped. Even if you take out the dangers involved, it's an energy-intensive fuel and of course is utterly unsustainable.

[Zav]

http://www.elcivics.com/transportation_space_rocket.jpg

?
There are three problems with that.
1.) It takes a shitload of energy to shoot things into space, hence it is not done all that often.
2.) Then the waste is floating around the planet, and will likely hit a satellite or be another large mass that will get in the way of future launches. Shooting waste to the moon or Mars would take HUGE amounts of fuel, and just shooting it into deep space outside of Earth's orbit would take even more, and then the rocket wouldn't be able to return to earth.
3.) There isn't enough cargo space for this method to be efficient.

So why spend copious amounts of energy when more efficient methods of power production could be implemented?

[Zav]

The pro-nuke folks here understand that nuclear power is far from carbon neutral, right? Uranium does not dance to nuclear plants on its own will, in the form of fully refined fuel rods. Nor do spent rods or heavy water sequester themselves and leave the plant under their own power. Uranium mining is a dangerous business, and the process of extracting nuclear fuel from the earth has a carbon cost that will only rise as the relatively rich uranium deposits that are currently being used are depleted and mines with relatively low density are tapped. Even if you take out the dangers involved, it's an energy-intensive fuel and of course is utterly unsustainable.
*Facepalm*
Wow, my post was all about the waste. I entirely forgot about the mining and peak fuel. Oops.:blushing:

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

http://www.elcivics.com/transportation_space_rocket.jpg

?

Shipping it to outer space hardly seems practical. How much would that cost? For instance, at the Hanford Site in Washington state alone, there is 53 million gallons of nuclear waste (http://web.archive.org/web/20080624232748/http://www.ecy.wa.gov/features/hanford/hanfordfacts.html), or 2,650 rail cars full, which is leaking into the soil and water supply of the area. Then you would have to transport it all to a rocket launch site, probably in Texas or Florida, the opposite corner of the country.

[Q]

http://www.elcivics.com/transportation_space_rocket.jpg

?

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/01/spaceshuttle_2a917.jpg

[Dr Mindbender]

The pro-nuke folks here understand that nuclear power is far from carbon neutral, right? Uranium does not dance to nuclear plants on its own will, in the form of fully refined fuel rods. Nor do spent rods or heavy water sequester themselves and leave the plant under their own power. Uranium mining is a dangerous business, and the process of extracting nuclear fuel from the earth has a carbon cost that will only rise as the relatively rich uranium deposits that are currently being used are depleted and mines with relatively low density are tapped. Even if you take out the dangers involved, it's an energy-intensive fuel and of course is utterly unsustainable.
Build the nuclear stations next to the uranium mines. That solves the logistics problem. It remains a damn site more sustainable than other sources.

You do know that uranium is not the only element that can be used, right?

[Dr Mindbender]

Shipping it to outer space hardly seems practical. How much would that cost? For instance, at the Hanford Site in Washington state alone, there is 53 million gallons of nuclear waste (http://web.archive.org/web/20080624232748/http://www.ecy.wa.gov/features/hanford/hanfordfacts.html), or 2,650 rail cars full, which is leaking into the soil and water supply of the area. Then you would have to transport it all to a rocket launch site, probably in Texas or Florida, the opposite corner of the country.

- Build bigger rockets.

-Build more spaceports.

Problem solved.

[t.shonku]

It's nice to know that Germans are doing the right thing !

Fusion technology is still very unsafe , physics gurus say that it's gonna be replaced by fusion , god knows if that's gonna be possible ever ! sustained fusion is complicated

[Dr Mindbender]

There are three problems with that.
1.) It takes a shitload of energy to shoot things into space, hence it is not done all that often.
Build bigger rockets. We dont do it all that often because there isnt the political or economic will to do so. Its got fuck all to do with energy.


2.) Then the waste is floating around the planet, and will likely hit a satellite or be another large mass that will get in the way of future launches.
Who said anything about dumping it into orbit? You know that big yellow burny thing in the sky? Its called the sun. We launch it there.


Shooting waste to the moon or Mars would take HUGE amounts of fuel, and just shooting it into deep space outside of Earth's orbit would take even more, and then the rocket wouldn't be able to return to earth.
Point 1-
I wouldnt condone sending it to the moon or Mars, because we need those for future permanent bases.

