|
waitwhatno posted:The whole thing is a huge joke. The real danger for Bavaria lies in the fact that you might have access to large amounts of very valuable and sensitive research data. But no one asks you about your financial troubles or friends in Chinese state companies. I don't know about Bavaria, but as someone in the public sector of another Bundesland, I've had to sign a Schuldenerklärung several times in my career so far.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
Libluini posted:I faintly remember how the media dug something up about free love and naked children and somehow this got transformed into pedo-accusations. It just made me slowly shake my head at the entire thing in contempt. But I do confess "They're probably not really pedophiles" isn't a hill worth defending. A friend once voted "Grey Panthers" because he thought, cool name, that some Ninja club or what? I am beginning to think he made the right choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:A Green vote is a black vote though. And by black, I mean anti-nuclear, massively pro-coal. Also, arguably, nobody else could have led the world into a new era of German international military involvements. I know people on this forum are getting high on nuclear power like the Radioactive Man, but it is still barely better than chocking coal dust.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I know people on this forum are getting high on nuclear power like the Radioactive Man, but it is still barely better than chocking coal dust. what this is the sort of statement you're going to have to qualify
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:what This came up in the Eastern Europe thread a couple times when discussing Europe's dependance on Russian oil and what to do about it. Most people were in agreement about how being anti-nuclear is silly and backwards and makes coal plants automatically appear like some kind of evil magic spell. Also it forces you to buy oil and gas from Russia, which at least is semi-correct if taken out of context. Posts about alternatives to coal and nuclear power like geothermics and solar were mostly ignored or got a good portion of "And they're bad, too!"-posts. (And no, I'm not bitter.  )
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
...conservation of the environment... ...conservatism... Makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
Libluini posted:This came up in the Eastern Europe thread a couple times when discussing Europe's dependance on Russian oil and what to do about it. Most people were in agreement about how being anti-nuclear is silly and backwards and makes coal plants automatically appear like some kind of evil magic spell. Also it forces you to buy oil and gas from Russia, which at least is semi-correct if taken out of context. this is really dumb and a complete mischaracterisation of the debate on nuclear energy, you realise
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I know people on this forum are getting high on nuclear power like the Radioactive Man, but it is still barely better than chocking coal dust. But really, this is probably not the best thread to have this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this is really dumb and a complete mischaracterisation of the debate on nuclear energy, you realise
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Buying oil from Russia is good because it strengthens the economy of our reliable partner Russia and posted of the Brits and all those garbage tier countries like Poland and Ukraine that stole our gas before we had the alternative pipelines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Shutting down coal and gas plants is important because of CO2 emissions and climate change. It's a huge deal, and we are probably already screwed, but we can try to keep the damage as low as possible. Shutting down nuclear reactors is very bad. They are relatively safe as long as they are not hit by a >9 magnitude earthquake AND a tsunami, which is unlikely hear in Germany. Those reactors were replaced by a mix of fossil fuel plants and renewable energy sources, but if Merkel hadn't decided to abolish nuclear energy, we could have replace coal and gas plants with renewable energy sources and we would produce a lot less greenhouse gases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
I am for safe nuclear power in the form of Liquid Salt Thorium Reactors. Now that I have outed myself as pro-nuclear, I am sure the Austrian police will abseil through my windows any moment now, to punish me for my dissenting views.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Shutting down coal and gas plants is important because of CO2 emissions and climate change. It's a huge deal, and we are probably already screwed, but we can try to keep the damage as low as possible. true story, the energy produced specifically at chernobyl caused about as many deaths per kilowatt hour as the average (i think) european coal plant i did the maths for this in another thread a while back, it's crazy. fukushima doesn't even register. being categorically opposed to nuclear energy is a purely reactionary policy
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
The Greens should stop catering to NIMBYs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:true story, the energy produced specifically at chernobyl caused about as many deaths per kilowatt hour as the average (i think) european coal plant I'm pretty sure that even solar and wind end up with a higher rate of deaths/kWh than nuclear, just through construction and maintenance accidents. Nuclear generators simply put out a completely ridiculous amount of power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:true story, the energy produced specifically at chernobyl caused about as many deaths per kilowatt hour as the average (i think) european coal plant How can you even calculate something like that, when there is no clear consensus on how many death Chernobyl caused? Trying to establish clear causes for cancer in a lovely and heavily polluted country like Ukraine is probably a real nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 14:31