Point 2-
You clearly know fuck all about space technology. When spacecraft fly interplanetary distances, they dont do so with their rockets in full burn. Since theres 0 resistance in space, they can travel indefinite distances from the momentum provided by an initial burn. Its also possible to slingshot using the gravitational pull of planets, including the Earth.


3.) There isn't enough cargo space for this method to be efficient.
Says who? The only thing limiting the cargo space is the size of the rocket you build.


So why spend copious amounts of energy when more efficient methods of power production could be implemented?
If we were using more nuclear power we could more than easily recoup this energy.

[Dr Mindbender]

It's nice to know that Germans are doing the right thing !
No they arent.



Fusion technology is still very unsafe , physics gurus say that it's gonna be replaced by fusion , god knows if that's gonna be possible ever ! sustained fusion is complicated
I take it you mean fission in the earlier instance?

[Dr Mindbender]

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/01/spaceshuttle_2a917.jpg


Touche. If we'd taken that attitude during the vintage days of flying, then intercontinental flight would still be a pipe-dream.

[t.shonku]

I take it you mean fission in the earlier instance?

Yes , I meant fission earlier thanks for pointing it out, I am actually having a cold and headache now so my head is kind of a screwed up .

[Q]

Touche. If we'd taken that attitude during the vintage days of flying, then intercontinental flight would still be a pipe-dream.

With the slight difference that if a rocket explodes with nuclear waste on board, who knows what kind of area will be uninhabitable for many decades to come.

I'm not completely anti-fission myself. The socalled "Fourth Generation" reactor designs do look very promising and there is fusion after that. I am opposed to all current designs though, as they're inherently unsafe and need high levels of maintenance for them to not cause a instant meltdown.

[graymouser]

Build the nuclear stations next to the uranium mines. That solves the logistics problem. It remains a damn site more sustainable than other sources.
That's jaw-droppingly bad as an answer, to be honest. Electricity isn't only needed next to uranium mines. And it ignores the facts of mining the uranium and disposing of materials, both of which are carbon intensive. It may be better in terms of carbon use than burning coal, but it is far from neutral and still not sustainable (no non-renewable source can be called sustainable).


You do know that uranium is not the only element that can be used, right?
Sure. But any mining and refining is going to be energy-intensive. It's still not a solution.

[Rowan Duffy]

A) Waste problem

Solutions:
* Tune the burn up for short lived products
* Transmutation of products
* Reprocess waste
* Deep-shaft disposal of remaining short lived wastes.

B) Mining fuel use problem

Solutions:
* Use thorium fuel to reduce total amount mined
* Use electric or hydrogen powered vehicles

The challenges are not insurmountable.

[Rowan Duffy]

Sure. But any mining and refining is going to be energy-intensive. It's still not a solution.

All the matters is the net energy cost and the method of supplying the energy. Drilling for oil, for example takes oil.

We can use nuclear fuel for energy using batteries, direct cabled power (this is used for some coal mines since engines are actually dangerous underground) hydrogen etc. in order to get nuclear fuel.

[Nolan]

They will regret this.

[thälmann]

there is no problem in germany to live without nukes. and if it is is necessery to decrease the need for electric power, that wont be a problem too.

any thing is better than to live with this madness. the nuke near hamburg for example was several times near a big problem, which dangered millions of people.

the reason for that isnt the green lobby ( who is existing of course), but the fact that almost the whole german population is against this since the 70s. so to go on the same way will bring serious security problems for the government.

[Dr Mindbender]

With the slight difference that if a rocket explodes with nuclear waste on board, who knows what kind of area will be uninhabitable for many decades to come.

Theres an insinuation that it is inherently unsafe in principle to put nuclear material onboard a space rocket in principle. I don't think this is the case. Space vehicle accidents such as the Challenger, Ariane 5 and Columbus are in no small part down to the oversight and penny pinching of the status quo. It was even found that after the Columbus incident they used faulty heat resistant tiles.

[Zav]

snip
Why in the world would you build bigger rockets and more nuclear plants when CLEAN energy would be cheaper and, well, cleaner? That doesn't make much sense. Technically, there is always resistance, but in space there is, of course, very little. Please refrain from assuming that I know nothing about a subject based on a single misinterpreted sentence. Also, there is nothing worth the risk of making the entire planet uninhabitable because of an accident with one of your proposed super-sized rockets. However small the risk may be or however careful one is, mistakes are still made. An explosion of nuclear waste in the atmosphere would be beyond catastrophic.

[Jose Gracchus]

Why can't anyone provide any evidence that tolerable living standards can be met only with renewables and that the capitalists (and Soviet-type bureaucrats, if you distinguish) simply chose them because they hate kittens and joy?

This is a massive boon to Gasprom and other oil-and-gas barons.

[RED DAVE]

An explosion of nuclear waste in the atmosphere would be beyond catastrophic.Exactly. And please remember that these fictional rockets would be designed and operated by the same people who brought you Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, AND EVERY ROCKET THAT EVER BLEW UP ON THE PAD OR IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

Can you imagine what would happen if a giant rocket (the Saturn booster was taller than the Statue of Liberty and carried the power to drive 2.3 million cars – and the fuel) blew up at Cape Canaveral? Orlando is only 55 miles away, with a population of about 300,000 with tourists.

RED DAVE

[Jose Gracchus]

Only a fucking moron would suggest that radioactive waste should be ejected into space when we live at the bottom of a gravity well.

The best storage options remain ultra-deep geological depositories.

[bcbm]

Why can't anyone provide any evidence that tolerable living standards can be met only with renewables and that the capitalists (and Soviet-type bureaucrats, if you distinguish) simply chose them because they hate kittens and joy?

This is a massive boon to Gasprom and other oil-and-gas barons.

define "tolerable."

[Blackscare]

Great, so a plutonium reactor built on a fault line in Asia explodes and now everyone in Europe is pooping themselves and scrapping nuclear projects left and right. Last I checked, Germany isn't on any faults and certainly isn't building the most dangerous type of reactor on said nonexistent fault lines. Germany's program is nothing like Japans, no matter how much the green weirdos squawk.


The Japanese government were absolute fools in allowing the nuclear industry to build as they did, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that the entire concept is doomed.

[Jose Gracchus]

define "tolerable."

Generalized working-class living standards across the world that meet at least that of the unionized and properly benefited industrial white workers of the West in the mid-20th century. We cannot get by without industrial society, and that means mass consumption of energy.

There are fundamental problems with most renewables. For one, most are intermittent power sources, and even carpeting the world with intelligent ultra-high-voltage grids to send sunlight around would not work. Secondly, they're usually very capital and land-intensive, relative to other energy sources. Third, many renewables themselves are still "carbon-intensive" in the weasel-way that greymouser implies (every single industrial activity is by definition "carbon-intensive" in the manner he implies, so the logical end-result of his argument is primitivism), or environmentally unsafe in other ways (the massive destruction to watersheds and aquifers by dam-hydro power, to birds and land through wind-farms, the massive toxic waste by-products involved in the manufacture of photovoltaic cells).

I support mass introduction of renewables, but this is not the trivial throwaway-line matter most leftists treat it as. Careful consideration of cost-benefit trade-offs to the working-class welfare must be considered. Reconstructing society to not require the mass combustion of fossil fuels will be a Herculean enterprise, probably another industrial revolution in its own right, especially in the Third World. I think the numbers suggest it will not be possible to counteract global climate change without resort to nuclear fission as a power source, even in a communist society, given the energy demand for adequate social welfare and the current carbon emissions. I do think a communist society should move to ban and replace all older nuclear plants, especially boiling water reactors and those excessively near seismic and geological hazards. I think that we should move from there with all due haste toward magnetic confinement nuclear fusion and orbital solar arrays, to guarantee a sustainable base of energy production.

No one is going to support communism if it implies a massive reduction in living standards, and massive increases in obligatory physical toil, which is what the fantasy of banning fossil fuels and nuclear inevitably implies. Quite frankly, the longer we wait to deal with this problem, the greater the likelihood we'll end up with governments throwing up mass-produced-on-the-cheap Soviet RBMK-style reactors, to keep up with the precipitous decline in the economically reasonable availability of crude oil and natural gas, which is physically inevitable this century, to say nothing of the massive climate changes and further depletion of stuff like topsoil and the like.