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:The Greens should stop catering to NIMBYs. But thats pretty much their core voter group.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this is really dumb and a complete mischaracterisation of the debate on nuclear energy, you realise Supporting nuclear power is also dumb, so it equals out in the end (Of course it's a complete mischaracterisation if you disagree. It's also totally the truth if you agree. Humans.txt) Cingulate posted:The best option being bad still means it can be crucial to pursue it, if we're talking about things on such a massive scale. Nuclear is the second worst option right after burning stuff, so it's infact crucial to sabotage it at every opportunity. Edit: But really, it's nice to see solar and wind are still the only known alternative forms of energy here. Real informed opinions some of you have there... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:But thats pretty much their core voter group. Merkel didn't shut down the plants because she was trying to appeal to Green voters, she did it because everyone in Germany is irrationally afraid of nuclear power. V. Illych L. posted:true story, the energy produced specifically at chernobyl caused about as many deaths per kilowatt hour as the average (i think) european coal plant Thankfully, Merkel made the CDU also anti-nuclear so now I don't feel bad about not voting for racists-who-hate-the-poor. waitwhatno posted:How can you even calculate something like that, when there is no clear consensus on how many death Chernobyl caused? Trying to establish clear causes for cancer in a lovely and heavily polluted country like Ukraine is probably a real nightmare. Torrannor posted:Shutting down coal and gas plants is important because of CO2 emissions and climate change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Libluini posted:But really, it's nice to see solar and wind are still the only known alternative forms of energy here. Real informed opinions some of you have there...
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I've come to the same conclusion - coal power about as many people per energy produced than does nuclear power, but only when the coat plants are running as planned and the nuclear plants suffer a major accident. Without major accidents, nuclear is so much more healthy that voting Green is literally murder. But all those coal death balance out by the Green's firm stance on participating in questionable military adventures that result in thousands of deaths, right? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Randler posted:But all those coal death balance out by the Green's firm stance on participating in questionable military adventures that result in thousands of deaths, right? waitwhatno posted:How can you even calculate something like that, when there is no clear consensus on how many death Chernobyl caused? Trying to establish clear causes for cancer in a lovely and heavily polluted country like Ukraine is probably a real nightmare. For reference, while this is terrible, you easily get more deaths for major accidents in chemical plants. Recently there's been arguments that irrationally extreme fear of Chernobyl is actually causing more physical suffering than the actual accident ever did, though I never dug too deeply into these numbers. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Apr 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Also, to be fair, the SPD is probably even more pro-coal because they also have an active interest in that stuff, unlike the Greens who just ignore that it's the consequence of achieving their aims.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:How can you even calculate something like that, when there is no clear consensus on how many death Chernobyl caused? Trying to establish clear causes for cancer in a lovely and heavily polluted country like Ukraine is probably a real nightmare. i took a median estimate out of the ones i found, did the same with deaths pr. kilowatt/hr from various sources and compared it to an estimate of chernobyl's lifetime energy output. the coal plants in question were not the very "cleanest" ones, and they may have been, like, the global average rather than the european average, I can't remember. caveat that this isn't my field, and it was for a forums post so i wasn't as thorough as i would have been if i was doing it for work, but i feel pretty comfortable in basing a belief off that work. there's some forbes article that does something similar, but tries to estimate deaths pr. KWh for all major energy production methods, here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ to be clear, this was where i started, i did investigate the sources and, to my eyes (again, this isn't my field, so I could only spot the most obvious bullshit) it all check out. i then did my own thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
An extinction level event would cause 7 billion deaths, but these events happen on average once in 100 million years, so when you calculate the per year impact, extinction events are really less than 0.01% as deadly as measles. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
wayfinder posted:An extinction level event would cause 7 billion deaths, but these events happen on average once in 100 million years, so when you calculate the per year impact, extinction events are really less than 0.01% as deadly as measles. we should, in our policy, expend more resources towards combatting measles than preparing for an extinction event, yes, i agree
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