[RED DAVE]

Great, so a plutonium reactor built on a fault line in Asia explodes and now everyone in Europe is pooping themselves and scrapping nuclear projects left and right. Last I checked, Germany isn't on any faults and certainly isn't building the most dangerous type of reactor on said nonexistent fault lines. Germany's program is nothing like Japans, no matter how much the green weirdos squawk.


The Japanese government were absolute fools in allowing the nuclear industry to build as they did, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that the entire concept is doomed.So, you want to trust the same bourgeoisie the runs capitalism in Japan to run nukes in Germany and other countries. Wow! You really have faith in the ruling class.

RED DAVE

[Jose Gracchus]

Let's not resort to empty slogans. A full nuclear phase-out in Germany will mean only a massive boon for that very un-bourgeois entity known as Gazprom...oh wait.

Electricity must come from somewhere. You must explain why fossil fuels are better, because right now, here, today, that's the where the alternative will come from, and those oil and gas corporations are the ones going to be making bank of it.

[Blackscare]

So, you want to trust the same bourgeoisie the runs capitalism in Japan to run nukes in Germany and other countries. Wow! You really have faith in the ruling class.

RED DAVE

You say that as if the working class would be incapable of operating nuclear plants should it come to power. You could use the same argument for any piece of technology, dolt.

[Summerspeaker]

Here in New Mexico, opposing the nuclear industry connects directly with its imperialist nature (http://queersingularity.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/folks-fear-nuclear-technology-for-good-reason/). Most of the uranium mined on indigenous land in this region went to weapons rather than power, but it's critical to remember the devastating toil resource extraction takes on communities.

[Jose Gracchus]

This is a primitivist line. Virtually the whole fabric of industrial society has moved to swallow up "marginal", "weaker" nations and groups. Should we shut down all factories built on stolen land? Its not a real response to the material needs of the proletariat.

[Demogorgon]

The problem with what is happening in Germany is that it could make things worse in terms of Nuclear power used. If they decommission these plants too quickly, they will have to make up the Energy shortfall by buying it from France, which uses much more nuclear power than Germany. I am all for getting rid of Nuclear power, but you have to remember unintended consequences.

As for some of the comments here, I know RevLeft has an unusually large pronuclear lobby, but let's be sensible. I will leave aside some of the unintentionally hilarious and Jeremy Clarkson-esque suggestions regarding outer space and focus on some of the more reality centered arguments. Some people have responded with hostility to the suggestion of reducing electricity consumption by ten percent, even though this reduction is to be achieved through efficiency rather than reducing anyone's consumption. That is a knee jerk reaction to be sure.

Moreover we are currently seeing considerable advances in renewable energy and it will be able to make up a greater and greater proportion of electricity ouput. We are not at the stage where it can produce the greater part of our energy (though some places such as Norway are already achieving this), but we are getting there. Hostility to this strikes me as coming from a habit of being pronuclear, rather than thinking this through.

Incidentally nuclear power is starting to run into another problem, it is getting prohibitively expensive to build new plants and private companies are shying away from the upfront investment. That means Governments have to do it and they aren't terribly keen on having to raise that kind of money either.

[Jose Gracchus]

Jevon's Paradox. I doubt significantly net energy consumption reductions can really be met by mere efficiency and appeals to morality can be met. Your retreating into the world of liberal economizing slogans. You still didn't provide any evidence or figures to show it is credible a substantial amount of our practical energy consumption can be met from renewables.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If shutting down nuclear power plants means decreasing the living standards of the working class, then i oppose it.

Sorry, how short-termist do you want to be?

You realise that, with the advent of carbon markets, the use of energy is largely becoming a sum-towards-zero game, so that if the relatively advanced working class of Germany is using more energy, then those in extreme and moderate poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia will suffer immeasurably, right?

Most things that the capitalists do result in a decrease in the living standards of the developed working class, in relative terms.

If there were Socialism tomorrow in Germany, it would be eminently possible to continue this legislation and raise the living standards of the working class.

I, for one, think that this is a bold step by the Germans. Merkel is a scientist, so I don't really buy this argument that this is some rash, wholly un-scientific decision (though it's of course likely that there is some element of reaction in the decision, to the rising popularity of the Greens in Germany). The aim is to double - to 35% - the amount of German energy supplied by alternative means by 2022, whilst eliminating the 23% supplied by domestic nuclear energy. If Germany do this, then the UK and France will be dragged with them and the Germans will have done something quite remarkable for the planet.

[Summerspeaker]

This is a primitivist line.

It's essential that we take the primitive critique seriously or we risk supporting the worst sorts of oppression.


Virtually the whole fabric of industrial society has moved to swallow up "marginal", "weaker" nations and groups.

Indeed. But colonialism against indigenous peoples here in the Southwest continues into the present day. The worst horrors of uranium extraction, nuclear tests, and land contamination remain in living memory.


Should we shut down all factories built on stolen land?

Where the community stolen from still meaningfully exists, they must have decision-making power over what happens to the factory. Some probably should be shut down.


Its not a real response to the material needs of the proletariat.

Suggesting the industrial machine must grind on regardless of the cost isn't a real response to the material needs of communities harmed by the process. As you surely realize, the vast majority of those affected are proletarians too, though perhaps more marginal ones.

[Demogorgon]

Jevon's Paradox. I doubt significantly net energy consumption reductions can really be met by mere efficiency and appeals to morality can be met. Your retreating into the world of liberal economizing slogans. You still didn't provide any evidence or figures to show it is credible a substantial amount of our practical energy consumption can be met from renewables.
Can we please avoid throwing the word "Liberal" around please? (As an aside guess where the Free Democrats stand on Nuclear power?)

In the Western World we tend to use the electricity we need for whatever we are doing. If you reduce the amount of electricity we need to get the same result, we are likely to simply use less electricity, Jevon's Paradox doesn't really work here. If it always held people woith more efficient cars would use more fuel.

As for claims I did not come up with figures, I am writing a post on a message board, not a scientific paper, nobody is coming up with detailed figures here. I mentioned that research on renewable energy is moving forward quickly. I also gave Norway as an example of a country already getting by mostly on renewables. There is more information out there should you be interested.

Again, I wonder what the hostility to this is. Believing that nuclear energy is simply necessary due to lack of alternatives is one thing. Holding it as a positive good even in the face of alternatives quite another.

[Dr Mindbender]

Only a fucking moron would suggest that radioactive waste should be ejected into space when we live at the bottom of a gravity well.
Funny you should mention, there was a similar knee jerk hysteria among the anti nuke mob around the launch of the Ulysees probe that was sent to Saturn because it would be using a nuclear fuel source. If we're going to continually fret about radioactive leaks in the atmosphere we're not going to get very far.


The best storage options remain ultra-deep geological depositories.
No they arent, because

A) the Earth only has a finite amount of space that you can drop this into. It isnt a permanent sustainable solution.

B) Even ignoring the matter of finite physical space, the machinery and technicalities required to drill these 'ultra deep depositories' would be just as, if not more costly, dangerous and impractical than sending waste to the sun.

[danyboy27]

Funny you should mention, there was a similar knee jerk hysteria among the anti nuke mob around the launch of the Ulysees probe that was sent to Saturn because it would be using a nuclear fuel source. If we're going to continually fret about radioactive leaks in the atmosphere we're not going to get very far.
.
There is a difference between sending a handful of radioactive material used to maintain a ship electronics and filling the damn thing with a crapton of extremely radioactive waste.

its would also be impractical right now beccause of the weight limit a rocket can support, you would need great quantity of ressources to send this shit up there.

Look mate, i am not a anti-nuke guy, but i think perhaps further testing and study would be necessary to make this technology work in a more optimal way.

Lets not forget that there is also a finite quantity of radioactive material on this planet, if we are willing to use it, we shall do it right and not fuck it up the same way we did with oil.

[RED DAVE]

So, you want to trust the same bourgeoisie the runs capitalism in Japan to run nukes in Germany and other countries. Wow! You really have faith in the ruling class.
You say that as if the working class would be incapable of operating nuclear plants should it come to power. You could use the same argument for any piece of technology, dolt.Are you willfully misunderstanding me or are you just dumb?