wayfinder posted:An extinction level event would cause 7 billion deaths, but these events happen on average once in 100 million years, so when you calculate the per year impact, extinction events are really less than 0.01% as deadly as measles. Though of course I'm actually really happy we're this paranoid about this stuff, because it is precisely this why nuclear is extremely safe; people worry, so politicians enforce harsh regulations, which in turn make this inherently dangerous thing so much more secure. So I'm still thankful for what the Greens people did in, like, the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'd argue the it's a decent representation of the debate about nuclear power in Germany, which is almost never conducted rationally. Pretty much. In anecdotal evidence, most of the people I encountered throughout highschool/the military/early college categorized the following as a deeply troubling image and a key argument in the anti-nuclear-power debate:  Then, after Fukushima, the same people revived the "Atomkraft? Nein Danke!", slapped it on everything, and ended up patting themselves on the back, going "Job well done!". I may quite possibly be able to recall every single friend of mine that was even willing to stipulate that it's a complicated issue and that our Lastabwurf auf Null in nuclear power may not have been the smartest, most nachhaltig or vorbildlich course of action.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Is there even a single party in Germany that's pro nuclear power?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:How can you even calculate something like that, when there is no clear consensus on how many death Chernobyl caused? Trying to establish clear causes for cancer in a lovely and heavily polluted country like Ukraine is probably a real nightmare. Use the numbers put out by sane anti-nuclear groups/researchers who use something resembling coherent methodology to estimate deaths. If these numbers end up in the ballpark of "nuclear not worse than renewables", then more power to the mighty atom (protip: this is the case). KaneTW posted:Is there even a single party in Germany that's pro nuclear power? (a spin-off of) the Pirate Party, which is somewhat goony 
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Apr 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:42
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Libluini posted:
Do tell us what is so bad about nuclear power. quote:Edit: Geothermal energy pfffft Wave power takes up too much coast (all of it) Further expanding hydro is an ecological catastrophe, and so are the hundreds of Pumpspeicherkraftwerke we will get thanks to our dumb misconceptions about risk and sustainability Biomass is sort of ok as long as you actually only put waste that couldn't go into animal feed instead into the power plants but that's not much and even at the current level it encourages pointless land use and irresponsible agriculture (also terrible for the environment) tl;dr put some amount of mixed renewables into our grid if you insist but put it on a nuclear backbone instead of a Biogasanlagen and storage backbone suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Apr 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
P. sure burning biomass is bad for the climate regardless of how long the stuff has been in the ground before.blowfish posted:tl;dr put some amount of mixed renewables into our grid if you insist but put it on a nuclear backbone instead of a Biogasanlagen and storage backbone It's a strategy mistake to even make it about renewable energy; it's about fossil fuels, which we need to get rid of, for which the only realistic option is a mix of nuclear and renewables. Also, one of the best German words is certainly "Verspargelung", a term used by overwhelmingly anti-nuclear people to complain about wind power towers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
KaneTW posted:Is there even a single party in Germany that's pro nuclear power? LaRouche! LaRouche!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Do tell us what is so bad about nuclear power. The waste is bad, the buildings are contaminated for centuries, and there is the slight chance of a catastrophic event. If we can replace every nuclear power plant with renewable energy sources, we should. After we got rid of coal and gas. But that's a medium to long term issue, the pressing concern is over the burning of fossil fuels. The scientists should hurry up with nuclear fusion research!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Forget fusion. It's way too complicated. Fission is significantly easier. Just burn Thorium instead. It has hardly any waste and you can't make any bombs out of the waste.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Let's say we would use the money spend on renewable energy to save children in Africa (metaphor for saving live at the cheapest marginal cost per life) and used nuclear power instead. How many lives would that have saved? How many Fukushimas would be needed to balance it out again?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Let's say we would use the money spend on renewable energy to save children in Africa (metaphor for saving live at the cheapest marginal cost per life) and used nuclear power instead. How many lives would that have saved? That's a thing leftists occasionally do, think in the long run. It sometimes sounds strange to those not on the left, ie., badwrong people. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Apr 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Let's say we would use the money spend on renewable energy to save children in Africa (metaphor for saving live at the cheapest marginal cost per life) and used nuclear power instead. How many lives would that have saved? Depends on whether we're counting the deaths due to desertification and rising tides that result from global warming
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Riso posted:Forget fusion. It's way too complicated. Fission is significantly easier. Other things that are way too complicated and shouldn't be bothered with : Powered flight (what's wrong with ships and trains?), internal combustion engines (Horses are significantly easier to work with and have an existing infrastructure supporting them), electric lighting of cities (gas works just fine).
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
No seriously, it is significantly easier to just use Thorium power. It is a common element that would last us about 14 billion years and is a byproduct of rare earth production. Plus the Chinese will have a working powerplant in the next five years. Fusion? Crickets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:33
|
|