I said nothing about whether or not "the working class would be incapable of operating nuclear plants should it come to power." What I said is that people around here with their love affair of nuclear power are trusting the bourgeoisie to run nuclear plants: the same wonderful bunch of people that brought us Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. That's my argument, dolt.

RED DAVE

[bcbm]

Generalized working-class living standards across the world that meet at least that of the unionized and properly benefited industrial white workers of the West in the mid-20th century.

suburbs, cars, disposable everything... :confused:

[Demogorgon]

To put the matter in a more European perspective, here is a map showing the different amount of nuclear Energy used in the EU. You will note some countries are not using Nuclear Energy at all, other using very little of it. Some of these countries are already using a lot of renewable energy, others are moving to it. At any rate they are managing without nuclear energy.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/bild-765903-199568.html

[Dr Mindbender]

At any rate they are managing without nuclear energy.


For how much longer is the question.

[Demogorgon]

[INDENT]

For how much longer is the question.
Do you have any evidence that they are going to be in trouble soon? Or did this notion come from the same source that brought us sending nuclear waste into space?

[Q]

I'm not completely anti-fission myself. The socalled "Fourth Generation" reactor designs do look very promising and there is fusion after that. I am opposed to all current designs though, as they're inherently unsafe and need high levels of maintenance for them to not cause a instant meltdown.

I note that this point was "forgotten" by Mindbender and other pro-nuke advocates.

The other point, that there is a big difference between sending up a space probe with a small amount plutonium and stuffing the entire thing with tons of such waste, was already addressed by danyboy25 (post 57, which subsequently was also "forgotten" by the pro-nuke advocates).

Could someone address them still? Are the pro-nuke lobby on Revleft for closure of all current nuclear facilities or not? Is the huge impact uranium mining is having on the environment of any concern? How exactly is sending up space probes with tiny nuclear batteries comparable with sending up waste rockets with tons of nuclear waste material? Given that the space business is not without risks, is it - in your opinion - worth the risk of contaminating a huge area with this material, destroying life in that area for generations?

Thank you.

[Rowan Duffy]

Are the pro-nuke lobby on Revleft for closure of all current nuclear facilities or not?

First, it's not fair to call everyone who wants to look at the comparative benefits and demerits of nuclear power pro-nuke. Secondly it's totally not fair to call them a "lobby" since it is very unlikely anyone is actually being paid. It's a very loaded term.


Is the huge impact uranium mining is having on the environment of any concern?

A rather peculiar feature of uranium is that fuel costs are only a small fraction of the cost of nuclear power, even with the rather absurd rent-deriving techniques that the fuel assemblage manufactures have managed. This means a big increase in fuel costs would not have a big impact on the viability of nuclear power.

Because of this fact, a reasonable near-term demand might be to internalise more in the fuel cost.

Obviously any externality is a concern, but we have to look at the relative cost of the externalities. We can't look at them in a vacuum. If reducing nuclear is increasing coal, we should compare. In this comparison nuclear will come out looking better despite problems with mining.


How exactly is sending up space probes with tiny nuclear batteries comparable with sending up waste rockets with tons of nuclear waste material? Given that the space business is not without risks, is it - in your opinion - worth the risk of contaminating a huge area with this material, destroying life in that area for generations?

The space disposal idea is pure crazy and can safely be ignored.

We have better ways of dealing with the waste in any case.

[Demogorgon]

I think to be fair the idea of sending waste into space was one insane idea from somebody with a rather poor understanding o9f what is being discussed. We would probably not do well to accuse everyone else who is pronuclear of holding those kind of views.

[RED DAVE]

First, it's not fair to call everyone who wants to look at the comparative benefits and demerits of nuclear power pro-nuke. Secondly it's totally not fair to call them a "lobby" since it is very unlikely anyone is actually being paid. It's a very loaded term.I agree. But why are you discussing the nuclear issue in the absence of class politics.

What pro-nuke people are doing is advocating letting the bourgeoisie, in all its authoritarian, bureaucratic, profit-driven glory, run the nukes. You have to take responsibility for this.

We are not discussing what might or might not happen under socialism!

RED DAVE

[Evil1027]

Only if America can do such. But, if they did... I would be surprised.

[Dr Mindbender]

Do you have any evidence that they are going to be in trouble soon? Or did this notion come from the same source that brought us sending nuclear waste into space?
It comes from common sense. While nuclear energy is being rolled back it increases the dependency on other non-renewables and renewable sources that are not geographically appropriate for all regions.



think to be fair the idea of sending waste into space was one insane idea from somebody with a rather poor understanding o9f what is being discussed. We would probably not do well to accuse everyone else who is pronuclear of holding those kind of views.
Hang on, this is only one proposal of many that answers the question of how to deal with waste and the idea has been entertained by authoritive think tanks so to dismiss it offhand in this manner is incredibly blindsided, ignorant and arrogant to which i take serious objection to. Of course ejection into space isnt a one size solution and carries associated hazards (which would be narrowed through greater rocket propulsion research and improved engineering) but the same can be argued for nuclear power (or any other form of energy source for that matter) in the first instance. There is no binary safety values.

It isnt binding that entry into space must be carried out directly vertically via a conventional rocket. I would envisage single stage to orbit craft or 'spaceplanes' taking off like a conventional aircraft into space acting rather like refuse trucks which would avoid many of the unpredictable events associated with existing rocket launches



What pro-nuke people are doing is advocating letting the bourgeoisie, in all its authoritarian, bureaucratic, profit-driven glory, run the nukes. You have to take responsibility for this.
I do not understand why you stubbornly cling onto this foolish idea that the pro-nuclear lobby is implying that only the bourgeoisie could conceivably control nuclear power. The ideas of workers power and nuclear energy do not exclude each other.

[Jose Gracchus]

Are you willfully misunderstanding me or are you just dumb?

I said nothing about whether or not "the working class would be incapable of operating nuclear plants should it come to power." What I said is that people around here with their love affair of nuclear power are trusting the bourgeoisie to run nuclear plants: the same wonderful bunch of people that brought us Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. That's my argument, dolt.

RED DAVE

Should I trust them in their limitless greed to not allow CO2 concentrations to go beyond 550 ppm?

I support nuclear now (though I think 1st generations, BWRs, and nuclear near seismic or geological hazards should be frozen), because I guaren-fucking-tee you if we allow them to cruise along as they are now, we'll be at 600 ppm by 2060 and with oil and gas expunged as economical energy sources, we'll be throwing up RBMK-style reactors like weeds because people won't care as much about theoretical cancer as they will about immediate starvation, consumption shortfalls, collapse in social services, and massive population displacement. And then we'll have nuclear disasters and explosions to go along with all the above.

Do you trust the bourgeoisie not to destroy the planet? Nuclear disasters won't undermine the basis for sustainable human industrial civilization (a prerequisite for socialism) -- unless somehow they magically all blew up Chernobyl style -- like that extent of climate change and resource disruption, however awful they are.

[RED DAVE]

What pro-nuke people are doing is advocating letting the bourgeoisie, in all its authoritarian, bureaucratic, profit-driven glory, run the nukes. You have to take responsibility for this.
I do not understand why you stubbornly cling onto this foolish idea that the pro-nuclear lobby is implying that only the bourgeoisie could conceivably control nuclear power. The ideas of workers power and nuclear energy do not exclude each other.Unless something has happened while I was asleep last night, the bourgeoisie is still running things, including nukes. So retention of and expansion of nukes is still under bourgeois control for the immediate future and you are advocating letting these people, the same wonderful folks who brought you Fukushima, weapons of mass destruction, etc., have more and more nukes.

After the revolution, the working class can decide whether or not it wants these things. Right now, the proper left wing position is to shut down the existing nukes ASAP and oppose the building of new ones.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Should I trust them in their limitless greed to not allow CO2 concentrations to go beyond 550 ppm?No, and that's why the Left has to fight for all sustainable eco-sane policies.


I support nuclear now (though I think 1st generations, BWRs, and nuclear near seismic or geological hazards should be frozen), because I guaren-fucking-tee you if we allow them to cruise along as they are now, we'll be at 600 ppm by 2060 and with oil and gas expunged as economical energy sources, we'll be throwing up RBMK-style reactors like weeds because people won't care as much about theoretical cancer as they will about immediate starvation, consumption shortfalls, collapse in social services, and massive population displacement. And then we'll have nuclear disasters and explosions to go along with all the above.I love it! You're using the danger of nukes and the follies of the bourgeoisie to advocate more nukes.


Do you trust the bourgeoisie not to destroy the planet?No.


Nuclear disasters won't undermine the basis for sustainable human industrial civilization (a prerequisite for socialism) -- unless somehow they magically all blew up Chernobyl style -- like that extent of climate change and resource disruption, however awful they are.So what you're saying is that the proper program for the Left is to let the bourgeoisie have nukes so that they won't do worse damage. Wow! That's really sharp thinking. I suppose we should, then, let them have their smaller wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., so that they won't start WWIII.

RED DAVE

[Jose Gracchus]

You can't campaign for all renewables, only renewables, unless you can demonstrate that policy is affordable and workable. I have yet to see this done, ever. You dismiss axiomatically the idea that it may not be feasible or at all likely that nuclear cuts will precede carbon cuts. In fact, nuclear cuts have ONLY EVER resulted in increased proportional fossil dependencies. More to the point, in this particular case, you're cheering on the market victory of Gazprom bourgeoisie, not driving for any meaningful or substantive eco policy.

You obviously in your remarks imply you would rather oil-gas capitalists increase market share and produce energy than nuclear capitalists. I have given concrete reasons why immediate cuts of any carbon emissions must be made for global sustainability. Show me any evidence we can avoid exceeding 550 ppm everywhere without any nuclear. Carbon dioxide is the more immediate and extreme threat. I don't think there is a scientist out there who could disagree.

[Nordic Syndicalist]

That's disappointing, I thought that the German Government was getting rid of it's nuclear silos. Though, I doubt that would happen without them losing a place in the NATO Alliance, which Merkel and her imperialist cronies in the CSU and CDU would not want to happen. I would love to see the day where Germany leaves NATO, gets rid of it's silos, and is no longer a target of Russian Silos, and moves towards friendship with the Russian Federation, rather than being a launching point for Anglo-American militarism and their servicemen fodder for NATO aggression. Unfortunately the only parties calling for this outright are Die Grunen and Die Linke, and even if they combined their votes they couldn't capture the German Parliament.

I don't see why Germany should get rid of it's nuclear plants, there is no threat of a Tsunami in Germany. Nuclear is really the only viable, clean burning, and economical fuel that can be mass produced along with LNG. Solar and Geothermal are more applicable on a local level but cant comprise the majority a national energy grid

[Jose Gracchus]

What are these "German silos" and what do they have to do with the rollback of civilian nuclear power by the Merkel regime?

[Dr Mindbender]

Unless something has happened while I was asleep last night, the bourgeoisie is still running things, including nukes. So retention of and expansion of nukes is still under bourgeois control for the immediate future and you are advocating letting these people, the same wonderful folks who brought you Fukushima, weapons of mass destruction, etc., have more and more nukes.

After the revolution, the working class can decide whether or not it wants these things. Right now, the proper left wing position is to shut down the existing nukes ASAP and oppose the building of new ones.

RED DAVE

The bourgeoisie didnt bring us fukushima. Fukushima was for the most part an act of nature, the issues with the nuclear plant was exacerbated by penny pinching,negligence and piss poor planning, not an indictment unto nuclear power itself.

You do realise that the uranium for delivering power and the sort of uranium that is weapons grade are not the same? If you want to oppose industries on the supposition that the ruling class could theoretically cause harm where do you draw the line? why stop at nuclear?

Lets ban cars so that people arent knocked down or killed in road traffic accidents anymore!

[pranabjyoti]

It's nice to know that Germans are doing the right thing !

Fusion technology is still very unsafe , physics gurus say that it's gonna be replaced by fusion , god knows if that's gonna be possible ever ! sustained fusion is complicated
100% right! Alternative energy sources have much much .............. more potential than nuclear power. With some little addition and alteration and some research, they can outrun both nuclear and conventional (mainly coal based) power generation technology.